International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 2016, Volume 28, Number 3, 335-346 http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/ ISSN 1812-9129 Finding Relevance, Competence, and Enjoyment: The Development of Domain Identification and Interest in First-Year Science Majors Chloe Ruff Gettysburg College The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine how first-year college students perceive their development of domain identification with, and interest in, their prospective science major during their initial year of college. Four themes emerged from the coding and analysis of interviews with eight first-year science students: Self-Definition in Flux, Feeling Competent, Expressing Interest through Enjoyment, and Relevant to Me. These themes were mainly consistent with the current model of domain identification (Osborne & Jones, 2011) but differ from the current model of interest development (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). Theoretical and practical implications are included for faculty and advisors working with first-year science students. First-year college students arrive with educational their prior experiences and perceptions (Harackiewicz, backgrounds that inform their initial choices in college Durik, Barron, Linnenbrink-Garcia, & Tauer, 2008). In and influence their perceptions of the academic each of these cases, students’ identification and interest in experiences they will encounter (Astin, 1993; the major may further develop or weaken. Prior studies in Thompson, 2007). Students entering college with pre- interest and domain identification have examined this selected majors choose their majors based on a variety period of transition in first-year college students through of academic and social experiences outside of the quantitative methodologies (Harackiewicz et al., 2008; college context and already have developed knowledge Osborne, 1997). The present study was designed to and interest related to their major. These students may qualitatively examine how students reflect on, and self-identify with their majors before attending their describe in their own words, their identification with, and first college course. As colleges and universities interest in, their prospective science major. explore methods to support and retain students, particularly students with a strong interest in science, Theoretical Background technology, engineering, and mathematic (STEM) fields, motivation constructs such as domain Domain Identification identification and student interest are useful for examining how these first-year students perceive their Domain identification (DI) is the selective valuing initial experiences within their prospective major. of a domain as important to the self-concept or self- The constructs of domain identification and interest esteem of an individual (Osborne & Jones, 2011). This develop from an individual’s educational and social definition is based in the symbolic interactionist experiences and influence later academic outcomes conception of self-esteem, in which the feedback an (Osborne & Jones, 2011; Renninger, 2010). Domain individual receives from the environment (in terms of identification describes “the extent to which an academic performance, among other things) filters individual defines the self through a role or through the individual’s perceptions of the outcomes performance in a particular domain” (Osborne & Jones, and evaluation of the importance of the domain to their 2011, p. 132), whereas interest encompasses both an self-esteem. Thus, performance in a domain that an individual’s engagement with a domain and individual highly values has a greater impact on an predisposition to re-engage with the domain individual than performance in a domain the individual (Renninger, 2010). Both of these constructs focus does not value (Osborne & Jones, 2011). attention on the impact of the value that an individual Academic DI upon entering high school is holds for a domain on later academic, social, and positively related to learning and performance goals, as emotional outcomes (Renninger, 2010; Walker, Greene, well as to the intrinsic valuing of academics, perceived & Mansell, 2006). ability, self-regulation, and both deep and shallow The initial courses that students take in their cognitive processing, and it is negatively correlated prospective major provide them with an opportunity to with absenteeism and behavioral referrals (Osborne & increase knowledge of, and value for, the domain. Ideally, Walker, 2006). At a college level, academic DI these courses provide students with an opportunity to predicted GPA after one semester and again after two envision themselves within the domain of their major. years, even when controlling for sex, race, and self- Academic and social experiences students have in this first esteem (Osborne, 1997). Additionally, students at year may reinforce, negate, or cause them to re-evaluate different levels of academic standing exhibited Ruff Domain Identification and Interest 336 Figure 1 . Model of a student’s physics identification (adapted from Osborne & Jones, 2011) significantly different levels of identification with Hein, Knott, 2010; Jones, Ruff, & Paretti, 2013). Although academics. A high level of identification with theoretical models provide a description of how the academics measured upon entering community college development of DI should occur, further research is needed was related to positive academic outcomes such as to understand how students develop different DIs (Osborne achieving the Dean’s List, whereas a low level of & Jones, 2011; Voelkl, 1997). academic identification was related to withdrawal or Researchers examining students’ persistence in science academic probation (Osborne, 1997). also use the framework of science identity. Science identity Social and academic factors that influence the is based in a situated learning framework in which students’ development of DI include: group membership (e.g., beliefs, goals, and sense of themselves as a “science person” gender, race, class); family, peer, and community develops from their participation in various communities