_ "'7': '. W "’

w-Irv -- '--v

..;.
NI.
..’_

"a. a} to» "if

"34131-5

~

u—o.

,"I-rn « .

5:12:
3?&“
,.

I. '
lz' :
Ifi .»
l; 3
:95- .'
d 4
a ;
.92 r:
m A
‘.| v
, .
'2 t
I

;i

\12..7 .‘5

'\ .sl

7 I

 

I y“.

“I'd M If 32 MI

1“

n:.»"- ' . “, I I..
l ,..‘.. . , '.. 'fl  I. "WI.

'.*\5'

_ ...~
;c: :4. '."q .. .
'....'. ‘. .

7.... .

‘O‘viMl —:

..I;E$ "
1! .o'r‘)‘ ;_9. '

‘7'
, . . .w
'nro'

a

.nI-y
- v—«' M
. r

”’1’

v...-

-A._-..v-.-.
“st, A —

~

.miur‘wwt

7.

p-

‘

'_’—~A
M‘s -
w v
._

I

..

L
If V

.. 'La’n- -—

F’._ 3.1“...“ ...

I V {A
, .
11".. ‘ :95 tiff: Vs
us

'::;‘i
L’A'

‘.
w

~9_W"
O V ' .
2,4... ,

_ O

4

Ira:

s. 0:1”

*é“’$

‘x'. :I

F 1‘;‘§ 5”
hi.

‘. p.~
..... up .w. m.-
~rw». ,

s.. <
urn-w
1-". ~
«unv-
---v

t 'v‘

.—-r~ 4

On".
am—

. A»:
“$4.0
anl-tn

«tot

hi

4:.“
5%;

.....i--.-I.I
‘5'. n

 

l> ‘4, no:

MSICI‘W

UNIVERSITY LIBRARIESfl

“mm W "nafixfiigllggwumll
Michigan Status]

‘3‘ $839

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

University

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

Motivation to Learn Science
in Middle School Classrooms

presented by

Okhee Lee

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Doctoral degreein CounselingJ Educational
Psychology & Special
Education

 

 

WWW

Major professor

 

Date Mar 7) l???

MS U is an Afl'mativc Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to move We checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES rm on or before date duo.

F7

T— =
DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If:

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

 

MOTIVATION TO LEARN SCIENCE
IN MIDDLE SCHOOL CLASSROOMS

By

Okhee Lee

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Counselin Educational Psychology
and Specia Education

1989

tow 049

ABSTRACT

MOTIVATION TO LEARN SCIENCE
IN MIDDLE SCHOOL CLASSROOMS

by
Okhee Lee

Science educators have been concerned that many students do not expend the
necessary effort in classroom situations to achieve scientific understanding. This study
examined issues of student moivation in science classrooms according to two research
traditions: (a) conceptual change in science and (b) student motivation.

Three research questions were examined: (a) What are the patterns of task
engagement (i.e., choice of goals and strategies); (b) what are the key factors related to
those patterns ; and (c) what happens to student motivation when students succeed or
fail in academic achievement after a period of instruction

One particular interest of this study was student motivation to learn science
Motivated students engage in classroom tasks with the goal of achieving scientific
understanding as they try to: (a) integrate their personal knowledge with scientific
knowledge and (b) apply scientific knowledge to describe, explain, predict, and control
the world around them.

Twelve sixth grade students from two classrooms in a midwestern urban school
district participated in this study. According to the conceptual change approach, the
curriculum materials and instruction provided extensive support for students to achieve
scientific understanding of kinetic molecular theory. Various types of data were
collected during several phases of instruction (i.e., before, during, and after) through
classroom observations, clinical interviews, and other formal and informal interviews.

Data analyses combined both informal and formal analysis techniques.

The results show six different patterns of task engagement in science classrooms.
Some students were motivated to learn science and exhibited high quality of task
engagement to achieve the goal of scientific understanding, while others chose low
quality of task engagement to achieve alternative goals. The patterns of task engagement
were related to four factors: (a) students’ interpretations of the nature of classroom tasks,
(b) students’ success or failure to make progress in scientific understanding, (c) students’
general goal orientations in science class, and (d) to a limited extent, students’ affective
orientations toward science. Finally, success or failure in academic achievement after
unit instruction was related to changes in students’ goal orientations and affective

orientations, but not in systematic ways.

Copyright by
Okhee Lee
I 989

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

When everything is said and done in this project, many names of people who have
helped me complete this project come to my mind. First of all, I was fortunate to
conduct this study in association with the Science Achievement Project directed by
Glenn D. Berkheimer and Andy (Charles) Anderson at Michigan State University. Glenn
has always been supportive of this work, providing both encouragement and funding for
the research. Without this opportunity, the ideas in this study would have never been
tried out.

Because this study attempted to integrate several areas of research, I was particularly
fortunate to have committee members with expertise in these very areas. This study was
based on the definition of classroom motivation proposed by Jere Brophy. Andy (Charles)
Anderson introduced me to research in conceptual change in science. Linda Anderson
helped me with issues of classroom Ieaming and guided my design approach using semi-
qualitative, descriptive methods. Thomas Carr always tried to make sure that the
research methods were logically sound and helped me see things from different
perspectives. Finally, Andy Porter provided critical, but productive discussion and
comments. I wish his schedule could have allowed him to see the completion of this
project.

In addition to their help in completing this project, Andy Porter, chairperson, and
Andy Anderson, dissertation director, have been invaluable throughout my graduate
study. Their personal as well as professional support helped me to maintain a positive

attitude and get past the many challenging hurdles of graduate school. I especially

appreciate the opportunity Andy Porter, Co-director of the Institute for Research on
Teaching, gave me as an Institute intern.

My colleague David Eichinger deserves special recognition. While working on
Science Achievement Project, David helped me with data collection and analysis. His
insights and comments through our many conversations helped me realize things I failed
to notice. Most of all, David has been patient and understanding even when he was busy
with his own work.

Many of my friends had the patience to listen to my problems, both academic and
personal, throughout the period of my graduate work. Margot Haynes, Kris Morrissey and
Yeon Min have been like my real sisters. The ”IRT folks”, particularly Gary Rackliffe and
Theron Blakeslee, made my graduate work all the more productive and fun. My Korean
friends and their families provided supportive concern based on our shared cultural
background.

The 12 middle school students and two teachers who participated in this study were
precious to me. Their willingness to talk to me, spare time outside class, and be open to
talk about their ideas and thoughts made this work possible. They were fun people to
work with, too.

Finally, all my family members were patient and supportive. My brother and sister-
in-law in Wisconsin provided help whenever I was in need. My parents, sisters, and
brothers in Korea have sent me their support overseas during my graduate work. Finally, I

can’t express how much I appreciate the support of my husband, Michael Salwen.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF TABLES 'ot
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION- - _ - - .................. - I
Statement of the Problem - - 1
Student Motivation in Science Classrooms: Two Research Traditions ................ 2
Objective and Research Questions - -- -- _____ 7
Overview of Research Design - --- ...... -- - 8
Research Assumptions - _ - - - - - 8
Methodological Limitations - - - -- -- 9
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE - - - _ - - - ..... 12
Part I: Student Motivation To Learn Science
Student Motivation to Learn - __________ 13
Scientific Understanding --------- - 18
Student Motivation to Learn Science Operationalization ........................ 26
Pan II: Factors Related to Patterns of Task Engagement ........................................ 33
Students’ Interpretations of the Nature of Science Classroom
Tasls - - -- _- 34
Students’ Success or Failure to Make Progress in Scientific
Understanding - . - - 40
Students’ General Goal Orientations In Science Class .............................. 44
Students’ Affective Orientations Toward Science ..................................... 49
Part III: Achievement after Unit Instruction and Changes in Students’ Goal
Orientations and Affective Orientations - - ...... 52
Achievement and Motivation/Affect Causal Relationship - ..... S3
Achievement and Changes in Students’ Goal and Affective
Orientations _ ......... 55
Students’ Affective Orientations Toward Science ..................................... S6
Implications for This Study ...... _ - ............... 58
CHAPTER THREE: BACKGROUND FOR THIS STUDY ..................................................... 62
Failure in Traditional Curriculum and Instruction .................................................... 63
Current Efforts in Curriculum and Instructional Development ................... 66
Curriculum and Instruction for This Study - ................. 68

 

vii

CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

CHAPTER SIX: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS . -

APPENDICES

CHAPTER FOUR: METHODS - ........ -

 

 

Subjects and Setting
Curriculum and Instruction
Data Collection Procedures

 

 

Data Analysis Procedures

 

 

Patterns of Students’ Task Engagement (R. Q. 1)
Pattern I: Intrinsically Motivated to Learn Science
Pattern 2: Motivated to Learn Science
Pattern 3: Intrinsically Motivated but Inconsistent
Pattern 4: Task Completion
Pattern 5: Task Avoidance
Pattern 6: Disruptive Behavior

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Factors Related to Patterns of Task Engagement (R. Q. 2)
Students’ Interpretations of Classroom Tasks (R. Q. 2 a)
Pro ress in Scientific Understanding (R. Q. 2- b)
Stu ents’ Goal Orientations in Science Class (R.Q. 2-c)
Students’ Affective Orientations toward Science (R.Q. 2-d) ....................

 

 

 

 

Achievement after Unit Instruction and Changes in Students’ Goal
Orientations and Affective Orientations (R. Q. 3)
Changes In Students’ Goal Orientations In Science Class
Changes in Students’ Affective Orientations Toward Science .................

 

 

 

 

Summary of Findings - .......
Conclusions and Implications for Research - - -_
Implications for Curriculum Development and Classroom Teaching ...................

 

 

APPENDIX A: Classroom Observation Schedule
APPENDIX 8: Clinical Interview Protocol for Kinetic Molecular Theory ............
APPENDIX C: Interview Protocol: Student Goal Orientations in Science
Class and Affective Orientations toward Science
APPENDIX D: Student Conceptions of Matter and Molecules
APPENDIX E: Clinical Interview Analysis Form _ -

 

 

 

 

LIST OF REFERENCES ...... - -- - ....... - , - --

 

viii

82
82

-83

97

107

107
112
115

- 118

121
124
128

-131

132
140
156
166

168
169
178

- 184

1 84
- 188

191

82

197
202

213

- 223

226

229

LIST OF TABLES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3.1: Tasks by Conceptions Chart for Kinetic Molecular Theory 71
Table 3.2: Preconception by Goal Conception Chart for Kinetic Molecular 72
Table 4.1: Types of Data and Methods along the Timeline of Unit Instruction ............... 85
Table 4.2: Classroom Observation Schedule _ ........................... 87
Table 5.1: Ratings of the Quality of Students’ Task Engagement-.._-. ...... 108
Table 5.2: Patterns of Students’ Task Engagement ......................... ...... 110
Table 5.3: Students’ Interpretations of the Nature of Science Classroom Tasks ............ 133
Table 5.4: Students’ Background Knowledge Prior to Unit Instruction 1 41
Table 5.5: Achievement of Scientific Understanding in Specific Task Situations

Over Period of Unit Instruction 142
Table 5.6: Achievement of Scientific Understanding After Unit Instruction ................... 149
Table 5.7: Students’ Personal Goals in Science Class _ - 157
Table 5.8: Students’ Perceptions of Goals from Different Perspectives _ ..... 160
Table 5.9: Achievement and Changes in Student Goal of Understanding After

Unit Instruction _- -- ......... I70

 

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

Science educators agree that understanding is the goal of science education. For
those who claim higher-level, long—term goals, such as self-regulated learning or scientific
literacy, understanding is still a basic requirement. To achieve this goal, students must
engage in classroom tasks with the goal of achieving scientific understanding and activate
strategies that allow them to accomplish this goal.

The benefits of scientific understanding are obvious from both individual and social
perspectives. At the individual level, students who achieve scientific understanding gain
personal satisfaction through meaningful Ieaming of science according to both personal
and disciplinary criteria (C. Anderson & Roth, in press; Driver, 1987; Floden & Buchmann,
1984; Nickerson, 1985; Pines & West, 1986). These students also gain extrinsic benefits
from scientific understanding, such as good grades, recognition from peers, teachers, and
parents, and improved job opportunities in the future. Society benefits from improved
scientific literacy, because the nation needs more scientifically and technologically
literate citizens for its work force and for their input into policy.

Despite such obvious benefits, many students (as much as 80% of the student
population) fail to achieve understanding in science classes (C. Anderson, 1987;
Fensham, 1985; Yager & Hofstein, 1986). Some have given up trying altogether.
Evidence from various sources indicates that students are not Ieaming enough science
and do not understand important scientific concepts. National reports on science

education generally show small but consistent declines in student achievement in

2

science subjects since the mid-19605 (Education Commission of States, 1983; Heuftle,
Rakow, 8: Welch, 1983; National Assessment for Educational Progress, 1978; National
Science Foundation 8: the Department of Education, 1980). The proportion of high
school students enrolled in science courses has also declined steadily since the mid-
19605 (Hamischfeger 8: Wiley, 1977; Harms 8: Yager, 1981; National Science
Foundation 8: the Department of Education, 1980; Welch, 1979). In addition,
comparisons of science achievement between American students and those in other
countries show that Americans perform significantly worse than their counterparts (Hurd,
1982; International Association for Evaluation of Educational Achievement, 1987;
National Science Foundation 8: the Department of Education, 1980). Finally, a growing
body of research on student learning difficulties in science classrooms supports the
achievement test data, demonstrating that students are not developing any meaningful

understanding of important scientific concepts.

Student Motivation in Science Classrooms: Two Research Traditions

Science educators are concerned about students’ unwillingness to work hard in
science classrooms. Even those who expend effort settle for less valued outcomes, such
as memorizing vocabulary words or facts, rather than trying to achieve scientific
understanding (C. Anderson 8: Roth, in press; Blumenfeld 8: Meece, I988;
Mergendoller, Marchman, Mitman, 8: Packer, 1988; Meece & Blumenfeld, 1987; Olson,
1983; Roth, 1985; Sanford, I987; Stake 8: Easley, 1978; Tobin 8: Gallagher, 1987).
Other students rely on strategies such as rote memorizing, distorting scientific knowledge
to fit their prior knowledge, mindlessly answering questions, copying others’ answers, or
not completing the work (C. Anderson 8: Roth, in press; Blumenfeld 8: Meece, 1988;
Meece 8: Blumenfeld, 1987; Roth, 1985).

