Description and Reliability

The scale latent dimensions manifest response values within the range of 1–5. Means tend to fluctuate, displaying a maximum value of 3.32 on the dimension Expectations and a minimum average of 2.91 on the dimension Environment. In no case does the distribution of responses exceed more than one standard deviation. Table 2 reveals the descriptive statistics and the Cronbach alpha coefficients for each of the eight dimensions forming the questionnaire, that is, Expectations, Language, Time, Model, Opportunities, Routines, Interactions and Environment. As observed in the upcoming table, these values are satisfactory except for the dimension Language, which reveals a moderate value of 0.65.


**Table 2.** Descriptive statistics and test reliability.

Concerning the confirmatory factorial analysis (Table 3), the approximation error to the theoretical model reveals a magnificent fitting (>0.05) on the eight dimensions. With the intention of verifying these results, the analysis of the single-factor model shows acceptable results, which leads us to differentiate the dimensions contemplated in the theoretical model.


**Table 3.** Confirmatory Factor Analysis indexes of the models.

\*\* *p* < 0.01, SBc2 = Satorra–Bentler's chi-square, df = degrees of freedom, NNFI = non-normed fit index, CFI = comparative fit index, RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation, 90% CI = confidence interval of RMSEA.

The saturation calculation (Table 4) of each of the 40 items showed that all the items present an adequate saturation in their corresponding factor (>0.40), except for the second item of Language (L-item 2). Specific feedback, which is slightly lower (0.34), and the third item of this same variable (L-item 3), make use of conditional phrases, reaching a value at the limit of 0.39. The highest saturation (0.84) has been obtained in the second item of the Routine dimension (R-item 2), using flexible, spontaneous and e fficient thinking routines.

**Table 4.** Correlation indexes.


The correlation analysis (Table 5) between each of the dimensions composing the questionnaire reveals that the highest correlation was obtained between Opportunities and Modelling (*r* = 0.72) and the lowest between Environment and Language (*r* = 0.46).


**Table 5.** Correlations between measured dimensions (*p* = 0.001).

Concerning the one-factor ANOVA, the average scores according to the course range oscillate between 2.2 and 3.68 points, on a maximum rating scale of 6. First- and second-year students are those revealing higher average scores, compared with third- and fourth-year students. In fact, it is the third-year students who feel that the promotion of cultural forces in their training is lower (Table 6).


**Table 6.** One-factor ANOVA. Independent variable: classroom level.

The Environmental dimension was the lowest rated by the students, with scores between 2.59 and 3.04 points, followed by the Language dimension between 2.98 and 3.23. The Interactions dimension was the best rated by the sample (3.20 and 3.68).

Considering the course of belonging, statistically significant di fferences can be seen along with the eight dimensions. Regarding the size of the e ffect, in general, a small size is appreciated (between 1% and 6%), although in the Expectations, Opportunities and Interactions, this size turns into a medium size of the e ffect (between 6% and 14%).