of environment; school climate; and educational practice (e.g., classroom, extracurricular; Aschbacher, Li, & experiences (see Osborne & Jones, 2011 for more Roth, 2010; Gee, 2000). Research on science identity is information). Through these background factors, DI is focused on the development of identity through the interplay related to other motivation constructs (see Figure 1 for between the individual and social support from teachers, an example of a student’s physics identification). parents, counselors, and peers. This research overlaps with DI is likely cyclical, both influencing and influenced by the “group membership” background factor in Osborne and academic engagement and performance. As such, Jones’ (2011) model of DI; however, DI focuses on the identification with academics may be a stable concept, but it internal interplay between students’ performance and is not static and could be affected by frequent positive or perceptions of value for science. Science identity explores negative academic outcomes. An individual’s identification the influence of participation in a community on an with a domain may decrease if he or she begins to receive individual’s identity, whereas science DI explores how an performance outcomes that do not reflect his or her individual internally evaluates this participation. The two perception of ability or if the climate of the domain begins frameworks likely work in concert; however, the present to emphasize negative stereotypes. Alternatively, this model study focuses on students’ internal perceptions and shows how shifts in school climate or other precursors may evaluation of their experiences. also increase students’ identification with the academic domain (Osborne & Jones, 2011). Interest Existing research examines DI writ large in the form of academic identification (Osborne, 1997; Osborne & Interest is used as a broad term both colloquially and Walker, 2006) and more focused forms of DI such as math theoretically to include a range of related concepts. The identification or engineering identification (Jones, Paretti, present study examines the development of individual Ruff Domain Identification and Interest 337 interest. Thus, Hidi and Renninger’s (2006) description exploration of students’ perceptions of DI and interest of interest is more appropriate than definitions limited to to complement the existing quantitative studies of these activity-based, situational interest. They defined interest concepts in first-year students (e.g., Harackiewicz et al., as a psychological state of engaging both cognitively and 2008; Osborne, 1997). The research question is: How affectively with “particular classes of objects, events, or do first-year college students perceive their interest in ideas” (Hidi & Renninger, 2006, p. 112); a predisposition and identification with their prospective science major? to re-engage with this content over time; and a construct that is comprised of the knowledge, stored value, and Method feelings related to the content which result from the individual’s engagement with the content over time. Hidi Research Design and Renninger (2006) suggested that growth in affect or positive feelings, stored knowledge, and stored value are This study was an exploratory qualitative the key components propelling the development of examination of identification with, and interest in, a interest from an externally supported situational interest prospective major through the lived experiences of to an internally supported individual interest. In first-year college students. Students involved in the describing the components of interest, Renninger (2010) study participated in a set of two interviews during their defined affect as the feelings that an individual connects first two semesters at the university, with one interview with engagement with a subject matter. Stored near the beginning of their first semester and a second knowledge is considered as changes in cognitive interview at the beginning of their second semester. structure related to engagement with the content and stored value as the combination of feelings of Participants competence and the emotions related to engagement with the content (Renninger, 2010). Participants in this study were enrolled in “first Hidi and Renninger (2006) proposed that situational year experience” (FYE) courses associated with their interest is initially triggered by an affective response to an prospective major (biochemistry or physics). These engagement with an activity or piece of content material. courses were designed to help first-year students in the This affective response leads individuals to re-engage with major to develop a more complex understanding of the the material and in the process develop knowledge related to role of scientists in their discipline. Participants were the specific material and the larger content topic. As this recruited through a brief in-class presentation and a happens, individuals also begin to develop stored value for recruitment email sent to the students by the course the content area and may come to have a well-developed professor. Eight students volunteered to participate, individual interest (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). including five women and three men. The students were The first year of college is a transition point for traditional first-year college students and entered the many students and provides a context for examining university directly after graduating from high school. how interests develop or change within the student. Three students did not participate in the second round Harackiewicz and colleagues (2008) reported that of interviews due to scheduling conflicts. interest development in introductory courses was related to both academic performance and later course Data Collection selection. They used self-report measures and quantitative analysis of situational and individual A set of in-depth individual interviews were used interest in their study (Harackiewicz et al., 2008). as a method for gaining information about the students’ lived experiences related to identification with, and Research Question interest in, their major. The