Why are so many students unwilling to work toward achieving scientific

understanding? Two research traditions have proposed explanations for these problems

of student motivation. One tradition focuses on curriculum and instructional

3

development in content areas; research on conceptual change in science is an example
of work in this tradition. The other tradition involves motivation research and is
concerned with cognitive and affective aspects of student characteristics.

Conceptual change research in science education claims that problems of student
motivation are largely attributable to-the nature of traditional curriculum materials and
instruction. These researchers argue that traditional curriculum materials and classroom
teaching do not provide an opportunity for students to learn something meaningful and
valuable. These materials and instruction do not identify scientific understanding as a
major learning goal. Consequently, some students do not perceive scientific
understanding as attainable, while others do not value it as a goal because the curriculum
materials and instruction do not emphasize it. In this regard, a student’s decision not to
work hard is a rational choice, since the curriculum materials and instruction do not
promote scientific understanding as a better alternative (C. Anderson, 1987; Driver,
1987; Hesse 8: C. Anderson, 1988; Posner, 1982; Roth, C. Anderson 8: E. Smith, 1987).

Conceptual change researchers believe that most students work hard when
curriculum materials and instruction provide both opportunity and extensive support for
them to achieve scientific understanding. When students engage in activities that
require high quality effort, they not only increase their chances (expectancy) of achieving
this goal but also experience its value. Research on conceptual change, and more
broadly the curriculum and instructional development tradition, focuses on content
knowledge but remains silent on other factors related to student motivation.

Research on classroom motivation,on the other hand, suggests that student
motivation is a complex interplay of curriculum, instruction, and student characteristics.
Motivation researchers claim that motivation problems result from students’ decision-
making processes that are not entirely rational For instance, students’ self-perceptions
lead them to place low value on the goal of scientific understanding or to express low

expectancy of success in achieving that goal. Without even making an effort to achieve

4

scientific understanding, these students choose alternative goals. Thus, motivation
researchers believe that students’ beliefs and characteristics play an important role in
their decisions about whether to,work hard to achieve scientific understanding.
Although motivation researchers recognize the importance of curriculum materials and
instruction, they are primarily concerned with cognitive and affective aspects of student
characteristics.

Research on classroom motivation claims that to understand the problems of
student motivation, educators need to examine why (i.e., goals) and how (i.e., strategies)
students do academic work while engaging in classroom tasks. In science classrooms, for
instance, students who are motivated to learn engage in classroom tasks with the goal of
achieving scientific understanding, and they activate strategies associated with such
learning.

To explain why students work (or do not work) hard to achieve scientific
understanding in science classrooms, two research traditions suggest four hypotheses in
terms of students’ content knowledge in a content area or their motivational variables.

The first hypothesis concerns students’ recognition of academic goals in classroom
tasks. Research has examined how students’ interpretations of the nature of classroom
tasks are related to their goals and learning strategies while engaging in those tasks
(Blumenfeld, Mergendoller, 8: Swarthout, I987; Doyle, 1979, 1983, 1986;
Mergendoller, Marchman, Mitman, 8: Packer; I988; Posner, 1982; Sanford, 1987; Stake
8: Easley, I978; Tobin 8: Gallagher, 1987). Some students either fail to recognize the
content objectives of classroom tasks or do not realize when they are having trouble
understanding them. Even when students realize that they do not understand, they
perceive their difficulty in terms of procedural complexity or amount and duration of
effort, rather than the nature of the concepts being taught or the quality of effort
required. In the face of difficult tasks, students tend to use strategies that merely

complete the tasks, instead of trying to understand the content of those tasks. Especially

5

in sceince classrooms, students’ prior knowledge, often incorrect, could pose a problem
to adequately interpret the nature of classroom tasks.

A second hypothesis concerns student progress in achieving scientific understanding
for classroom tasks. Research suggests that the quality of students’ task engagement is
related to the degree to which they are making consistent progress (Brophy, 1985; Como
8: Mandinach, 1983). When students fail to make progress over task situations, they do
not possess the necessary scientific knowledge in subsequent task situations. This lack
makes it difficult for them to expend a high quality effort and, as a result, they develop
low expectancy of success in achieving understanding. The issue of student progress
seems to be particularly important in science classrooms, as research consistently shows
that the achievement of scientific understanding is difficult and demanding for many
students (C. Anderson 8: Roth, in press; Nussbaum 8: Novick, 1982; Pines 8: West, 1986;
Posner et al., 1982; Roth, 1985).

A third hypothesis concerns the existence of multiple, often competing, goals of
students in science classrooms. Research suggests that students’ behavior in achievement
situations is motivated by a complex interplay of goals, and they behave in ways to
achieve their own goals (Blumenfeld 8: Meece, 1988; Dweck 8: Elliot, 1983; Maehr,
1984; Pervin, 1982). In addition to their personal goals, students are also influenced by
the expectations of significant others, including parents, teachers, and peers (Eccles,
Midgley 8: Adler, 1984; Maehr, 1984). These various goals often conflict, forcing students
to select certain goals at the expense of other competing goals. Problems in classroom
Ieaming occur when students are overly concerned with external influences, which may
not be compatible with the goal of scientific understanding. As a result, students place
low value on the goal of scientific understanding. Unfortunately, the pressure to conform
to external demands seems to increase as students experience school environments

which emphasize external evaluation or social comparison, rather than task engagement

6
for the mastery of academic content or skills (Eccles, 1983; Eccles, Midgley 8: Adler,

1984;5tipek, 1984, 1988).

A final hypothesis concerns students’ affective orientations toward science. Research
suggests that affective aspects of student motivation, such as attitudes, interest, and
curiosity, are related to cognitive aspects in science learning (Steinkamp 8: Maehr, I983;
Welch, Walberg, 8: Fraser, 1986; Wilson, 1983). Students who have negative attitudes
and low interest are less likely to try hard to achieve scientific understanding than those
who have positive attitudes and high interest. Research consistently shows that students’
affective orientations deteriorate as they advance in school (Cannon 8: Simpson, 1985;
Huefle, Rakow, 8: Welch, 1983; James 8: Smith, 1985; Schibeci, 1984).

Examination of the research in both student motivation and conceptual change
raises a number of questions. Provided with the opportunity to learn science in a
meaningful way, will students actually try to achieve the goal of scientific understanding?
Will they realize the value of scientific understanding and/or expect to succeed in
achieving scientific understanding? How do features of curriculum materials and
instruction interact with studentscharacteristics? Under what conditions do students try
to achieve scientific understanding? Which research tradition provides better
explanations for issues of student motivation? Under what circumstances is one tradition
more accurate than the other? What are the limitations of each tradition?

To answer these questions, it is necessary to conduct research in classroom settings
where both the curriculum materials and instruction provide extensive support for
students to achieve scientific understanding. If students accept the goal of scientific
understanding as a better alternative, assumptions of conceptual change research are
supported. If students do not take advantage of the opportunity, problems of student
motivation can be attributed to student characteristics, as motivation research claims.

The present study was associated with the Science Achievement Project, a major

research study funded by the National Science Foundation (Berkheimer, C. Anderson, 8:

g 7
Blakeslee, 1988a). The primary purpose of this larger project was to develop curriculum

materials and instructional strategies that promote scientific understanding of kinetic
molecular theory at the sixth-grade level. The curriculum and instructional development
were based on the conceptual change approach in science. For the present study, this
research context offered a unique opportunity to examine issues of student motivation

from both research traditions.

Objective and Research Questions

The overall objective of the present study was to develop an integrated theory of
student motivation in science classrooms. Of primary interest were major aspects of
student characteristics (i.e., motivation research tradition). Yet, owing to the research
context in which the present study was conducted, aspects of curriculum materials and
instruction (i.e., conceptual change research tradition) were also examined.

This study focused on student motivation to learn science, which is defined as
engagement in classroom tasks with the goal of achieving scientific understanding.
Student motivation to learn science exists when students engage in classroom tasks to:
(a) integrate their personal knowledge with scientific knowledge and (b) use scientific
knowledge to describe, explain, predict, and control the world around them. This
definition integrates two distinct approaches of classroom research: student motivation
to learn (Brophy, 1983, 1987) and conceptual change In science (e.g., C. Anderson,
1987; C. Anderson 8: Roth, in press; Pines 8: West, 1986).

The specific research questions addressed in this study were as follows:

1. To identify patterns of students’ task engagement (i.e., choice of goals and
strategies) in science classrooms.

2. To understand how patterns of students’ task engagement is related to:

(a) students’ interpretations of the nature of classroom tasks (i.e., the content
objectives and difficulty of classroom tasks as perceived by students);

(b) students’ success or failure to make progress in achieving scientific
understanding;

(c) students’ general goal orientations in science class; and

(d) students general affective orientations toward science (i.e., attitudes and
interest .

8

3. To examine the relationship between achievement of scientific understanding
after instruction of a science unit and changes in students’ general goal
orientations and affective orientations.

Overview of Research Design

This study was an in-depth investigation of the issues of student motivation and
conditions under which students expend (or fail to expend) effort in science classrooms.
The study involved twelve sixth grade students from two science classrooms in which both
curriculum and instruction provided extensive support for students to achieve scientific
understanding of kinetic molecular theory.

First, patterns of students’ task engagement were defined in terms of their choice of
goals and strategies while they engaged in science classroom tasks. The quality of task
engagement, especially cognitive engagement, was used as a measure.

Further the study examined four key factors related to patterns of task engagement,
and collected various kinds of data during different phases of the investigation. Classroom
observers interacting with target students during task engagement collected data on
student interpretations of classroom tasks . Clinical interviews with target students before
and after instruction of a particular science unit as well as assessment of their scientific
understanding in specific task situations over the instruction period yielded data on
student progress in scientific understanding. Formal interviews with target students prior
to and after instruction of the science unit produced data on students’ goal orientations
in science class and affective orientations toward science.

Finally, at the end of the science instruction unit, the project examined the
relationship between achievement of scientific understanding and changes in students’

goal and affective orientations

Research Assumptions
Three basic assumptions underlie the present study. First, it is important to

understand student motivation in terms of both cognitive and affective aspects. One

9

major goal of science education is to motivate students to learn science, in addition to
helping them develop positive attitudes and high interest. The present study focused on
cognitive aspects of motivation, since they seem to be more closely related to classroom
Ieaming than its affective aspects.

Second, research on conceptual change shows that the process involved in scientific
understanding is strenuous and demanding, requiring students to expend high quality
(i.e., kind) as well as quantity (i.e., degree) of effort during task engagement. Students
who are motivated to Ieam science demonstrate high quality of cognitive engagement
and persist in task engagement in order to achieve their goal of scientific understanding.
Although difficult and often frustrating, the achievement of scientific understanding is a
rewarding process as students develop a deeper and richer understanding of scientific
knowledge. Through numerous successes in scientific understanding, students
internalize a conception of meaningful understanding of science and eventually learn
how to learn science independently (i.e., self-regulated learning).

Finally, student motivation to Ieam science can be construed as both a general
disposition and a situation-specific state. Although both are equally important, the
present study focused on the state of student motivation to learn science—students
engaging in classroom tasks with the goal of achieving scientific understanding in specific
task situations. The ultimate goal of this study was to develop methods to stimulate
student motivation to learn science as a general disposition, so that students find learning
intrinsically rewarding and take satisfaction in expanding their scientific knowledge. It was
assumed that when such motivation exists consistently over task situations, it stimulates

the development of student motivation to learn science as a generalized disposition.

Methodological Limitations
M described earlier, the present study was conducted in classroom settings where
both the curriculum materials and instructional strategies stressed scientific

understanding for students. This research context presented advantages and

10

disadvantages. One advantage was that the larger research project (the Science
Achievement Project) provided a rich store of data about thegstudents’ content learning
as well as other information related to their motivation in science classrooms.
Additionally, this research context provided a unique opportunity to examine the effects
of a conceptual change approach in curriculum development and instruction on student
motivation in science classrooms.

On the other hand, the research context limited the generalizability of the findings
to other classrooms with little or no emphasis on promoting scientific understanding.
This limitation seems warranted; research shows that traditional curriculum materials and
teaching strategies generally fail to help students achieve scientific understanding.
Further, many science teachers are neither trained in, nor even aware of, the conceptual
change approach (C. Anderson 8: E. Smith, 1987; Blakeslee, C. Anderson, 8: E. Smith,
1987; Driver, 1987; Hesse 8: C. Anderson, 1988; Hollen 8: C. Anderson, 1987; Roth,
1987; Roth, C. Anderson 8: E. Smith, 1987; D. Smith, 1987; D. Smith 8: Neale, 1987).

Second, this study involved only twelve students from two classrooms taught by two
different teachers. The limited number of subjects allowed the researcher to achieve
the stated objective of developing an in-depth understanding about issues of student
motivation. However, the small sample size precluded the use of statistical analyses of
research questions.

Third, constraints in classroom situations and modes of instruction sometimes
interfered with data collection procedures. Some research questions required data
collection primarily through informal interviews with target students while they were
actually engaged in specific task situations. Although the classroom observers tried to
interact with individual target students during class activities, it was not always possible.
This restricted both regularity and extensiveness of data collection. (L. Anderson et al.
[1985] encountered the same problem.) This was particularly true of one classroom

where the teacher devoted so much class time to whole-class activities (e.g., class

11

discussion or reading aloud in class) that it was difficult to conduct needed interviews. As
a result, data for some research questions were not Substantial, especially Research
Question 2(a).

Fourth, students’ participation in the study may have affected their classroom
Ieaming and motivation. Personal contact with the observers prior to, during, and after
instruction of a science unit could have made the participating students more aware of
their Ieaming processes than they would have been otherwise Such awareness could, in
turn, have influenced the quality of their task engagement i and other aspects of
motivation in science classrooms This could have diminished as the study continued over
time (from early October, 1987 through mid-January, 1988), and as observers interacted
with students in normal classroom settings.

Finally, this was a correlational rather than an experimental study. A major goal of
the present study was to understand the nature of student motivation in naturalistic
classroom situations. The relationship between student motivation and several factors
examined in this study also involved correlational rather than causal interpretations.
Further, although the curriculum materials and instructional strategies used here can be
considered a type of experimental treatment—in the sense that they were specially
developed according to a conceptual change approach and, thus, different from
traditional practicess—there was no control group to compare its relative effectiveness. It

is hoped this study can serve as a starting point for future experimental studies.

CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This chapter reviews a body of literature relevant to the research questions examined
in this study. The discussion includes not only what has been investigated in previous
research but, more importantly, what needs to be done to better understand student
motivation in science classrooms. Thus, this literature review provides a rationale and
theoretical basis for this study.

This chapter consists of three sections, each of which covers one of the three research
questions addressed in the study. The first section concerns the students’ motivation during
task engagement. The discuss will focus on the definition and measurement of student
mortivation to learn science. The second section discusses several key factors in the
literature related to student motivation during specific task engagement. These factors
involve cognitive as well as affective aspects of student characteristics, ranging from task-
specific to more general situations in science classrooms. The discussion focuses on
whether these factors are related to student motivation during task engagement and, if so,
how they are related from the two research traditions: conceptual change research and
student motivation. The third section examines the relationship between achievement of
scientific understanding and changes in general motivational orientations of students after
completion of a science unit. The chapter concludes with a discussion on why the
research questions in the present study are important. to increased understanding of
student motivation in science classrooms. Finally, this chapter also discusses how the

insights from previous research are incorporated in designing the present study.

12

13

Part I: Student Motivation To Learn Science:
Conceptualization and Operationalization

When a student is motivated to Ieam science, how will he or she engage in academic
tasks in science classrooms? How can we tell whether a student is motivated to Ieam
science? What other patterns of students’ task engagement do students exhibit in science
classrooms?

The definition of student motivation to Ieam science in this study has two major
components: (a) motivation to learn (i.e., students’ engagement in academic tasks with the
goal of achieving understanding) and (b) Ieaming science (i.e., scientific understanding).
This definition integrates two distinct approaches in classroom research: Brophy’s theory of
student motivation to Ieam (1983, 1987) and conceptual change Ieaming in science (e.g.,
C. Anderson, 1987; C. Anderson 8: Roth, in press; Pines 8: West, 1986; Roth, 1985). The
discussion focuses on three issues: (a) the conceptualization of student motivation to learn,
(b) the definition of scientific understanding, and (c) measures of student motivation to
learn science.

Wm

Research on classroom learning and motivation have reported concerns about
students’ failure to understand the purposes of classroom tasks. This seems to be closely
related to low quality of task engagement (L. Anderson, 1981; Como 8: Mandinach, 1983;
Meece 8: Blumenfeld, 1987). For example, L. Anderson (1984) and L. Anderson et al.
(1985) found that during seatwork assignments, first-grade students, even high achievers,
seldom gave evidence of realizing the content-related purposes of assignments. Instead,
students perceived the purposes in terms of doing the work, as one student said to himself,
”There! I didn’t understand it, but I got it done”(L. Anderson, 1984, p. 98). Rohrkemper
and Bershon (1984) found that only two out of 49 elementary students working on
mathematic problems mentioned trying to understand, whereas most students were

concerned about getting correct answers, and a few simply wanted to finish the work.

1 4
Blumenfeld and Meece (1988) reported that elementary students in science classrooms

were more concerned with procedures or products of assignments than with content per
se. When asked the goal of their task engagement, students mentioned a test or some
vague future benefits, such as ”So, I’ll know, if I want to be a scientist" (p. 246). In short,
research findings suggest two common characteristics of students’ task engagement: (a)
Students do not understand the content-related purposes of classroom tasks being taught;
and (b) students do not engage in those tasks with the goal of understanding.

Other studies show that students often do not understand how to do their classroom
work. L Anderson et al. (1985) found that while working on seatwork assignments many
first graders, especially low achievers, lacked strategies or skills necessary to complete
assignments in the intended way. As a result, these students developed work completion
strategies that had nothing to do with learning the content intended in the assignments.
Rorhkemper and Bershon (I 984) found that when elementary students experienced
difficulty with mathematics problems, they tried to get help to complete the work rather
than searching for cognitive strategies. Blumenfeld and Meece (1988) also found that
elementary science students used help-seeking or avoidance strategies, especially with
difficult tasks, rather than engaging in cognitive strategies. Some students, lacking either
the desire or the skills to identify their Ieaming deficiencies, did not even seek help from
the teacher or other resources (L. Anderson et al., 1985; Rohrkemper 8: Bershon, 1984).

Thus, research suggests that a new definition of classroom motivation is needed, one
that integrates learning and motivation while students engage in academic tasks in
classrooms. L. Anderson (I 981) claims that students’ understanding of why (i.e., goals) and
how (i.e., strategies) they do classroom work is the key factor related to their behavioral
and cognitive responses in classrooms. Corno and Mandinach (1983) also call for an
integrated theory of Ieaming and motivation in classrooms to understand motivated

Ieaming of students in classrooms (p. 88, original emphasis).

Brophy (1983, 1987) proposed a conceptualization of W

15

which “applies to student attention to lessons and engagement in academic learning tasks
in classrooms" (1987, p. 181). This conceptualization is construed as both a general trait
and a situation-specific state: .
As a general trait, motivation to Ieam refers an enduring disposition to value
Ieaming and mastery in Ieaming situations. This trait is most characteristic of
individuals who find Ieaming intrinsically rewarding—who enjoy or take
satisfaction in ex anding their knowledge of information, increasing their
understanding 0 concepts or processes, or mastering skills.
In specific situations, a state of motivation to learn exists when task engagement is
spided by the goal or intention of acquiring the knowledge or mastering the skill
at the task is designed to teach Whether or not they find a particular task
interesting or enjoyable, students who are motivated to learn that task will try to

get the intended benefits from it by strivin to make sure that they understand and
will remember what they are supposed to earn (1987, p. 182, original

emphasis).*

Several aspects of this conceptualization make it especially applicable to the present
study. In particular, it addresses both classroom Ieaming and motivation by integrating
aspects of academic tasks, learning processes, and student characteristics in specific
situations as well as more general situations. The following are the major implications of
this conceptualization for the present study.

1W. Motivation is conceptualized as a situation-specific
state, in addition to a general trait or disposition. Brophy (1987) states the importance of
situation-specific motivation and its difference from a more general trait this way:

All students who take a particular academic task seriously and attempt to get the

intended knowledge or skill benefits from it could be described as ”motivated to

learn” the task, even though only some of these students might possess a

generalized trait that could be called motivation to learn (p. 184)

This emphasis on situation-specific motivation shares a common concern with

research on classroom learning, suggesting that we need to examine more closely why and

how students engage in specific classroom tasks (L Anderson, 1981; L. Anderson et al.,

 

*Note: Instead of the term trait, Bro hy now prefers to use the term disposition. Motivation to learn
at a more general level indicates a Isposition which has the potential to be activated dependin on
contexts, rather than a fixed, static notion as implied by the term trait (personal communIcation

1 6
1985; Blumenfeld 8: Meece, 1988; Como 8: Mandinach, 1983; Doyle, 1983; Posner,
1982). ,

W This conceptualization fits within the
expectancy x value theory of motivation (Feather, 1982). The theory posits that the degree
of effort an individual will expend in attempting to reach a particular goal (or accomplish a
specific task) is a product of: (a) the value they place on reaching the goal and (b) the
expectancy of being able to reach it if they make the effort. This is the same orientation
shared by other theories of motivation, such as achievement motivation (Dweck 8: Elliot,
1983), causal attribution (Weiner, 1979), perceptions of efficacy (Bandura, 1982), and
perceptions of causation (DeCharms, 1976). In contrast to these theories, stressing the
expectancy side, however, the conceptualization of student motivation to learn focuses on
the value side (see Parsons 8: Goff, 1980 on this point). This conceptualization concerns _
itself with the reasons for participating in academic activities in the first place, the desire to
learn content and master skills, and valuing the process of Ieaming.

WWW Student motivation to learn
is defined in terms of student goals during task engagement. Due to the cognitive nature of
classroom tasks, learning strategies are also implied in the conceptualization. For instance,
students who are motivated to Ieam have the goal of understanding content, and they
activate strategies associated with such learning in specific task situations. In contrast,
students who are not motivated to learn have alternative goals (e.g., completing classroom
tasks or even avoiding them) and activate strategies to achieve those goals (e.g.,
memorizing facts, mindlessly answering questions, or copying others’ answers). Brophy
(1987) states that: .

In discussions of typical school learning situations, then, reference to a state of

student motivation to learn implies the presence not only of motivational

elements (goals), but also of Ieaming and cognition elements (cognitive and

metacognitive strategies)...so the term ”student motivation to learn” will routinely

imply student adoption of the goal of mastering the content or skills being taught

(mastery orientation) and activation of the cognitive and metacognitive strategies
needed to reach this goal (pp. 184-185).

17

Thus, the conceptualization of student motivation to learn considers both students’
goals of task engagement and the strategies activated to meet these goals, as specified in
research on classroom Ieaming (e.g., L. Anderson, 1981; Como 8: Mandinach, 1983).

4W. The conceptualization of student
motivation to Ieam focuses on cognitive aspects of motivation, not just its affective aspects.
It emphasizes students’ efforts to achieve the goal of content understanding or skill mastery,
rather than mere liking, interest, curiosity, or enjoyment (see Carr 8: Evans, 1981 in the
case of children’s early reading). Whether or not they find a particular task interesting or
enjoyable, students who are motivated to learn will strive to understand content or master
skills. Thus, student motivation to Ieam is independent of affective aspects.

W. This is an issue of measurement
(which will be discussed later in detail). Common measures of student learning and
motivation in classroom settings have been behavioral indicators, such as attention,
involvement or time-on-task. Yet, researchers claim that such measures are inadequate in
classroom settings where academic tasks require primarily cognitive, unobservable
processes during Ieaming. Instead of behavioral engagement, measures of students’
cognitive engagement have been proposed (Como 8: Mandinach, 1983; Peterson 8: Swing,
1982; Peterson, Swing, Braverman 8: Buss, 1982; Peterson, Swing, Stark 8: Waas, 1984;
Tobin, 1986).

The conceptualization of student motivation to learn emphasizes the quality of student
engagement in academic activities as a measure of classroom motivation (Brophy, 1987, p,
183, original emphasis). In particular, it is ”the quality of students’ cognitive engagement
in the activity-the degree to which they approach the activity purposefully and respond to
it thoughtfully” (Brophy 8: Merrick, 1987, p. 11, original emphasis).

In sum, the conceptualization of student motivation to learn shares common concerns
reported in research on classroom learning. Further, this conceptualization presents a

significant advance over previous theories of motivation. Differing from previous theories

18

of motivation, this conceptualization focuses on: .

. motivation as a state, not just a trait;

. value side of expectancy x value theory;

. student goals and strategies during task engagement;

. cognitive aspects, not just affective aspects;

. thse‘guality of students’ engagement, especiallycognitive engagement, in academic
ta .

01$de

As discussed so far, the conceptualization of student motivation to learn provides a
framework for defining a generic notion of student motivation in classrooms. Yet, it has
two major shortcomings for explaining student motivation in science classrooms. The first
concerns the nature of science and science learning. What does it mean when students are
motivated to learn science? Because of the unique nature of science content and its
influence on students’ task engagement, the conceptualization of student motivation to
learn needs to be contextualized and refined within the subject area of science. The
conceptualization of learning science or scientific understanding will be discussed in the
following section.

The other shortcoming concerns the issue of measurement. Once student motivation
to learn science is conceptualized, how can we operationalize it? If the quality of students’
task engagement is the measure of classroom motivation, how can we distinguish high
quality from low quality engagement? How can we identify different kinds of students’
goals and strategies based on the quality of their task engagement? The issue of
measurement will be discussed subsequently.

i ifi n n in

The meaning of understanding has been a critical issue in education. What does it
mean to understand? In fact, part of the difficulty defining understanding is that this
concept is ”one that we understand intuitively” (Nickerson, 1985, p. 215) and also “an
elusive concept: it can mean different things to different people” (C. Anderson 8: Roth, in
press). Nevertheless, a number of researchers have attempted to define understanding in
science (C. Anderson, 1987; Brook, Driver 8: Johnston, 1988; Carey, 1986; Driver, 1987,

in press; Finley, 1985; Nickerson, 1986; Nussbaum 8: Novick, 1982; Petrie, 1981; Pines 8:

19
West, 1986; Posner, Strike, Hewson, 8: Gertzog, 1982; Strike 8: Posner, 1985; Shuell,

1987; Toulmin, 1972; Vosniadou 8: Brewer, 1987; Wittrock, 1985).

Two major common elements in the definition of understanding in science emerge in
the literature. First, understanding involves the integration of new experience or
information with learners’ prior knowledge or what is already in their minds. Second,
understanding has some functional usefulness to learners, primarily to explain the world
around them. The two elements are based on the fundamental assumption that
understanding occurs when learners actively construct their own meanings, rather than
passively acquiring knowledge that is transmitted to them. Thus, learners have the ultimate
responsibility for their Ieaming, although curriculum materials and teachers share this
responsibility in classroom settings (Porter 8: Brophy, 1987).

The two-component definition of scientific understanding advanced by C. Anderson
and Roth (in press) seems to be the most useful for the present study:

The first of these (components] is functional: Students should develop knowled e

that is useful for the essential functions of describing, explaining, predicting, an

controlling the world around us. The second criterion is structural. Students

should develop knowledge that is conceptually coherent and integrated with their

personal knowledge of the world,as well as being scientifically accurate (original

emphasis)

Further, the structural and functional components of scientific understanding are
inextricably intertwined and dependent on each other. That is, any of the four basic
functions of science requires the integration of multiple concepts; conversely, any given
concept can be used for multiple functions. Thus, scientific understanding requires
“extensive conceptual integration and an ability to work out the complex relationships
between structure and function” (original emphasis).

In the following, three issues of scientific understanding will be discussed: (a) the
structural component of scientific understanding, (b) the functional component of scientific
understanding, and (c) students’ Ieaming difficultiesin achieving scientific understanding in

science classrooms.

Th r l m t f i ifi n n in

Perhaps the single most important issue in human cognition concerns the role of prior
knowledge in Ieaming. As Resnick (1983a, p. 477) states: ”A" Ieaming depends on prior
knowledge." Without prior knowledge, new experience will be unintelligible or pure
symbolic abstraction detached from personal meaning. Pines and West (1986) state:
“Without such consideration (of students’ personal knowledge), the formal knowledge
presented in school will at best fall on ’deaf’ ears ...." (p. 599).

The importance of students’ prior knowledge has been recognized in science
classrooms. Science educators emphasize that to teach the disciplinary knowledge of
science in a way that students can understand better, students’ prior knowledge needs to
be incorporated as an essential part of classroom teaching. Thus, research is making
extensive efforts to identify students’ prior knowledge across content areas and across
grade levels in science classrooms.

