Can You Develop New Interests? an Improved Instrument for Measuring Implicit Theories of Interest Development
Frontiers in Education, ISSN: 2504-284X, Vol: 6
2021
- 12Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures12
- Readers12
- 12
Article Description
O’Keefe et al. (2018) did not sufficiently narrow the implicit theory-of-interest development to accurately address the targeted domain: potential development of an entirely new interest. This was revealed when current participants expressed alternative interpretations of the word “change” in the indicator’s stem. This study therefore sought to first characterize a way to think about implicit theories of interest and refine the wording. However, the revised items revealed low reliability in a targeted population of Singaporeans. Was this due to the manipulation of the questions or the new test population? This was evaluated by following the same sampling procedure as O’Keefe et al. (2018) and participants were presented with both the revised and the original versions of the items. Factor analysis revealed a preferred factor structure for both versions having potential implications for understand implicit theories, as well as the dimensions of implicit theories-of-interests specifically.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85105372941&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.646970; https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2021.646970/full; https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.646970; https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/education/articles/10.3389/feduc.2021.646970/full
Frontiers Media SA
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know