interviews were designed to elucidate the students’ perspectives related to the This study examined how first-year college constructs under study and generate rich descriptive students perceive and experience the development of DI data (Seidman, 2006). Each student was asked to with, and interest in, their prospective science major participate in a sequence of two 60-minute interviews during their initial year of college. This study focused during their first year at the university. I used a semi- on students who are entering college with a pre-selected structured interview guide to keep the interviews major and participating in an introductory course focused on the constructs while also providing space to related to their major, as these students have potentially develop follow-up questions based on the student’s begun to develop some level of identification with their responses to earlier questions. The interview protocol major. By exploring the nuances of how first-year was pilot-tested on three undergraduate student college students experience, reflect on, and describe volunteers, after which interview questions and the their identification with, and interest in, their directions to the selective valuing activity were revised prospective major, this study provides an alternative for clarity. The first set of interviews was scheduled Ruff Domain Identification and Interest 338 during the first five weeks of the students’ first codes into a set of focused codes that provided an initial semester and occurred before students had taken their description of the categories and subcategories first set of exams in order to have students reflect on emerging from the data. I used these focused codes to their prospective major prior to receiving feedback on code the second round of interviews. All interviews their college performance. The second set of interviews were merged into one dataset during data analysis. was scheduled during the first six weeks of the second Throughout this process, I used code mapping and semester and occurred after students had completed and analytical memos to develop the focused codes into received grades for their first semester courses. themes and connect the themes to the participants’ The first interview was focused on the experiences voices (Charmaz, 2006). Figure 2 provides an example that led the student to have an interest in their major, of the process by which open codes were categorized including questions about past experiences related to into focused codes and then into themes. their major, social support for choosing their major, and the value that they and their social network (e.g., Findings parents, teachers, peers, mentors) held for their major (i.e. “Tell me about how you came to choose The purpose of this study was to explore the biochemistry/physics as your major. What classes or nuances of students’ perceptions of their interest in and activities did you participate in during high school or identification with their prospective science major. Four middle school related to your major?”). During this main themes emerged from the coding and analysis of interview, the students also completed a selective interviews: Theme 1: Self-definition in flux, Theme 2: valuing activity. Students were asked to list the Feeling competent, Theme 3: Expressing interest personal aspects that they considered most important on through enjoyment, and Theme 4: Relevant to me small pieces of paper. “Aspects” were defined as roles describe how the students expressed the connection they played (e.g., physics student, son, drummer) rather they felt with their prospective major during their first than characteristics (e.g., driven, hard-working). The year at college. The themes are described in detail in students were asked to include their major as one aspect the following sections. on the list. After listing their most important aspects, the students were asked to rank them from most to least Theme 1: Self-Definition in Flux important. They were then asked to create a pie graph with sections for each aspect showing the relative Even though this group of students entered college amount of space for each aspect and to label the piece with a declared major, their self-definition in relation to with a percentage. Following the activity, the students their major remained in flux. Seven of the eight were asked to explain the relative importance of their students initially applied to the university with a major to other aspects on the pie graph. different major but changed to physics or biochemistry The second interview was focused on the during the period of time between their acceptance to students’ current experiences broadly within their the university and the first interview (Table 1). The major and more specifically within the FYE course. mutability in the students’ self-definitions also showed This interview occurred after students had completed in the language that students used to talk about their and received grades for one semester of coursework. major. The descriptions of their major were hedged in This interview included questions directing students to terms related to desire (e.g., “I want to be,” “I wanted to reflect on their interest in, and value for, their major as be”) and internal processing (e.g., “I think that,” “I well as to reflect on how their interest in, and value think I am”). Only two students made declarations of for, their major had changed over the semester (i.e. “ identification (i.e., “I am a physicist” and “as a physics Now that you have finished one semester of major”) during the interviews and, in both cases, the coursework, how do you feel about your decision to declarative statement was connected with a future goal major in biochemistry/physics”). Students completed a (e.g., “as a Physics major, I want to make a difference second selective valuing activity and were asked to in the world” [Kelley]). explain the relative importance of their major to other Although students rarely identified directly with aspects of the graph. their major, they often described their interest in relation to the characteristics or values they felt defined Data Analysis themselves