Of critical importance when using students’ personal knowledge as a basis for
teaching formal, scientific knowledge is the nature of interactions between these two
sources of knowledge. For example, is students’ prior knowledge congruent with scientific
knowledge or does it conflict? When congruence exists, prior knowledge is a bridge to
new learning; when conflict exists, prior knowledge could be a barrier. The role of
students’ prior knowledge in either fostering or interfering with the Ieaming of scientific
knowledge has generated much discussion among science educators (C. Anderson, 1987;
C. Anderson 8: Roth, in press; Brook, Driver, 8: Johnston, 1988; Carey, 1986; Driver, 1987,
in press; Finley, 1985; Nickerson, 1985; Nussbaum 8: Novick, 1982; Pines 8: West, 1986;
Posner, Strike, Hewson, 8: Gertzog, 1982; Shuell, 1987; Strike 8: Posner, 1985; Vosniadou
8: Brewer, 1987).

Pines and West (1986) identify these two major types of situations as congruence and
conflict. In a congruent situation, a student’s prior knowledge may be consistent with the

scientific knowledge being taught in classrooms. The knowledge structure the student

21

brings with him (or her) to the science classroom, although less well organized or
structured than formal knowledge in the discipline, can be linked with scientific
knowledge. Within the framework of his prior knowledge, the student elaborates his initial
knowledge structure by incorporating scientific knowledge. This type of learning is
variously termed weak restructuring (Carey, 1986; Vosniadou 8: Brewer, 1987),
assimilation (Nussbaum 8: Novick, 1982; Posner et al., 1982), and a type of evolutionary
Ieaming (Wittrock, 1985).

In a conflict situation, on the other hand, a student’s prior knowledge is inconsistent
with disciplinary knowledge of science. Simply linking prior knowledge with scientific
knowledge is not adequate for successful Ieaming. Instead, the student has to modify his
prior knowledge into scientific knowledge, or even completely abandon his prior
knowledge and become committed with new ideas that appear counter-intuitive or that he
used to think incorrect. Researchers use various terms to describe students’ prior
knowledge (or conceptions) which is substantially different from scientific knowledge (or
conceptions): preconceptions, misconceptions, alternative conceptions, alternative
frameworks, naive theories, incorrect prior knowledge, and intuitions.

Students solve the problem of conflicts between prior knowledge and scientific
knowledge in different ways (e.g., C. Anderson 8: Roth, in press; Pines 8: West, 1986; Roth,
1985). Many students do not accept scientific knowledge. They cling to their prior
knowledge and may not even recognize the existence of conceptual conflicts. Others
ignore scientific knowledge as irrelevant or inappropriate. Still others come to hate
scientific knowledge as meaningless or useless information that has nothing to do with
their personal lives.

Some students accept scientific knowledge, but fail to integrate it with prior
knowledge. For example, some memorize vocabulary words or factual information
through rote learning. Others adequately comprehend scientific knowledge, while

maintaining their prior knowledge. These students use scientific knowledge in formal

22
school settings, but rely on their prior knowledge for real-world problems. Still others

distort scientific knowledge to fit to their prior knowledge.

Finally, some students make sense of scientific knowledge and successfully integrate it
with their personal knowledge. This involves a complex process of conceptual change, in
which students must modify or restructure their previous knowledge or even accept
scientific knowledge that they previously deemed incorrect. Although the process of
conceptual change is difficult and confusing, achieving conceptual change is rewarding as
students develop a more coherent scientific knowledge. Various terms describe the
process of conceptual change, including accommodation (Nussbaum 8: Novick, 1982;
Posner et al., 1982; Strike 8: Posner, 1985), radical restructuring (Carey, 1986; Vosniadou
8: Brewer, 1987), and a type of revolutionary learning (Wittrock, 1985).

Tthil finifi n ndin

Another major component of scientific understanding involves basic functions of
scientific knowledge in terms of four general categories: description, explanation,
prediction, and control of natural phenomena (C. Anderson, 1987; C. Anderson 8: Roth, in
press; Hesse 8: C. Anderson, 1988). These functions have been major science activities for
individuals who desire to understand how the world around them works, as well as for a
community of scientists who develop scientific principles or theories (Toulmin, 1972).

First,the descriptive function of scientific knowledge involves activities such as
labeling, observation, measurement, classification, and description of objects or natural
events. Compared to common-sense descriptions, scientific descriptions are more precise
and accurate as they are dictated by some underlying scientific concepts or theories.

The explanatory function of scientific understanding derives from people’s drive to
explain how the world around them works. Everyone, scientifically trained or not, notices
natural events or phenomena in the world and develops explanations for them. Everyday
explanations are accepted because they appear to make sense. Scientific explanations, in

contrast, are usually built on careful descriptions of the phenomena to be explained and

23
developed by relevant scientific concepts or theories. Although making scientific

explanation has been emphasized as a primary goal of science (T oulmin, 1972), ”it is
generally the most neglected of the four functions in science curricular” (C. Anderson 8:
Roth, in press).

The predictive function of science also has a basis in everyday actions, as people
constantly engage in making predictions about the natural and human worlds. Everyday
predictions are usually based on personal intuitions or experiences; scientific predictions
derive from scientific concepts or theories. Thus, scientific predictions are often more
precise and accurate, and the limits of precision are specified. Further, the ability to
generate precise, accurate predictions is a key test of a scientific theory.

Finally, the control function involves ordinary citizens as well as scientists; both need
to control natural events or phenomena when they are engaged in experimental work (not
necessarily in laboratory settings). When people make use of relevant scientific
knowledge, they control events more effectively and with greater understanding. In this
regard, control of natural phenomena is more a function of technology than science per se,
although scientific knowledge contributes to the development and use of technology.

These four basic functions of science are not confined to scientifically literate people.
Those who know little or nothing about science are capable of describing, explaining,
predicting, and controlling the world around them. Scientific knowledge, however,
provides people with conceptual and technological tools. People who use these tools can

engage in such activities with power and precision than would be possible otherwise. **

 

“Note: The functional and structural components of scientific understanding are also expressed in
terms of tasks and conceptions, respectively (C. Anderson, 1987). The meaning of tasks in research
on conceptual change in science dIffers from that used in research on classroom learning and
motivation. Tasks in conceptual change research in science indicate the functional criteria of
scientific understanding: description, explanation, prediction and control of the world around us.
Tasks in classroom research are class assignments or activities for which students are held
accountable (Blumenfeld, Mergendoller 8: Swarthout, 1987; Doyle, 1983). To reduce the confusion
in the present study, the term science tasks refers to the context of conceptual change research in
science. The terms classroom tasks and academic tasks refer to the context of research on classroom
learning and motivation.

24

How successful are students in achieving scientific understanding in science
classrooms? The answer is "not very successful." A significant portion of students’
Ieaming failure is attributed to commercial curriculum materials and traditional instruction
which generally do not promote scientific understanding for students (to be discussed in
Chapter 3, Background for This Study). Research on conceptual change in science reports
extensive data about students’ learning difficulties across content areas and across grade
levels.

Even before entering school, children generate their own common-sense theories to
describe, explain, predict, or control natural phenomena. Such understanding has been
established through interactions with their environment and has served them successfully
for everyday reasoning. When children enter school, they bring extensive, personal
knowledge about the world around them. In science classrooms, however, these naive
theories are often incompatible or in conflict with scientific knowledge and, thus, interfere
with students’ understanding. As a result, scientific understanding cannot be accomplished
through assimilative Ieaming. Instead, there need to be radical changes in existing
knowledge structure through conceptual change.

Research findings show that many students in science classrooms are not successful in
achieving scientific understanding. Even after considerable traditional instruction using
commercial textbooks, many students continue to cling to their original naive theories for
understanding and explaining natural phenomena. For example, after eight to ten weeks of
traditional instruction, including a series of experiments, fifth grade students Ieaming about
photosynthesis did not give up their misconceptions about food sources for plants in favor
of the scientific theory of photosynthesis (Roth, E. Smith 8: C. Anderson, 1983). Not
understanding the scientific concept that photosynthesis is the only food source for plants,
many students still explained that plants get food from multiple sources, such as soil, water,

air, fertilizer, etc. Recent research has examined students’ learning difficulties for a

25

number of important science concepts across subject areas and across grade levels: C.
Anderson and E. Smith (1983) on light and vision, Hesse and C. Anderson (1988) on
chemical change, Lee et al. (1989) on matter and molecules, Minstrell (1985) on
Newtonian laws of motion, and Nussbaum and Novak (1976) on concepts of the earth.

Students are extremely resistant to changing their misconceptions. Even in classrooms
where there is a strong emphasis on conceptual change, a substantial portion of students
still maintained their misconceptions after instruction. For instance, Lee et al. (1989) found
that only about 50% of sixth-grade students demonstrated adequate understanding of
kinetic molecular theory after instruction, despite extensive support from curriculum
materials and instructional strategies which incorporated extensive knowledge about
students’ misconceptions. However, this result showed a significant improvement over the
26% of students who developed scientific understanding after instruction using a
commercial textbook.

Students’ misconceptions do not disappear over the years. Studies show that a
significant portion of adults (e.g., college students or elementary teachers) hold the same
misconceptions as younger students. It seems that they have successfully completed
science course requirements without really understanding basic scientific concepts.
Researchers have investigated a variety of science topics involving college students, such
as the particulate nature of matter (Gabel, Samuel 8: Hunn, 1987); sinking and floating of
objects in water (Stepans, Beiswenger, 8: Dyche, 1986); principles of Newtonian
mechanics (Champagne, Klopfer 8: Anderson, 1980); ecological matter cycling (E. Smith 8:
C. Anderson, 1986); and evolution by natural selection (Bishop 8: C. Anderson,
forthcoming). Others have conducted studies involving non-science major elementary
teachers with such t0pics as light and shadows (D. Smith, 1987; D. Smith 8: Neale, 1987)
and color (Appleman, 1984).

Research also suggests that students have difficulties describing, explaining and

predicting natural phenomena. Even students who appear to understand scientific

26

concepts rely on their misconceptions when they attempt to explain real-world
phenomena. These students seem to separate ”the ’life world’ from the ’science world,’
each relevant to its own range of contexts" (Driver, 1987, p. 2). For example, Roth (1985)
reports how students used different sources of knowledge in explaining real-world
problems as Opposed to answering questions in textbooks. In the‘study, students read a
passage about photosynthesis, answered textbook questions and provided their reasoning,
and then explained how a real plant in front of them gets food. The results show that many
students had great difficulties explaining this real-world event. Some students used their
misconceptions to answer both real-world and text-based questions. Others included ”big”
words or facts to answer text-based questions, but relied on their misconceptions to answer
real-world questions. Even students who appeared to comprehend the reading passage
and gave adequate answers to text-based questions still fell back on their misconceptions
to answer real-world questions. Only those who successfully integrated scientific
knowledge with personal knowledge gave correct answers for both text-based and real-
world questions.

In sum, the literature defines scientific understanding in terms of structural and
functional criteria: (a) integration of personal knowledge with scientific knowledge
through conceptual change and (b) use of scientific knowledge to understand and explain
the world around us. In science classrooms, however, students often fail to achieve
scientific understanding. Their learning difficulties seem to be caused primarily by their
prior knowledge which often conflicts with scientific knowledge. Students’
misconceptions are extremely resistant to change, remaining in place even after instruction
or over the years into adulthood.

MtivtintLrn ien: rtinlizin

Once conceptualization of the term student motivation to learn science is completed,

we turn to Operationalization. The first part of this discussion advances the quality of

students’ task engagement, especially Eognitive engagement, as a measure of classroom

motiv
ClaSSr
of tas

mg

mucl
tend
alloc

attiIL

appr

of st
COII
disti

PM

3‘8
Col
invI
ind
lasl
Pic
lrai
ch;
SIuI

an;

27

motivation. In the second part, difficulties in the measurement of cognitive engagement in
classroom settings are considered. The final portion of this section examines, high quality
of task engagement as evidence of student motivation to learn science.

Different ways of measuring motivation are used in various settings. For instance,
much of motivation research has taken place in free choice or play settings, and measures
tend to be based on the choice of certain activities among a range of alternatives or the
allocation of time to different activities. Self-report measures of affective variables, such as
attitudes or intrinsic motivation, are also used. These measures, however, are not
appropriate in classroom settings where students are required to attend to lessons and work
on assignments without much free choice.

The quality of students’ task engagement has been suggested as a more valid measure
of student motivation in classroom settings (Brophy, 1983; Brophy, Rohrkemper, Rashid 8:
Goldberger, 1983). Operationalizing the quality of task engagement has taken two
distinctive approad'les: observable, behavioral responses versus covert, cognitive
processes. Each approach presents relative strengths and weaknesses.

Sorne research used observations of students’ behavioral responses during task
engagement as measures of classroom motivation (e.g., Brophy, Rohrkemper, Rashid 8:
Goldberg, 1983; Carr 8: Evans, 1981; Tobin, 1986). The most commme used measure
involved observations of apparent attention or time-on-task during class. Behavioral
indicators included gaze, involvement in class activities, and apparent interactions with
task materials, the teacher, peers, playthings or other non-task stimuli. Common
procedures for collecting data involved time-sampling techniques, whereby, for example,
trained observers attended to one student for a designated time period, recording
characteristics of behaviors of interest on coding systems, and then moved to another
student in a systematic manner. After data collection, statistical techniques were used to

analyze the data.

28

This approach can be defended on several grounds. Methodologically, such measures
are more reliable. It is easier to collect data from a large number of students within time
constraints with behavioral techniques than it is with sustained individualized observations
(usually in detailed narratives) or interviews (in verbal protocols). Also, data analysis is
generally more straightforward than individualized observations or interviews.
Theoretically, general observational measures of students’ task engagement seem to be
significantly related to measures of achievement and also to more precise measures of
student engagement (reviewed by Borg, 1980).