presently or those they wanted to define themselves with in the future. In part, by highlighting I analyzed data from the interview transcripts and the values that they considered important, the students the selective valuing activity through a constant were also focusing on aspects of their major that were comparison method (Charmaz, 2006) by first using most important to them. For example, Max explained line-by-line coding of transcripts to develop a set of his connection with physics: “I guess just natural descriptive, open codes then consolidating the open curiosity. That’s why it’s the most important. It’s just a Ruff Domain Identification and Interest 339 Figure 2 Map of the Coding Process (to be read from the bottom up) Code Mapping for Research Question: How do first –year college students perceive their interest in and identification with their prospective science major? First Iteration: Initial open coding (sample of descriptive codes from interview transcripts) 1: Not a physicist 2: Math & science easier 3: Liked biology 4: Personal relevance 1: Being a Student 2: Think better in math & 3: Fell in love with physics 4: Connections 1: Want to help people science 3: Self-enriching 4: Best fit for career 1: Primary Interest 2: More challenging 3: Personal interest 4: Reasonable choice 1: As a Physics major 2: Desire to do well 3: Favorite subject 4: Many options 1: Going to be a scientist 2: Had to study 3: Most fun I had 4: Researched majors 1: Being a team-member 2: Studying really hard 3: Good use of time 4: Comparison with prior 1: Defines my personality 2: Doing well at 3: Readings are enjoyable majors 2: Likes challenge 3: Physics problems for fun Second Iteration of Analysis: Focused coding 1: Self-definition 2: Competence 3: Enjoyment 4: Usefulness 2: Effort 3: Affective Response 4: Future Options 3: Cognitive Response 4: Cost Third Iteration of Analysis: Overarching Themes Theme 1: Theme 2: Theme 3: Theme 4: Self-definition in flux Feeling competent Expressing interest through Relevant to me enjoyment Final Iteration of Analysis: Study Conclusions First-year college students in biochemistry and physics perceive interest and identification with their prospective major in terms of Competence, Enjoyment, and Relevance; however, their self-definition with their major continues to be in flux. Table 1 Changes in Student’s Science Major Prior to First Interview Participant Major listed at time of application to college Major at time of 1st Interview Kelley Music/Theater Physics Max Engineering Physics Emilia Engineering Physics Rosalyn Undeclared Physics Cody Biochemistry Biochemistry Josh Physics Biochemistry Melissa Engineering Biochemistry natural curiosity for learning how things work and that is to be and what they wanted to do in the field in relation to what physics is. So that’s why I find it important just to the characteristics they hoped to find there. These know certain things” (Interview 1). In students’ future- characteristics were broad: “to help people” (Josh, Emilia, oriented self-definitions, they described who they wanted Rosalyn, Interview 1) and “to make an impact” (Kelley, Ruff Domain Identification and Interest 340 Interview 1). They also described having changed their Although math and science may have always been academic or career interests to better align their easier for some of the students to understand, they all prospective major or career with personal values and described experiences in high school and college in goals. Max described changing to physics because it was which they felt that their understanding and self- more “self-enriching” though less “lucrative” than confidence in their major was improving. For example, engineering (Interview 1). Kelley enrolled in Advanced Placement (AP) Physics The mutability of students’ self-definitions is even though she had a weaker math background than logical considering their positions as incoming college her classmates. She described initial confusion and lack students. The students were taking their first college- of competence with the course, but she chose to remain level courses in their fields. In fact, for the in the class and developed a sense of competence biochemistry students, the FYE course was the first through the support of her teacher and father: “[My classroom exposure the students had to biochemistry. father] helped me a lot and I needed his help less and Experiences in college were already impacting how less as I started doing really well” (Interview 1). they viewed their major: Melissa began college as a A number of students described an increased sense chemical engineering major but changed to of competence associated with their college math and biochemistry after the first two days of engineering science courses. These initial college-level courses courses. She described feeling capable of completing provided students with the opportunity to increase their an engineering degree but was not “excited” by the understanding of the knowledge base and their classes and concepts (Interview 1). confidence in their ability to successfully apply this knowledge. Some students’ feelings of competence Theme 2: Feeling Competent were enhanced by the perception that the courses were less difficult than expected. Other students developed a Each of the students in this sample spent time greater sense of competence through the successful describing their competence in the area of their completion of their first courses. prospective major. “Competence,” in these descriptions, Developing competence in a content area at times encompassed both self-confidence in their abilities (e.g., led students into the role of tutor. Cody described “math and science were always easy for me” Melissa, helping to prepare his high school classmates for tests Interview 1) and perception of their current and by “re-teaching” material (Interview 1). In a college developing abilities in the subject areas related to their setting, tutoring came in several forms. Emilia major. Competence was one way that the students explained that being a physics major had made her “the assessed their interest in the content of their major. If person that people go to” for help with physics concepts they felt that they had, or were developing, an when many of her friends who were engineering majors understanding of the knowledge needed to be successful were taking their first physics course (Interview 2). in the subject, then their confidence in their own ability Kelley was training to be a paid mentor in her science- to do well in their courses and, by extension, the major themed residence hall and viewed tutoring in broader increased. Students frequently used perceptions of their terms. She described helping other students with both competence in high school courses or other related study strategies and advice about how to approach and experiences to explain how they came to select and talk to professors (Interview 2). maintain interest in their prospective major. Feelings of Developing competence in a field or content area is lower competence were important also in how students not always a linear process. Many of the students described both their interest in and identification with a described times during college or high school when prospective major. Sometimes lack of competence they did not feel as competent or successful. Sometimes spurred students to follow a new interest and change students used this as a contrast to help explain their majors. At other times, students acknowledged feeling current interest/major. For example, Josh explained that their abilities were not represented by course grades, “[Math] wasn’t something I could afford to really be but attributed the discrepancy to other internal or external doing all the time, so that’s what made me shy away aspects of the experience. from physics,” as part of his explanation for choosing to As the students described their earlier educational major in biochemistry (Interview 1). experiences, five participants described long-term Not all students who felt a lower level of feelings of competence in areas related to their current competence in their course work changed their major. major. Students distinguished their competence in math Cody detailed his struggles with his biochemistry and/or science from how they felt about other academic course but associated his frustration with a lack of areas either by specifying the subject (e.g., biology) that connection between the course activities and his was easy or by contrasting subjects (e.g., “I always expectations for an introductory course. He defined excelled in science and had to work really hard at his difficulties as more of a mismatch between the everything else,” Kelley). course description and the reality of the assignments Ruff Domain Identification and Interest 341 than a difference between his ability and the level of majors. Emilia described her enjoyment in physics by course work (Interview 1). comparing it to prior science courses: The end of semester grades also caused some students to examine their level of competence. Several I was good at math and I enjoyed my math classes students did not feel that they received grades and I had enjoyed chemistry a little bit, but I hadn’t representative of their competence, although they really enjoyed any of my science classes as much attributed the disparity in different ways. Similar to as I did until I took physics, which was my junior Cody, some students attributed their grades to a year. (Interview 1) mismatch between their expectations and the course assignments and assessments, and others to initial Several students described how their enjoyment of attitudes and study habits. a subject impacted their selection of a major: either Competence is a main element of how these choosing or changing a major due to their excitement or students perceived their interest in, and identification lack of excitement for the major. with, their major; however, students did not develop or The students also used enjoyment to describe their maintain interests solely in subjects where they felt affective and cognitive responses to specific content or successful. For example, Cody described his high experiences related to their major. In these more school biology class as easy, but then he explained how focused descriptions, students provided examples of he finished his work quickly and slept or read for the highly positive experiences that led them to view the remainder of class (Interview 1). Often competence was subject or themselves in a different way, connected a springboard encouraging students’ connection with a them more deeply to the field, or fine-tuned their broad discipline, particularly for students reporting long-term enjoyment and interest in the subject. competence in a field. Although Cody slept through Positive emotional and cognitive connections general biology, he described an ongoing interest in emerged when students were able to make a connection biology throughout high school, chose to take Anatomy between their current courses and prior interests. For and Marine Biology in addition to his required high example, Kate (biochemistry) contrasted her enjoyment school science courses, and entered college with a of chemistry to other science courses. In biology, she biochemistry major. enjoyed being able to understand the relationship between her work with horses (a personal interest) and Theme 3: Expressing Interest Through Enjoyment course content, which encouraged Kate to look at her horses in a different way and begin to consider the role “Anatomy was my favorite subject” (Cody, of chemical and biological interactions in her animals’ Interview 1), and “I am enjoying all of my classes” behaviors (Interview 1). (Melissa, Interview 1) are all descriptions that The positive emotional response associated with a students related to the field of their major. As a growing understanding of the field also occurred within reoccurring theme throughout the interviews, college courses. Emilia’s feelings for astronomy and enjoyment highlighted the students’ positive physics became more nuanced as she developed a emotional and cognitive response to the activities, greater understanding of the field: “I sort of discovered courses, and subjects that comprise the field of their that I really love learning