However, many researchers question the validity of behavioral measures. The major
criticism is that although behavioral observations may be a useful proxy, they are only a
gross, crude measure of students’ task engagement. Instead, students’ cognitive processes
are proposed as more valid and more precise measures of classroom learning or
motivation. Researchers argue that although behaviorally some students may appear to be
engaged in a task, cognitively they may not be engaged. Further, only the quality of
cognitive processes can distinguish students who are engaged in classroom tasks from
those who are not (L. Anderson, 1981; L. Anderson, Brubaker, AIIeman-Brooks, 8: Duffy,
1985; Blumenfeld 8: Meece, 1988; Corno 8: Mandinach, 1983; Doyle, 1979, 1983;
Peterson 8: Swing, 1982; Peterson, Swing, Braverman, 8: Buss, 1982; Peterson, Swing, Stark
8: Waas, 1984; Rohrkemper 8: Bershon, 1984; Tobin, 1986; Winne 8: Marx, 1982;
Wittrock, 1987).

Research shows that students’ observed behaviors often are not valid indicators of
their task engagement. In a series of studies conducted in fifth and sixth grade mathematics
classrooms, Peterson and her colleagues (Peterson 8: Swing, 1982; Peterson, Swing,
Braverman, 8: Buss, 1982; Peterson, Swing, Stark, 8: Waas, 1984) found that students’
reports of their attention and cognitive processes were better predictors of classroom
Ieaming and motivation than observations of student behavior. Further, observed student

engagement was sometimes not significantly related to Ieaming and motivation. Thus,

29

Peterson and Swing (1982) state: “Interviewing students about their thought processes can
provide rich information beyond what can be obtained by merely observing their behavior
in the classroom" (p. 489).

Specifically addressing the topic of classroom motivation, Brophy (1987) states:
”Measures of student motivation to Ieam must reflect the quality of student engagement in
academic activities" (p. 183, original emphasis). ”Especially, it is the quality of students’
cognitive engagement in the activity—the degree to which they approach the activity
purposefully and respond to it thoughtfully” (Brophy 8: Merrick, 1987, p. 11, original
emphasis). Further, as goals and strategies are inseparable in academic tasks, the quality of
students’ cognitive engagement also indicate learning strategies during task engagement
(Brophy 8: Merrick, 1987).

iffi l i in M r f ni iv En

Although many advocate using the quality of students’ cognitive engagement as a
more valid measure of classroom motivation than indicators of behavioral engagement,
there seem to be several potential difficulties involved in collecting and interpreting data
about cognitive engagement in classroom settings.

One major problem is the effect of the constraints inherent in classroom settings on
collecting data in a systematic way,(L. Anderson et al., 1985). For instance, to probe
students’ cognitive processes, it is desirable for the observer to interact with individual
students while they engage in academic tasks. However, finding time to talk to students
during class is not always convenient, and is especially problematic in classrooms where
the primary mode of instruction involves whole class activities (Tobin, 1986). On the other
hand, students’ cognitive processes during class discourse or content-related conversations
with the teacher or peers can count as evidence. Yet, such events occur with low
frequency, and the nature of the data is generally not extensive. Also, if student responses
on activity books or seatwork assignments are to be used as data sources, close inspections

are required to ascertain that the written materials reflect the cognitive processes of the

30
target students, not somebody else’s.

Another major difficulty concerns the validity of data. To collect more substantial, in-
depth evidence of students’ cognitive engagement, methods of stimulated-recall or self-
reports on questionnaires have been used. Since these methods are usually administered
after class sessions, they do not measure what students do cognitively while actually
engaged in classroom tasks (Winne 8: Marx, 1982). As a result, students’ self-reports may
not validly reflect the events that are being probed (Ericsson 8: Simon, 1984; Nisbett 8:
Wilson, 1977). For instance, some students, due to memory constraints, might not
remember accurately what they thought or felt during class. Others, due to social
desirability response tendencies, might construct what they might have been doing or
would do if given another chance, rather than report what they actually did. The former
problem is more serious with cognition, and the latter, with affect.

Finally, in contrast to the unobtrusive nature of observational data collection during
which the target students are not likely to be aware of when and how their apparent
behaviors are being observed, data collection for cognitive engagement sometimes makes
students be aware that they are the targets of observation. This occurs either in an implicit
manner (e.g., when the observer interacts with target students individually or in small-
groups during class) or in an explicit manner (e.g., when the observer interviews students
after class). The students’ awareness may also have instructional or intervention effects
which lead them to be more conscious of their cognitive and affective processes during
task engagement than they would otherwise be (L. Anderson, 1981).

Thus, although the quality of students’ cognitive engagement seems to be a more valid
measure of classroom motivation than other available measures, there seem to be
difficulties in the measurement of cognitive engagement in classroom settings. The
discussion suggests that with emphasis on measures of cognitive engagement, measures of
behavioral engagement could also be included. For instance, the combination of cognitive

and behavioral engagement could represent four different types of task engagement: (a)

31
both cognitively and behaviorally engaged; (b) cognitively engaged, but behaviorally not

engaged (although unlikely); (c) cognitively not engaged, although behaviorally engaged;
and (4) neither cognitively nor behaviorally engaged. As data from different measures
produce more converging evidence, our understanding of student motivation in science
classrooms becomes richer and more accurate.

r M iv i n i

The measures of classroom motivation in this study concern the quality of students’
task engagement, especially cognitive engagement, as indicators of their choice of goals
and strategies during specific task engagement. What counts as evidence that students are
motivated to learn science? The structural and functional criteria of scientific
understanding provide one way to operationalize student motivation to learn science.
Students who are motivated to Ieam science expend high quality of task engagement as
they activate strategies that allow them to achieve the goal of scientific understanding.
First, they try to integrate personal knowledge with scientific knowledge through
conceptual change. They become aware of their personal knowledge and often its
incorrectness, recognize conceptual conflicts between personal and scientific knowledge,
and try to modify or restructure incorrect personal knowledge into more scientific
knowledge. Second, they apply scientific knowledge to describe, explain, predict, and
control the world around them. Of course, the students are behaviorally engaged as they
pay attention in class and actively involve in class activities.

In contrast, students who are not motivated to learn science expend low quality of task
engagement in science classrooms. They engage in classroom tasks with alternative goals,
such as memorizing vocabulary words or facts, merely completing classroom work, or
even trying to avoid the work. To accomplish these goals, they choose strategies that
minimize the risk of failure and expenditure of effort, such as mindlessly answering
questions, copying others’ answers, not realizing their misconceptions, rote memorizing of

facts, maintaining their misconceptions separately from scientific knowledge, or distorting

32

scientific knowledge to fit to their misconceptions. Further, some of these students may not
even be attentive in class or involved in class activities.

One study examining different types of Ieaming strategies and goals during science
reading (C. Anderson 8: Roth, in press; Roth, 1985) suggests distinctions between high
quality and low quality of cognitive engagement. While reading science textbooks, some
students used strategies that represented high quality engagement, i.e., integration of
personal knowledge with disciplinary knowledge and use of disciplinary knowledge to
explain real-world problems, while others demonstrated low quality of cognitive
engagement. Only those students who demonstrated high quality engagement seemed to
have the goal of scientific understanding, while others revealed alternative reading goals.

There is an important distinction here between learning and performance. The
measures of students’ task engagement involve the process of Ieaming during task
engagement, not later performance (Brophy, 1987, Stipek, 1988, p. 13). Students who are
motivated to learn science are likely to succeed in actually achieving scientific
understanding. However, despite the activation of necessary strategies and sustained effort
to achieve scientific understanding, they do not necessarily succeed in the achievement.
For instance, some students may not be able to resolve their conceptual conflicts, and
others who understand component scientific ideas may not be able to put them together to
make adequate, scientific explanations, especially for complicated classroom tasks.

In sum, classroom motivation can be measured by the quality of students’ task
engagement, especially cognitive engagement, indicating their choice of goals and
strategies during task engagement. Students who are motivated to learn science expend
high quality of task engagement, as they engage in classroom tasks with the goal of
achieving scientific understanding and activate associated strategies to: (a) integrate their
personal knowledge with scientific knowledge and (b) apply scientific knowledge to

describe, explain, predict and control the world around them.

33

m ' M iv i rn i

The first part of this chapter focused on the conceptualization and Operationalization _
of student motivation to learn science. The first section discussed the conceptualization of
student mootivation to Ieam in classroom settings, in terms of students’ goals and strategies
during academic task engagement (Brophy, 1983, 1987). The second section discussed the
conceptualization of “learning science”, in terms of the structural and functional criteria of
scientific understanding (C. Anderson, 1987; C. Anderson 8: Roth, in press). The last
section discussed the operational ization of student motivation to Ieam science in

classrooms, in terms of the quality of task engagement, especially cognitive engagement.

Part II: Factors Related to Patterns of Task Engagement

What key factors are related to students’ choice of certain goals and strategies during
task engagement in science classrooms? What are the key differences between students
who are motivated to learn science and those who are not? Under what conditions do
students expend high quality of effort to achieve scientific understanding during task
engagement? What key barriers need to be overcome for students to be motivated to learn
science?

Research on classroom learning and motivation suggests that student motivation is a
complex phenomenon related to various aspects of classroom settings, including
curriculum materials, teaching strategies or teachers, and student characteristics
(Blumenfeld 8: Meece, 1988; Blumenfeld, Mergendoller, 8: Swarthout, 1987; Corno 8:
Mandinach, 1983; Doyle, 1983). When curriculum materials and instruction provide
extensive support for students to achieve scientific understanding (as in the present study,
which will be discussed in Chapter 3, Background for This Study), do students become
motivated to learn science while engaging in classroom tasks? If not, problems reside
significantly in motivational variables of student characteristics.

Research on student motivation in classroom settings suggest four factors (i.e.,

hypotheses) related to students’ task engagement. These factors represent cognitive as well

34
as affective aspects of student characteristics, ranging from task-specific to more general

situations in science classrooms. Research on conceptual change in science, however,
also provides implicit or explicit explanations for each of the four factors. In other words,
motivation research explains these factors in terms of motivational variables of students,
while conceptual change research explains the factors in terms of variables related to
students’ content knowledge.

In this second part of the literature review, the discussion focuses on how motivation
research and conceptual change research, respectively, explain the relationship between
each of the four factors and students’ task engagement. Of particular interest is whether
each of these factors differentiates students who are motivated to Ieam science from those
who are not during task engagement.

d’Inrtianrfi lrmT

There has been a growing interest in how the way students interpret the nature of
classroom tasks is related to their task engagement. To achieve understanding during task
engagement, students must understand what the classroom tasks are intended to teach.
Further, they need to monitor their learning processes, especially when they have Ieaming
difficulties. According to theory, those students who expend high quality engagement can
accurately understand the nature of classroom tasks.

Research suggests that students’ interpretations of classroom tasks depend as much on
the nature of the tasks, the quality of instruction, and the social contexts of their classrooms
as on the students’ own characteristics. Thus, students’ misinterpretations of the nature of
classroom tasks could be attributed to many factors. With regard to the nature of
classroom tasks, for instance, some tasks might not involve the goal of understanding in the
first place. Other tasks might not clearly communicate to students the curricular goals.
(These two possibilities Often exist in traditional curriculum materials.) Or, students’ prior
knowledge, especially misconceptions, might pose difficulty for students.

The present study examines how students’ interpretations of the nature of academic

35

tasks are related to their choice of goals and strategies during task engagement, given the
situation where curriculum materials and instruction emphasize the goal of understanding
and clearly communicate the content objectives. The study examines two major aspects of
academic tasks, from among the several identified in classroom research (e.g., Blumenfeld,
Mergendoller 8: Swarthout, 1987; Doyle, 1983): the content objectives and difficulty of
classroom tasks as perceived by students. The discussion focuses on issues of students’
task interpretations from two research traditions: (a) research on classroom Ieaming and
motivation; and (b) research on conceptual change in science.

Research m glassrmm Learning and ngivatim

Research on classroom learning and motivation focuses on student characteristics and
social contexts of classrooms related to students’ task interpretations. However, this
research approach has ignored issues of content knowledge, including the nature of
classroom tasks, quality of instruction, and students’ prior knowledge in a content area.

W. Most research focused on the differences between high and
low achievers. Peterson, Swing, Stark, and Waas (1984) found significant differences in
their study of elementary mathematics classrooms. Students who mentioned a key concept
either spontaneously or after being prompted by the interviewer during stimulated-recall
tended to do better on their seatwork problems and achievement tests. In addition, high
achievers tended to report the names of key concepts or describe concepts that were
central in the lesson.

Other studies found no differences between high and low achievers. L. Anderson et
al. (1985) found that during seatwork assignments in first-grade classrooms, adequate
responders as well as poor responders rarely demonstrated evidence of understanding the
content-related purposes of assignments. No student consistently explained assignments in
terms of the specific content. Instead, even adequate responders explained them in vague
terms, such as “it’s just our work" or “we Ieam to read” (p. 133). They also reported that in

those few instances in which students identified the specific content of assignments, poor

36

responders and adequate responders were equally represented. In contrast, Blumenfeld
and Meece (1988) found that although students in elementary science classrooms were
mainly concerned with products and procedures, rather than content per se, most students
had some understanding of the content of the lesson when they were specifically asked.

2: Pegeiveg task difficulty. Another aspect of students’ interpretations of classroom
tasks is task difficulty. The nature of task difficulty can be understood either as difficulty
inherent in itself or as difficulty experienced by individual students. Task difficulty has
been described through objective criteria (e.g., Bloom’s taxonomy, Gagne’s learning
hierarchy, or Doyle’s types of academic tasks). Some classroom research has also used
such objective criteria (Blumenfeld 8: Meece, 1988; Meece 8: Blumenfeld, 1987).
However, Nickerson states: ”What appear to be simple to one student may appear to be
quite difficult to another student" (p. 231). Research findings show that subjective task
difficulty as experienced by students seems to be just as important as, or even more
important than, objective task difficulty (L. Anderson et al., 1985; Peterson 8: Swing, 1982;
Peterson, Swing, Stark, 8: Waas, 1984; Rohrkemper 8: Bershon, 1984).

Classroom research examined the nature of classroom tasks and its influence on
students’ task engagement. Some classroom tasks, especially those involving
understanding and higher-level cognitive processes, were difficult for students to
accomplish. When faced with difficult tasks, students tended to be easily discouraged or
confused. Concerned with the ambiguity and high risk of failure involved in such tasks,
students tried to minimize cognitive demands of the tasks or avoid them completely.
Further, due to the accountability system and management concerns in classroom settings,
both the students and the teacher often agree to reduce the demands of classroom tasks.
As a result, tasks that initially required understanding or higher level cognitive processes
were transformed into those that produce trivial learning (Blumenfeld, Mergendoller, 8:
Swarthout, 1987; Doyle, 1979, 1983, 1986; Mergendoller, Marchman, Mitman, 8: Packer,
1988; Posner, 1982; Sanford, I987; Stake 8: Easley, 1978; Tobin 8: Gallagher, 1987).