about light and that it’s very prospective major. Broadly, the students’ enjoyment deeply related to astronomy because everything we focused on positive feelings for a course or subject. know about space comes from information we get from Narrowly, the students described specific content light” (Interview 2). (e.g., the study of light in physics) or activities At times, the positive emotions that students felt within their high school and college courses that came through their immersion in the subject. For they enjoyed. Kelley, one pivotal moment that helped shape how she Students frequently phrased their broad viewed physics occurred while completing homework: descriptions of enjoyment in comparative or superlative terms. As they described courses and subjects related to I remember one night I was working on physics their major, the students used this language to compare homework and I thought it was fun and I ended the field of their major to other courses or subjects. In up doing a bunch of physics problems just for these general comparisons, the students were defining fun and loving it. I looked up at the clock, and it their area of interest: “I always liked the maths and was like three in the morning, and I was like sciences better since I was younger” (Melissa, “What?!” (Interview 1) Interview 1) or “[anatomy and marine biology were] the most fun classes I ever had in high school” (Cody, Although these experiences often occurred when Interview 1). Students also expressed focused the student was engaging individually with content, comparisons of enjoyment related to specific courses or several students also described experiences in which Ruff Domain Identification and Interest 342 engaging in the activity or content with like-minded Alternatively, Max did not find his high school peers increased their enjoyment. Sometimes physics courses relevant to his developing interest in enjoyable experiences happened within a class physics. He described his physics learning as being structure as students interacted with peers. Social “self-directed” because his interest in the field was experiences also occurred outside of the class focused on the “advanced physics” that he was reading structure through extra-curricular science and math in books and online outside of class, whereas his high activities (e.g., regional Physics Olympiad, summer school courses were focused on foundational science academies). These outside experiences understandings (Interview 1). He viewed his high allowed the students to engage with other high school courses as providing basic learning, but less school or entering college students who shared their relevant to his growing interest in physics and choice of excitement for the subject. physics as a major than his self-directed learning. In Enjoyment did not appear spontaneously for all of each of these cases, the students’ perceptions of the students in this sample. The courses and subjects relevance were focused on the connection between their that they described as fun, interesting, and enjoyable coursework and current interests. were ones in which they also felt competent and often Even at the beginning of their college career, all of described having put forth effort to develop these students examined potential courses for relevance competence. The courses and subjects that students to their major. For students coming into the university described (e.g., Chemistry, Foundations of Physics) with AP course credits, this evaluation included how were courses that involved knowledge and skills they could use their credits to reduce the number of considered foundational to the disciplines in which the courses that were not directly applicable to their major. students were majoring. Students used their enjoyment For other students, planning out their courses over the with courses and academic subjects to narrate the next several years helped them to hone in on the areas of development of their interests and, by reflecting on the major, or supplement with a double major or minor, particularly enjoyable activities and content areas, they to develop a course of studies that they perceived to be emphasized the pivotal experiences in their developing most relevant to their goals. They described choosing to interest and identification with their major. take courses that they felt were most relevant to their future careers and using AP credits to exempt humanities Theme 4: Relevant to Me courses that they perceived as less relevant to their major or future careers. In addition to feeling competent and enjoying the The focus on relevance also occurred when the academic subject, students described in detail the students reflected on choosing their majors. All of the relevance of their major to their current and future students expressed how the selection was relevant to plans. Students focused on majors that they felt were their plans and goals. They described researching connected to their current interests and also described potential career opportunities associated with different how they viewed their major as useful preparation for a fields and at times changing or modifying their academic future career. The students described activities, courses, interests to better fit future plans. They also evaluated the and majors that they perceived to be relevant as college courses that they were taking or planned to take important and helpful. When the students talked about in terms of relevance to their majors or future careers. In the relevance of a course or major, they evaluated the addition, all of the students described talking with their course in relation to their personal or career aspirations. parents and teachers about potential majors and careers The students’ views of relevance can be divided into an related to their high school academic interests. evaluation of how a concept, course, or major was Many of these students understood that multiple useful to them in the present, how it might be useful to paths were available but changed their major to a path them in later courses related to their major, or how it perceived as more direct and relevant to future plans. was relevant to their future plans. For example, both Josh and Max described having early When reflecting on high school science courses, and strong interests in history, and they explained that several students explained their developing connection they chose not to pursue a history major because they with an academic subject in terms of course relevance did not want to teach and viewed teaching as the only to their outside interests. For example, Kate described a career option available to history majors (Interview 2). general disconnection with her high school courses: “I Similarly, although Kate referred to the time and effort just didn’t really like high school. I just kind of felt she spent training horses throughout her interview, her trapped” (Interview 1). In contrast, she described liking career goals were related to biochemistry and medicine her biology and chemistry courses because her teacher because “training horses would be a waste of college” was willing to engage in conversations and answer (Interview 1). questions relevant to her interest in horses and zebras, During the interviews, the students described which helped to engage Kate with the courses. participating in courses and majors that aligned with their Ruff Domain Identification and Interest 343 academic interests and long-term goals. However, students describing how they developed domain knowledge. also described times when they perceived concepts and Simply building domain knowledge should not be viewed activities within courses as being relevant but not as synonymous with developing interest; these students interesting. Participating in these activities and learning perceived their interest more in relation to how confident these concepts did not appear to reduce their identification they felt about their knowledge, how relevant they felt the in their major even though they explained that they would knowledge was to their future goals, and how much they rather be learning something more personally engaging. enjoyed their experiences in the discipline rather than the All of the students were participating in FYE amount of knowledge they had. In addition, Hidi and courses within their major. These courses were Renninger’s definition of stored value was more closely developed with the intention of helping students to aligned with the students’ perception of competence rather learn skills that the faculty felt were necessary to the than relevance. By framing the definition of value as students’ success within the field but did not fit easily students’ affective feelings and feelings of competence, within the introductory courses. When describing the Hidi and Renninger (2006) minimized the relevance of a FYE courses, the students spoke of course topics and developing interest to an individual’s long-term goals and assignments as helpful or important. Each of the developing sense of self. students also evaluated some course activities as The findings of this study suggest several potential important but not “interesting.” Physics students revisions to Hidi and Renninger’s Four-Phase model that discussed the professor’s focus on developing their could be explored to develop a model to examine how problem solving skills as important in helping to academic interests develop into academic or professional increase their competence in solving a variety of DI. The stored knowledge component could be adapted problems, but all acknowledged that they did not enjoy to include the learners’ feelings of competence, and the the continued focus on problem solving: “That part I stored value component could be re-focused on students’ don’t find that interesting. I mean, I know it will help perception of the importance or usefulness of the content me. I don’t find it that enjoyable” (Max, Interview 2). or domain. Alternatively, other models of interest Similarly, students in the biochemistry course focused development, such as the Person-Object (POI) theory of on activities related to reading scientific literature, interest development (Krapp, 2002), may provide a more explaining that they understood the importance but applicable model for researchers examining the would rather be “learning about the medicine and relationships between interest development and DI by everything” (Josh, Interview 2). removing the component of stored knowledge and These activities were part of the course and were framing value as the personal significance (e.g., perceived by the students as important and relevant to relevance) of the content of interest. their major. They did not find the activities interesting; however, no one expressed feeling their interest in, or Differentiating between Relevance, Selective identification with, the field was diminished by having Valuing, and Stored Value to participate in the less personally engaging activities. All of the students interviewed expressed the Discussion practical nature of their choice of major by describing potential careers. These students had a perception of The present study provides an opportunity to value that was based as much on their goals as it was on examine how well the Osborne and Jones (2011) and their past or current academic experiences within the Hidi and Renninger (2006) models of DI and interest field. The findings are likely impacted by the current development align with the lived experiences of students. culture within the United States in which high school Osborne and Jones’ (2011) model of DI is generally and college students are encouraged to begin planning consistent with the findings of this study. The students for their first career as early as possible. Thus, these did selectively value their major in comparison to other students may be articulating personal value for, and disciplines and related their current identification to prior identification with, their major by explaining how their educational experiences. major fits into long-term career plans. Hidi and Renninger (2006) created a comprehensive Theme 4: Relevant to me aligns with the definition of model of interest development designed to incorporate all selective valuing in domain identification insomuch as of the components that explain the development of