37
Some studies examined the differences between high and low achievers with regard to

their perceived difficulty of academic tasks. Peterson and Swing (1982) found that in
elementary mathematics classrooms, low achievers often could not articulate what and
why they had trouble understanding the content being taught. In contrast, students who
were able to analyze why they did not understand a problem or a part of the lesson tended
to be high achievers (Peterson et al., 1984). In a study about elementary students’
perceived difficulty of mathematics problems, Rohrkemper and Bershon (1984) also found
that high-achieving students were better able to articulate when they did not understand
something. However, research findings by L. Anderson et al. (1985) were inconsistent with
these findings. Their research found that although lower achievers in first-grade seatwork
activities more often experienced the assigned work difficult than higher achievers who
could easily complete the work, the lower achievers often seemed to be aware that
something was difficult or did not make sense to them.

Other studies examined the nature of task difficulty reported by students. Rohrkemper
and Bershon (1984) found that most students in elementary mathematics classrooms,
regardless of their achievement differences, described problem difficulty in primarily
algorithmic as opposed to conceptual terms. Tobin and Gallagher (1987) found that high
school science students faced with difficult tasks tried to reduce the cognitive demands of
those tasks into algorithms and procedures. Blumenfeld and Meece (1988) also found that
students in elementary science classrooms perceived difficulty of academic tasks in terms
of length and amount of work or ease of procedures, rather than ideas or concepts taught
in class.

Studies also examined learning strategies students use in the face of difficult tasks. L.
Anderson et al. (1985) found that the tendency for lower achievers to put an answer down
on seatwork assignments, but not necessarily to understand the content, occurred more
often with assignments they found difficult. Blumenfeld and Meece (1988) also found that

elementary science students used help-seeking and avoidance strategies more often with

38
high-difficulty tasks. Further, some students lacked either the desire or the skills to identify

their learning deficiencies and sought no help from external resources, reflecting an
attitude of passivity or indifference to learning (L. Anderson et al., 1985; Rohrkemper 8:
Bershon, 1984).

Dweck and her colleagues (Diener 8: Dweck, 1978; Dweck, 1986; Dweck 8: Elliott,
1983; Elliott 8: Dweck, 1988) distinguished the helpless motivational pattern from the
mastery-oriented pattern in achievement situations. In the face of difficulty, helpless-
oriented students avoided challenge and lacked persistence, whereas mastery-oriented
students sought challenge and demonstrated high, effective persistence. They suggest that
these two groups of students pursued different goals in achievement situations, with
helpless students seeking to gain favorable judgments of their competence or avoid
negative judgments, and mastery students seeking to expand or develop their competence.
WWW

Research on conceptual change in science has focused on how students’ prior
knowledge in a content area relates to their interpretations of classroom tasks. This
research approach also stresses features of curriculum materials and quality of instruction.
However, it has been silent on motivational variables of students and social contexts of
classrooms.

1W. Conceptual change research suggests that to achieve scientific
understanding, students should recognize the content objectives of classroom tasks while
engaging in those tasks. Then, students are likely to bring to bear their prior knowledge
relevant to the content being taught in science classrooms. As discussed earlier, Ieaming
occurs when students connect the content being taught to their prior knowledge. Thus,
correctly understanding the content objectives of the given instruction seems to be a
precondition for conceptual change to occur (and effective curriculum materials and
quality instruction greatly help students).

In contrast, students who are not engaged in conceptual change learning fail to

39
understand the content objectives of the tasks. Roth (1985) found that some students who

were reading commercial textbooks completely failed to understand the content objective
of the reading passage. For example, a student read a passage that explained milk as an
example of how all foods can ultimately be traced back to green plants, the food
producers. The student stated that “most of this stuff I already know” and ”it was about
milk” (p. 15). When probed, this student still responded that “It’s just about milk how
we get our milk from cows" (p. 15). This student never recognized that the content
objective in the reading passage was that plants make their own food.

2, ngwg task difficulty. Perceived difficulty of classroom tasks involves students’
beliefs in their personal knowledge as opposed to formal, scientific knowledge.
Conceptual change research shows that the process of conceptual change learning is
difficult and confusing (C. Anderson 8: Roth, in press; Nussbaum 8: Novick, 1982; Posner
et al., 1982). As students have long been committed to common-sense theories that have
served them successfully, it is difficult to modify or restructure their personal knowledge
into scientific knowledge, especially since the two sources of knowledge are often in
conflict. As a result, conceptual change runs the risk of inherently being difficult for
students. Roth (1985) found that students who read textbooks on photosynthesis with the
goal of achieving conceptual change sense-making expressed confusion and frustration,
although they eventually understood scientific conceptions.

On the other hand, these same tasks were perceived as simple and easy by students
who did not undergo conceptual change Ieaming (C. Anderson 8: Roth, in press; Roth,
1985). Some did not even recognize their misconceptions or conceptual conflict. Others
felt that the scientific knowledge being taught was consistent with their prior knowledge,
although incorrect, and that they already knew the content. When these students reported
confusion or difficulty, it was attributed to unfamiliar vocabulary words or too much
factual information to memorize. Further, these students erroneously felt they understood

the content after reading textbooks. Some even wondered why textbooks repeated the

40

same concepts several times, the ones they already knew! For these students, science tasks
which are potentially difficult appear to be simple and easy. They are satisfied with half-
truths because they do not recognize they are wrong.

In sum, students’ interpretations of the nature of classroom tasks seem to be related to
their goals and strategies during specific task engagement, differentiating students who are
motivated to learn science from those who are not. Students who are motivated to Ieam
science accurately interpret the nature of classroom tasks. They understand the content
objectives and recognize when they have Ieaming difficulties. In contrast, students who
are not motivated to Ieam science misinterpret the nature of classroom tasks. Further,
even when some students accurately interpret the nature of the classroom tasks, they settle
for less desirable goals and easier strategies.

Studggts’ Sugggs g Failure to Make Progress in Scientific Undefitanging

Literature on student motivation suggests that students’ success or failure to make
progress in scientific understanding seems to be related to their choice of goals and
strategies during task engagement. Brophy (1986) suggests that to stimulate student
motivation to Ieam, teachers should ”stress the quality of students’ task engagement and
the degree to which they are making continuous progress" (p. 22).

Students’ failure to make progress can be attributed to many factors. Perhaps the
curriculum materials and instruction do not provide enough support for students (as is often
the case with traditional curriculum materials and instruction techniques). Some students
expend sustained effort only to fail, because the curriculum materials and instruction are
too difficult for them (i.e., conceptual change research). Others do not expend effort
because they have low expectancy of success in achieving scientific understanding (i.e.,
motivation research).

This research question examines how students’ success or failure to make progress in
scientific understanding is related to their choice of goals and strategies during task

engagement. Do students who are motivated to learn science show a different pattern of

41

progress from those who are not motivated to learn science? The discussion examines
students’ progress in scientific understanding from the perspective of both the conceptual
change research in science tradition and that of the motivation research. traditon

i ifi n n in

The current view of students’ learning in science is that ”students’ scientific knowledge
consists of many different conceptions that are integrated in a complex conceptual
ecology”, rather than a collection of isolated facts and skills (C. Anderson, 1987, p.18). To
master a body of scientific knowledge, students must increase and expand scientific
understanding over task situations, as they successfully integrate personal knowledge with
scientific knowledge and use scientific knowledge to understand and explain the world
around them in diverse task contexts.

Research on conceptual change in science shows that students often fail to achieve
scientific understanding while engaging in science tasks. They have difficulty modifying
their misconceptions into more scientific knowledge and applying scientific knowledge to
understand and explain natural phenomena. Even students who understand scientific
conceptions have difficulty putting them together in a logical and coherent manner to
make adequate scientific explanations.

Further, students are not good at generalizing what they have Ieamed in one task
context to other contexts. Instead, they acquire scientific conceptions in specific task
contexts (C. Anderson, 1987; Brophy, 1986, p. 22; Nickerson, 1985, p. 217; Posner et al.,
1982). For instance, the scientific conception of thermal expansion is that substances
expand when they are heated. As opposed to this scientific conception, a student might
think that when an iron bar is heated (i.e., thermal expansion of solids), it would “shrink"
or ‘shrivel up." Then, this student might think that a balloon on top of a cold bottle inflates
when the bottle is warmed (i.e., thermal expansion of gases) because “hot air rises."
Further, this same student might think that when the bottom of a thermometer is warmed

(i.e., thermal expansion of liquids), the colored liquid inside “gets out of the bulb and

42
moves up” because “the heat (pressure) pushes it up” (Eichinger 8: Lee, 1988; Lee et al.,

1989). Thus, students need to experience the scientific conception of thermal expansion in
different task contexts.

If knowledge is situated, can students ever develop general understanding, or are they
limited to the mastery of specific tasks? After all, it is clear that students can develop
understanding of broadly generalizable scientific conceptions or theories. How is this
accomplished? In a specific task situation, learning occurs when students relate a scientific
idea to one in their complex cognitive structure and use that idea in diverse task contexts.
As students make consistent progress over task situations, they gradually construct an
integrated body of scientific knowledge until they reach general understanding of a theory.
For instance, students gradually understand the scientific conception for thermal expansion
as they modify their misconceptions into scientific conceptions across different contexts
including gases, liquids, and solids. They apply their scientific knowledge to other, even
unfamiliar contexts, such as ”Why do bridges and railroad tracks have expansion joints?"
Eventually, they understand thermal expansion as an aspect of kinetic molecular theory.

The discussion sounds as if the growth of scientific understanding is a steady
progression; one idea after another is connected into other ideas, or an incorrect idea is
simply exchanged for a scientific idea. Research on conceptual change, however,
indicates that developing a general understanding involves ”much fumbling about, many
false starts and mistakes, and frequent reversals of direction" (Posner et al., 1982, p. 223).
Further, as students become confused between their personal knowledge and scientific
knowledge, they develop new misconceptions over a course of instruction. For instance,
Lee et al. (1989) found that as students learned molecular explanations of thermal
expansion, some developed new misconceptions, such as when a substance is heated, its
molecules got bigger. Some of them further reasoned that since molecules expand, there
must be less space between molecules!

Thus, research suggests that students are often confused and frustrated as they try to

43
achieve scientific understanding (C. Anderson 8: Roth, in press; Nussbaum 8: Novick,

1982; Posner et al., 1982; Roth, 1985). Although strenuous and demanding, success in
achieving scientific understanding is a rewarding process which allows students to develop
a deeper and richer understanding of scientific knowledge (C. Anderson 8: Roth, in press;
Posner et al., 1982; Strike 8: Posner, 1985). As students make progress in scientific
understanding over task situations, they come to realize how seemingly separate ideas fit
together to form a scientific conception and, further, how scientific conceptions fit together
to form a general theory. Also, as students become better at using their increasing
scientific knowledge to explain a wider range of natural phenomena, they come to realize
the power and precision of more broadly generalizable understanding.

In short, as knowledge is situated, students develop general understanding of a
scientific concept or theory only gradually as they: (a) progressively integrate a new
scientific idea or conception into their complex cognitive structure and (b) become more

proficient at using scientific knowledge to describe, explain, predict and control the world

around them.
WW

Research on conceptual change suggests that success or failure to make progress in
scientific understanding is related to the quality of students’ task engagement. As discussed
earlier, Ieaming depends on prior knowledge. The role of prior knowledge is even more
significant in a specific content domain in which knowledge within that domain is
structured and integrated as conceptual networks. Thus, students’ prior knowledge that has
been constructed from preceding task situations can influence their engagement in
subsequent task situations.

Students who have made continuous progress in scientific understanding over
previous task situations have acquired the scientific knowledge necessary for subsequent
task situations and, thus, are likely to expend high quality of effort in order to achieve

scientific understanding. These students might be more willing to expend effort as they

44
gain a deeper and richer scientific understanding. In contrast, students who have failed to

make progress do not possess the scientific knowledge necessary for subsequent task
situations, rendering it difficult for them to expend high quality of effort.
R r h M iv ° n

Research on student motivation suggests that students’ progress is related to their
expectancy of success in achieving understanding. According to achievement motivation
theory (Dweck 8: Elliot, 1983; Feather, 1982; McClelland, 1985), when students
experience success in scientific understanding, they expect to succeed in future task
situations. The high expectancy of success in scientific understanding encourages students
to maintain or even increase their high quality of cognitive engagement in subsequent task
situations. In contrast, students’ failure to make progress diminishes their expectancy of
success in achieving scientific understanding. This is especially the case in classroom
situations in which the curriculum materials and instruction emphasize scientific
understanding and provide extensive support for students to achieve scientific
understanding, rather than focusing on trivial learning such as vocabulary words, technical
details, or factual knowledge (like in the present study).

In sum, students’ success or failure to make progress in scientific understanding seems
to be related to their motivation in science classrooms. Those who have made progress in
scientific understanding are likely to maintain or even increase a high quality of cognitive
engagement in subsequent task situations, because they have developed better content
knowledge and/or higher expectations of success in achieving scientific understanding. In
contrast, students who have failed to make progress exhibit low quality of cognitive
engagement as instruction continues.

’ lalrinttinin inelas

Motivation research indicates that students’ behavior in achievement situations is

driven by a complex interplay of goals, and they behave in ways to achieve their goals.

Research has also increasin l reco nized the relation between students’ oals and their
8 Y 8 8

45
task engagement in classroom settings (Ames 8: Archer, 1987; Blumenfeld 8: Meece, 1988;

Dweck, 1986; Dweck 8: Elliot, 1983; Eccles, 1983; Elliot 8: Dweck, 1988; Maehr, 1984;
Meece 8: Blumenfeld, 1987; Pervin, 1982; Wenzel, 1987).

Student goals can be identified in terms of general orientations as well as situation-
specific states (Brophy, 1987; Dweck, 1985; Pervin, 1982). Such goals vary to a certain
extent from situation to situation, depending on changes in circumstances, and a situation-
specific state is important to understand behavior in that particular situation. In addition,
general goal orientations are also an important factor for understanding consistency and
stability of behavior across diverse situations and over a period of time (Pervin, 1982;
Vallacher 8: Wegner, 1987; Wegner 8: Vallacher, 1986). While previous discussion on
student motivation to Ieam science emphasized students’ situation-specific goals during
task engagement, the focus here is on students’ general goal orientations in science class.