students’ perceptions of relevance connect their value for interest. Nonetheless, this model is difficult to examine their major to personally significant future goals. Thus, in through the context of students’ lived experience. Two of this case, Relevance aligns with the definition of selective the three components of this model of interest valuing for the students in this sample majoring in physics, development were not consistent with the findings that but does not align with the definition for students majoring emerged from this study. The students spent more time in biochemistry who perceived their major as preparation describing their perception of competence than they did for future goals in medicine (a different domain). Ruff Domain Identification and Interest 344 Hidi and Renninger’s (2006) definition of stored would reduce their feelings of competence and value aligns minimally with the theme of Relevance enjoyment. Rather than dis-identify with the domain, the through descriptions of instructors connecting a concept students chose to re-contextualize their identification as a to students’ personal interests. This aspect of relevance “hobby” rather than potential career. aligns with previous findings indicating that teachers can support students’ situational, activity-based interest Conclusion by making content and activities personally relevant to students (e.g. Hulleman, Durik, Schweigert, & Theoretical Considerations Harackiewicz, 2008; Mitchell, 1993). However, students frequently described the The descriptions of students’ interest in, and relevance of activities, courses, and their major in identification with, their major in this study provides relation to their future goals, distinguishing Relevance researchers and practitioners with a more nuanced view from Hidi and Renninger's (2006) stored value of the development of interest and identification in component. Krapp (2002) described a more science majors. This study highlights the connections encompassing conceptualization of value within the students make in their lived experience between POI model of interest development through which concepts that are often studied separately. Each student value is described as the personal significance of an incorporated the themes of Self-Definition in Flux, object of interest. Thus, value for a major would be Feeling Competent, Expressing Interest through related to how relevant the major is to a student’s sense Enjoyment, and Relevant to Me when describing their of self. This conceptualization of value integrates more interest in, and identification with, their academic of the students’ perceptions of Relevance within this major. They enjoyed (for the most part), and were sample and potentially provides a more fluid link excited by, what they were learning, felt they were between the development of interest and the growing more competent, and viewed their academic development of DI. major as relevant to their future personal and career goals. This study also illuminates potential differences Separating Individual Interest from Majors between first-year college students’ perceptions of the relevance of their major and how concepts related to Through the interviews and the selective valuing relevance (i.e., usefulness, value, importance) are activity, students described a variety of interests in defined in current literature. Students may be evaluating activities and content areas other than their academic the usefulness, value, or personal importance of their major. These interests ranged from playing video games major through their perception of how relevant the and reading about European history to training horses activity or discipline will be to their future academic and teaching ballet. Often, students had participated in and career goals. This perception of value for the major these activities for years. They felt competent and is future-directed, whereas the value-related concepts in enjoyed the activities; however, they did not connect the current models of DI and interest (e.g., selective these interests with their future academic or career goals. valuing, stored value, value-related valences) focus on Many of the students described actively choosing not to individuals’ value for the discipline or domain in the pursue a major related to the activity. These students present. Students’ perceptions of the value of their displayed the components of a developing individual major may be linked to their present perception of the interest (i.e., stored knowledge, value, and positive inherent value of the discipline, but these perceptions affect) but did not display high DI. They considered their are also likely related to their understanding of the interests to be personally relevant, but they had chosen to relationship between their major and future goals. integrate the areas of interest into their lives in ways that Researchers need to be aware of the potential put less emphasis on their ability to perform for others or differences in the understanding of value when build a career and more emphasis on their sense of developing interview and survey questions so as to competence and enjoyment. They included these clearly place value for the major in either a present interests in their selective valuing graphs but explained (e.g., “How useful is what your are learning in the first- that these activities were “for fun” and unrelated to year physics seminar to you right now?”) or future (e.g., career goals. This separation between level of interest “How valuable is what you are learning in your first- and level of DI appears fundamentally different from year physics seminar to your future goals?”) context. descriptions of dis-identification, de-valuing, or disengaging (Aronson & Steele, 2005; Schmader, Major, Practical Implications & Gramzow, 2001). The students had not devalued their area of interest as they continued to engage with it. This study provides faculty who work with first- However, they did not perceive the interest to be a viable year students several key areas in which they could career option, or they worried that pressure to perform support their students’ development of interest and