Why do students not perceive understanding as a major goal in science class?
Perhaps some students do not have a sense of what understanding involves (i.e.,
conceptual change research). Others who recognize understanding might place low value
in the goal of scientific understanding, being more concerned about other competing goals
(i.e., motivation research).

The research question examines how students’ goal orientations in science class are
related to the quality of task engagement. Do students who are motivated to Ieam science
display general goal orientations different from those who are not motivated? The central
interest is students’ perceptions of the goal of scientific understanding. Can students who
recognize understanding as a major goal in science class actually be motivated to learn
science during specific task engagement? The discussion investigates students’ goal
orientations in science class from both the conceptual change and the motivation research

traditions.

46

R h M iv i n
W. Research on motivation has identified several different types of

student goals in achievement situations. Dweck and her colleagues (Dweck, 1985, 1986;
Dweck 8: Elliot, 1983; Elliot 8: Dweck, 1988) identified two general classes of achievement
goals: (a) learning goals, in which students strive to acquire a new skill or master a novel
task; and (b) performance goals, in which students seek to obtain positive judgments of
their ability or avoid negative ones from others. Maehr (1984) suggested four general
categories of student goals: (a) task goals, in which students are totally engaged in tasks;
(b) ego goals, in which students compete against peers or socially defined standards, (c)
social solidarity goals, in which students try to please significant others; and (d) extrinsic
rewards, in which students try to obtain tangible rewards. Nicholls, Patashnick, and Nolen
(1985) and Blumenfeld and Meece (1988) proposed three categories of student goals: (a)
task orientation, (b) ego and social orientation, and (c) avoidance of work.

The general types of student goals identified in motivation research seem to represent
five major aspects of classroom or school settings: (a) mastery of content or skills in
academic tasks, (b) expectations of significant others (e.g., parents or teachers), (c)
performance in class (e.g., getting good grades or excelling peers), (d) extrinsic rewards,
and (e) avoidance of academic work.

W. Although comprehensive and parsimonious, these broad categories
of student goals seem to have some problems as tools for adequately understanding student
goals in classrooms. First, research suggests that people possess multiple goals at different
levels of generality (Pervin, 1982; Vallacher 8: Wegner, 1987; Wegner 8: Vallacher, 1986).
For example, Wentzel (1987) found that students could identify a variety of goals, as many
as 12, in school settings. Also, broad categories of goals can not identify more specific
aspects of classroom learning. For example, Ieaming as a goal means different kinds of
Ieaming to different people, such as increasing vocabulary, memorizing facts,

understanding content, or applying knowledge to real-world problems.

47

Second, goals are not exclusive from each other; rather, they interact. In other words,
goals are not simply a collection of isolated phenomena, nor does only one goal exist in a
given situation. Instead, goals are hierarchically organized in a structure and function in
relation to one another and their subgoals. Pervin (1982) used the term goal structure to
describe how multiple goals are organized and interact with one another. Structured in a
hierarchy, superordinate goals are generally more likely to be enacted into behavior across
situations or over time than subordinate goals (of course, they will be influenced by
situational factors in specific circumstances).

It is important to understand how student goals are organized into a hierarchical
structure, rather than a collection of individual goals. Understanding of students’ goal
structures in science class can allow us to better understand their achievement behavior
across specific situations or over time, in addition to expanding our understanding of their
task-specific goals in particular situations.

MW. Research indicates that students’ goals seem to be
influenced by external factors. Expectations of significant others, including parents,
teachers, and peers, seem to be among the most influential factors (Eccles, 1983; Maehr,
1984). According to the social Ieaming theory of motivation, students are in the process of
being socialized under the influence of these significant others. Thus, their achievement
behavior is influenced by their perceptions of the beliefs and expectations of parents and
teachers. Further, students’ goal orientations in scth learning also seem to be influenced
by their experiences in school environments which tend to emphasize evaluation of ability,
social comparison, and competition more than task engagement for content understanding
or skill mastery (Eccles, 1983; Eccles, Midgley, 8: Adler, 1984; Eccles 8: Wigfield, 1985;
Maehr, 1984; Stipek, 1984, 1988).

Thus, students encounter multiple goals from various sources, in addition to their
personal goals, in science class. External influences can interact with students’ personal

goals in different ways (Pervin, 1982). External influences and personal goals can be

48

compatible and, thus, achieved simultaneously. For example, students who stress
understanding as a major goal in science class realize that it can also serve to achieve
other goals. However, student goals from various sources can also be in conflict, forcing
students to select certain goals at the exclusion of other competing goals.

Problems in classroom Ieaming can occur when students are overly concerned with
external influences, which may not be compatible with the goal of scientific
understanding. Even students who personally perceive understanding as important in
science class may be concerned about external influences, such as getting good grades or
pleasing their parents or teachers, which often produce more concrete and immediate
results than the goal of understanding. Research suggests that many students are
concerned about extrinsic reasons rather than content understanding or skill mastery.
Further, this tendency to seek extrinsic reasons increases as students advance in grade.
MW

According to conceptual change research in science, a critical problem with the goal
of understanding in science class is the fact that many students do not have a conception of
the nature of science and science Ieaming. In other words, students do not have a sense of
what scientific understanding involves in terms of the structural and functional criteria.
Roth (1985) found that most elementary science students reading commercial textbooks
did not have a conception of scientific understanding. Despite failure to achieve scientific
understanding, the students felt successful and said they understood the texts they were
reading.

Conceptual change research suggests that it is important to understand not only the
types of goals students espouse but also how they define those goals. Some students
espouse goals without knowing how they can be achieved, rendering them ”empty goals”.
For example, one student might espouse a goal of understanding in science class without
knowing what scientific understanding involves. Another might espouse the goal of

becoming a scientist, a goal too distant from the action or too general to conceive. Thus, a

49

goal is substantive only when the student has realistic perceptions of what it involves and
how it can be achieved through specific strategies.

Thus, conceptual change research claims that if students have a conception of the
nature of science and science learning, and if they have a sense of what scientific
understanding involves, they would emphasize understanding as a major goal in science
class. While engaging in science tasks, they expend high quality of cognitive engagement
to achieve scientific understanding.

. In sum, research on student motivation suggests that students possess multiple goals in
academic learning situations in a hierarchical structure. Student goals are influenced by
external factors, including expectations of parents and teachers or student experiences in
school environments. Problems in classroom learning occur when students are overly
concerned with external influences, all of which may not be compatible with the goal of
scientific understanding. Conceptual change research, on the other hand, suggests that
students need to have a conception of scientific understanding in order to expend high
quality of cognitive engagement in science classrooms.

’ Aff iv ri ti T r 1

Extensive research efforts have been invested on affective aspects of students in
science, especially attitudes and interest, for two major reasons: (a) Students’ attitudes
toward and interest in science are related to science achievement; and (b) the development
of positive attitudes and high interest is a major goal of science education (Haladyna &
Shaughnessy, 1982; Laforgia, 1988).

This study examines how students’ affective orientations toward science are related to
their choice of goals and strategies during task engagement. Is there a systematic
relationship between students’ affective orientations and their task engagement? Do
students who are motivated to Ieam science show affective orientations different from

those who are not motivated? As with other sections of this paper, students’ affective

50

orientations toward science are discussed from two research perspectives: (a) motivation
research and (b) conceptual change research.
W

In the present study, attitudes and interest are used in combination to indicate affective
orientations, including liking, interest, curiosity, and enjoyment in science. Attitudes is the
term most widely accepted as denoting affects (Laforgia, 1988; Koballa, 1988), although
interesflcuriosity is preferred in some research (Yager 8: Penick, 1986; Yager 8: Yager,
1985). Others use interest/curiosity to indicate intrinsic motivation (Berlyne, 1966 in
Condry, 1987) or its component (Harter, 1980, 1981). Still others use the two terms as
equivalent (Oliver 8: Simpson, 1988; Simpson 8: Oliver, 1985; Wilson, 1983) or widely
different (Haladyna 8: Shaughnessy, 1982; Harty, Samuel 8: Beall, 1986). In a factor
analytic study, Harty, Samuel, and Beall (1 986) reported that ”attitudes toward science,
interest in science, and science curiosity are similar and might be a single construct" (p.
57).

Most previous research on students’ affective orientations toward science examines
the relationship between attitudes and achievement in science. Research suggests that
attitudes and achievement in science are significantly related when the subjects are
homogeneous within certain grade levels or the variables examined are specific (Welch,
Walberg 8: Fraser, 1986). Yet, research findings are inconclusive about the relationship
between attitudes and achievement in science (Gardner, 1975; Haladyna 8: Shaughnessy,
1982; Ormerod 8: Duckworth, 1975; Wilson, 1983).

Further, theoretical and empirical evidence suggests that the relationship between
students’ affective orientations and task engagement might not be systematic. An important
implication in the conceptualization of student motivation to Ieam (Brophy, 1983, 1987) is
its focus on cognitive aspects of motivation, not just its affective aspects. Brophy (1987)
states: ”whether or not they (students) find a particular task interesting or enjoyable,

students who are motivated to Ieam strive to understand content or master skills" (p. 182).

51

This suggests that motivation to Ieam is independent from attitudes or interest. For
example, students who like and enjoy science might not be motivated to learn science,
while others who do not like or enjoy science might actually be motivated to Ieam science.

In fact, this was supported by empirical evidence. In an experimental study in middle
school social studies classes, teachers received training on how to use various motivational
strategies to stimulate student motivation to Ieam (Brophy 8: Merrick, 1987). The results
suggest that after a period of instruction, students in the motivation (experimental) group
tended to report more cognitive dispositions indicative of student motivation to Ieam,
whereas students in the traditional teaching (control) group tended to report more affective
aspects of intrinsic motivation (e.g., liking, interest or enjoyment). Thus, Brophy and A
Merrick (1987) concluded that ”motivation to Ieam may be even more cognitive and less
affective than we have interpreted it to date, and even more different from (perhaps even
somewhat negatively correlated with) intrinsic motivation that we had anticipated" (p. 64).
W

The distinction between students’ affective orientations and task engagement seems to
be particularly relevant in science classrooms. As discussed earlier, scientific
understanding is demanding and confusing for many students. Faced with such difficulty,
mere liking or interest is not sufficient. To achieve scientific understanding, students need
to expend high quality of effort and remain persistent in task engagement, whether they
like science or not.

Further, students’ affective orientations toward science might not be related to the
nature of science Ieaming or enjoyment of scientific understanding. Instead, affective
orientations might depend on insignificant aspects of science Ieaming or science class
(e.g., fun experiments or interesting reading materials). Then, students’ affective
orientations are not related to their task engagement.

In sum, research on both student motivation and conceptual change in science

suggests that students’ affective orientations toward science might not be significantly

52

related to the quality of their task engagement. Whether students like science or not, those
who are motivated to Ieam science will expend effort to achieve scientific understanding.
Thus, students’ task engagement seems to be independent from their affective orientations
toward science.

mm ° F R l P n fT k

The second part of this chapter discussed four key factors related to the quality of

students’ task engagement from the perspectives of two research traditions. Those factors
represent cognitive as well as affective aspects of student characteristics, ranging from task-
Specific to more general situations in science classrooms. The purpose of this study was to
examine whether each of these factors is related to students’ task engagement. Of
particular interest was whether there is any systematic difference between students who are
motivated to learn science and those who are not. Eventually, the study would identify key
conditions under which students expend high quality of effort with the goal of achieving

scientific understanding during task engagement in science classrooms. .

Part III: Achievement after Unit Instruction and Changes in
Students’ Goal Orientations and Affective Orientations

The relationship between achievement and motivation or affect has always been an
important issue. Research efforts have focused not only on correlations but also on
potentially causal relationships. For example, does success or failure in achievement after
a period of instruction lead to any changes in motivation/affect, and vice versa? The
assumption is that if the two are causally related, changes in one also lead to changes in
the other, hopefully in a desired direction.

This study examines one such question: When students have achieved or failed to
achieve scientific understanding after a period of instruction, is there any change in their
cognitive aspects of motivation (i.e., general goal orientations) or affective orientations?
This question is addressed in particular to the nature of the research context, in that the

present study was conducted in classroom settings where there was strong support to

53
promote scientific understanding for students. Does such support for students’
achievement also enhance their motivation and affect after a period of instruction?

The discussion covers two tapic areas. The first presents some empirical evidence
suggesting a causal relationship between achievement and motivation/affect. The second
examines the relationship between achievement of scientific understanding and changes in
students’ goal orientations and affective orientations in terms of both student motivation
research and conceptual change in science research.

Ahi nMi inAff lRli hi

Research suggests that success or failure in achievement leads to changes in students’
motivation and attitudes, more so than the reversed direction. Steinkamp and Maeher
(1983) were concerned with the question of: ”whether one should stress the development
of proficiency in the hope that motivation will follow, or stress the development of positive
feelings in the hope that this will encourage the development of proficiency" (p. 369).
After reviewing correlational studies on achievement and attitudes in science, they
concluded that: .

It appears that as students acquire and demonstrate knowledge and proficiency

th are most likely to develop a positive attitude toward science one is

pgaps most likely to feel positively toward science as one actualizes one’s

ability throu h science achievement it is primarily the acquisition of

proficiencyt at leads to positive attitudes (p. 389).

A similar conclusion was also advanced by Wilson (1983) in a meta-analytic review of
achievement-attitude correlational studies in science. The findings suggested that
achievement caused changes in attitudes, with the tendency increasing with time. Further,
instrumental competence (achievement) seemed to be necessary to virtually all positive
affect. In contrast, the correlation between time of delay and magnitude of association for
attitude causing achievement was low. From these results, Wilson concluded: .

Positive affect will follow success in science achievement. Perha science

curricula should concentrate on achievement and let the affect fo low without

curricular emphasis they (science educators) should care about the attitude of

children after their science experience. Successful achievement cause positive
anhude.lp.849l

54
Peterson and Swing (1982) suggested that student attitudes toward elementary

mathematics were sensitive to their learning experience and achievement only after a two-
day instructional session dealing with a specific mathematics concept (i.e., probability
theory). For example, before instruction of probability theory, one student (Paul) was
initially low in attitude and medium in ability in mathematics. During the instructional
period, Paul was actively engaged in thought processes that could facilitate understanding
the lesson content and, subsequently, he achieved a perfect score on the achievement
post-test. When instruction was completed, Paul showed an increase in his attitude toward
mathematics. In contrast, another student (Melissa) was initially high in both attitude and
achievement. However, during the instructional period, Melissa was not engaged in
thought processes related to the lesson content much of the time and, later, performed
below the average score on the post-test. When instruction was completed, Melissa
showed some decrease in her attitudes toward mathematics.

Research also suggests that achievement leads to changes in motivation. Carr and
Evans (1981) were interested in the relationship between skill and motivation in the early
stages of reading instruction. They raised a basic question: ”It may be that one of these two
critical components of instruction, skill building or the encouragement of self-motivation, is
more critical than the other in the early stages of Ieaming to read" (p. 68, original
emphasis). They compared reading achievement and engagement in reading activities
between groups of first and second-grade children, one group in a traditional teacher-
centered curriculum focusing on skill building and the other in a studentcentered
curriculum focusing on motivation. The results showed that children in the teacher-
centered curriculum performed better on both achievement and motivation measures than
those in the student-centered curriculum. Carr and Evans suggested that mastery of basic
components of reading skills to a minimum level of competence is important not only for
achievement but also for motivation.

Thus, research suggests that success or failure in achievement leads to changes in

55

attitudes and motivation. As students experience success achievement, their attitudes and
motivation also seem to increase. In contrast, as students experience failure achievement,
their attitudes and motivation tend to decline. Further, the magnitude of achievement
causing changes in attitudes and motivation seems to increase with time. .
Ahi n hn in d ’ lritai
This research question examines whether students’ success or failure to achieve
scientific understanding after a period of instruction leads to changes in students’ goal
orientations in science class or affective orientations toward science on a more long-term
basis. Of particular interest is whether students who have achieved scientific
understanding after completing unit instruction internalize understanding as a major goal
in science class as well as develop more positive attitudes and interest than they posessed
before unit instruction.
’ l ri i in i l
Conceptual change research suggests that a critical problem with the goal of
understanding in science class is the fact that many students do not have a conception of
scientific understanding. Further, traditional curriculum materials and instruction which
tend to stress trivial Ieaming of science, such as vocabulary words or technical details, do
not help students realize the nature of science and science learning. However, when
students have experienced success in achieving scientific understanding, they seem to
develop a conception of scientific understanding. For example, Roth (1985) found that
many students realized the process of conceptual change sense-making after reading an
experimental textbook developed to promote scientific understanding for students.
Although the students often expressed confusion and frustration, they eventually
experienced the achievement of scientific understanding as rewarding and satisfying. After
such a significant Ieaming experience, some of them might have come to internalize
scientific understanding as their reading goal, which would be substantially different from

the ones they used to believe (C. Anderson 8: Roth, in press).

56

According to expectancy x value theory of motivation, after success achievement
students come to place high value as well as high expectancy of success in achieving
understanding (Brophy, 1983, 1987; Dweck 8: Elliot, 1983; Feather, 1982). Further, the
value of understanding may be sufficient for some students with a reasonable expectancy
of success to emphasize scientific understanding as their major goal in science class
(Brophy, 1983, 1987). In terms of goal structure (Pervin, 1982), the students have
established a new goal structure in which the goal of scientific understanding takes a high
position. In contrast, students with failure achievement would not have the opportunity to
experience the value of scientific understanding or develop the expectancy of success.
Thus, these students are not ikely to realize understanding as a major goal in science class.

Unfortunately, research on student motivation suggests that as students advance in
grade, they seem to become more concerned about task-exogeneous goals, such as getting
good grades, pleasing their parents or teachers, or even trying to avoid classroom work.
Marked changes in student goals and achievement behavior seem to occur during the
transition from elementary to middle school. Blumenfeld and Pintrich (1982) asked second
and sixth grade students about why they worked in school. The students, especially the
older ones, gave extrinsic reasons most frequently. Research suggests that such changes
might be influenced by students’ long~term experiences in school environments which
place heavy emphasis on evaluation of ability, social comparison, and competition rather
than on task engagement for content understanding or skill mastery.

’Aff iv ri inTwr i
Conceptual change research in science suggests that success or failure to achieve
scientific understanding leads to changes in students’ affective orientations toward science,

but only if achievement and affect are related. Students who have achieved scientific
understanding enjoy expanding their scientific understanding. Research findings show that

meaningful understanding of science leads to more positive attitudes or increased interest

57

in science among non-science major elementary teachers (Appleman, 1984; D. Smith,
1987i

On the other hand, if students’ affective orientations are related to some insignificant
aspects of science learning, success or failure achievement may not be related to changes
in attitudes or interest in a systematic manner. For example, even students who have
experienced difficulty and failed in achievement still report positive attitudes and high
interest because of certain aspects of science class, such as hands-on experiments, social
interactions during group activities, or interesting reading materials.

Unfortunately, research on student motivation suggests that students’ attitudes toward
science steadily worsen as they advance in grade (Cannon 8: Simpson, 1985; Huefle,
Rakow, 8: Welch, 1983; James 8: Smith, 1985; Schibeci, 1984; Simpson 8: Oliver, 1985;
Welch, 1985). In a similar manner, students’ interest in science and curiosity also decline
(Yager 8: Penick, 1986; Yager 8: Yager, 1985; also see Eccles, Midgley, 8: Adler, 1984;
Harter, 1981; Stipek, 1984 about steady decline of students’ affects toward school in
general). Findings generally show that elementary students have positive, although steadily
declining in strength, attitudes toward science and high interest. Marked deterioration
occurs during the transition from elementary to middle school grades. After this period,
students tend to devel0p negative attitudes and little interest in science, which continues
until the end of high school.

Several explanations have been advanced for the sudden, marked decline of students’
attitudes toward science during the early period of middle school years. One explanation
is that the first year in middle school is often the first time that science is taught as an
independent, required subject (James 8: Smith, 1985). Another cites the stricter systems for
grading or more emphasis on external evaluation in middle school than in elementary
school (Eccles, Midgley, 8: Adler, 1984; Stipek, 1984). Still another explanation is that
since elementary school students receive minimal instruction in science, they enter their

first series of science courses with mixed feelings and inadequate backgrounds about the

58
nature of science knowledge (Simpson 8: Oliver, 1985). Finally, students may be forced to

engage in class activities that do not promote meaningful understanding of science (C.
Anderson 8: Roth, in press; C. Anderson 8: E. Smith, 1987; Roth, C. Anderson 8: E. Smith,
1987i

Finally, there seems to be a relationship in the changes between cognitive and
affective aspects of motivation. Students’ attitudes and interest change as they develop
different conceptions of what science is and, thus, change their goals in science class. It
seems that cognition and affect are related for students who experience meaningful
Ieaming and come to enjoy true understanding, but not for those who fail to develop a
conception of scientific understanding.

mm 'Ahi nandhn in d lnAff

Success or failure to achieve scientific understanding seems to lead to changes in
students’ goal orientations in science class. The literature suggests that students who have
experienced meaningful understanding of science can develop a conception of scientific
understanding and internalize it as a major goal in science class. Also, these students
develop high expectancy of success and high value in the goal of scientific understanding.
On the other hand, success or failure achievement seems to lead to changes in students’
affective orientations in a systematic manner only when attitudesfrnterest are related to

significant aspects of science learning.

Implications for This Study
This study is an attempt to develop an integrated theory of student motivation in
science classrooms. The study addresses three basic questions. First, what are the types of
goals and strategies while students engage in science classroom tasks? Second, what are
the key factors related to patterns of students’ task engagement? Finally, how are students’
cognitive and affective aspects of motivation influenced by their achievement of scientific
understanding on a long-term basis?

Part I of this chapter examined the conceptualization and Operationalization of student

59

motivation to learn science, a process which occurs when students engage in classroom
tasks with the goal of achieving scientific understanding and activate strategies associated
with such learning. Despite its significant potential to help us better understand the nature
of student motivation in science classrooms, no systematic effort to integrate the
conceptualization of student motivation to Ieam and conceptual change in science has yet
been undertaken.

In research on classroom motivation, several empirical studies have been conducted
within the conceptual framework of student motivation to learn (Brophy 8: Merrick, 1987;
Marshall, 1987a, 1987b, 1987c). All these studies examined the effects of teachers or
teaching strategies on stimulating student motivation to learn in classrooms. In an
experimental study, Brophy and Merrick (1987) provided eighth grade social studies
teachers with motivational strategies and examined their effectiveness after a period of
instruction. In a series of naturalistic studies, Marshall (1987a, 1987b, 1987c) examined
how elementary teachers influenced student motivation to Ieam. In addition to such
studies, it is important to understand why and how students engage in classroom tasks in
the first place. In fact, understanding of students’ choice of goals and strategies during task
engagement can suggest better ways to associate teaching strategies with various needs or
problems of student motivation.

Research on conceptual change in science, on the other hand, has focused on issues
of student learning and achievement and how to develop curriculum materials and
instructional strategies to promote scientific understanding. Research has often been based
on the assumption that when students succeed in scientific understanding, they find it
rewarding in and of itself, so that motivation problems take care of themselves. Only
recently has it been proposed that research on conceptual change be expanded to issues of
student motivation and affect (White, 1987).

Thus, one of the research questions in the present study examines why (goals) and

how (strategies) students engage in academic tasks in naturalistic science classrooms,

60

based on the frameworks of student motivation to Ieam and conceptual change in science
(Research Question 1). The results of the study show different patterns of students’ task
engagement in science classrooms.

Further, research suggests that students’ choices of goals and strategies are related to
various factors, including features of curriculum materials, quality of instruction, and
student characteristics. It is important to understand key factors that are related to patterns
of students’ task engagement. In particular, under what conditions are students motivated
to learn science? What are the key barriers blocking student motivation to Ieam science?

The primary focus of this study is student characteristics (Research Question 2).
Literature on student motivation suggests several explanations for why students work (or do
not work) hard to achieve scientific understanding. This study examines how each of four
key factors (or hypotheses) is related to students’ choices of goals and strategies during task
engagement in science classrooms.

After a period of instruction, what happens to cognitive and affective aspects of
student motivation if they succeed or fail to achieve scientific understanding? Is there any
change in students’ goal orientations in science class or affective orientations toward
science (Research Question 3)? Conceptual change research in science suggests that when
students have achieved meaningful understanding of science, they develop a conception of
scientific understanding, internalize that understanding in science class, and eventually
Ieam how to Ieam science independently (C. Anderson 8: Roth, in press). Also, research
on classroom motivation suggests that student motivation to Ieam science over specific task
situations stimulates the development of a generalized disposition of motivation to Ieam
(Brophy, 1983, 1987). This question seems particularly relevant in the present study, as
this study was conducted in classrooms where the curriculum and instruction provided
extensive support for students to achieve scientific understanding.

Finally, a secondary interest of the study is the features of the curriculum materials and

instructional strategies which were developed according to a conceptual change approach.

61

The results suggest how features of the curriculum materials and instructional strategies
influence students’ choices of goals and strategies during task engagement (with regard to
Research Question 1) as well as changes in motivation on a long-term basis (with regard to
Research Question 3). The results also suggest how features of curriculum materials and
instructional strategies interact with aspects of student characteristics(with regard to
Research Question 2). Further, the results inform conceptual change researchers about the
validity of their assumption about student motivation and, if disconfirmed, suggest how to

modify or elaborate that assumption.

CHAPTER TH REE
BACKGROUND FOR THIS STU DY

Student motivation is a complex phenomenon related to various aspects of classroom
settings, including features of curriculum materials, quality of instruction, and student
characteristics. As a primary interest of the present study, chapter 2 discussed major
aspects of student characteristics. Yet, understanding of student motivation is not complete
without considering features of curriculum materials and instruction. After conditions of
curriculum and instruction for student motivation are made clear, issues of student
characteristics need to be examined. How effective were the curriculum materials and
instruction in helping students expend high quality of task engagement in the present
study? Did the curriculum and instruction in this study represent an ideal situation
according to conceptual change research in science?

Issues of curriculum materials and instruction in this study have Important implications
(to be discussed in the final chapter of this report). Theoretically, the results provide some
answers for the assumptions about issues of student motivation in conceptual change
research. If the curriculum and instruction approximate the ideal research situation (as
suggested by conceptual change researchers), but problems of student motivation still exist,
then the assumptions are wrong. Problems of student motivation are then attributable to
Other factors, most likely to student characteristics as motivational research suggests. On
the other hand, If the curriculum and instruction perform better than traditional practices
‘ but the research context does not fit the ideal specifications, then the study/s
appropriateness for testing the assumptions of conceptual change research is limited,
allowing attribution of motivation problems both to features of curriculum and instruction
as well as to student characteristics. Practically, as sources of the problems of student

62

63

motivation are identified, the results will have implications for designing curriculum and
teaching strategies that help students become motivated to Ieam science.

In addition to its conceptual importance, chapter 3 fulfills a practical purpose for the
documentation of this study. It bridges chapters 2 and 4. It extends the discussion of
understanding issues of student motivation in science classrooms begun in Chapter 2,
approaching the question from a different perspective. Chapter 2 focuses on aspects of
student characteristics, and chapter 3 on aspects of curriculum materials and instruction.
At the same time, the ideas expressed and examined in here lead directly into chapter 4
(Methods) by introducing the research context (i.e., curriculum materials and instruction) in
which the present study was conducted.

Three major discussions are presented in this chapter. The first examines how
traditional science curriculum materials and instruction generally fall to help students
achieve scientific understanding. The second concerns current efforts in conceptual
change research to improve curriculum materials and instructional strategies in order to
promote scientific understanding for students. The third investigates the special features of

the curriculum materials and quality of instruction in the present study.

Failure in Traditional Curriculum and Instruction

As discussed in chapter 2, the process of scientific understanding is demanding and
difficult, and many students fail to achieve scientific understanding in science classrooms.
To what extent does science curriculum and instruction promote students’ scientific
understanding that meets both the structural and functional criteria?
W

Research in science education reports consistently that curriculum materials fail to
help students achieve scientific understanding (C. Anderson, 1987; C. Anderson 8: E.
Smith, 1987; Mergendoller, Marchman, Mitman 8: Packer, 1988; Roth, 1985). Most
textbooks emphasize technical details and vocabulary, rather than focusing on central

science concepts. For example, some textbooks contain several hundreds of new

54
vocabulary words in bold-faced print (probably to attract students’ attention), and technical

details are presented in reference to these words (Gallagher, 1986; Lee 8: Gallagher, 1986).
Most science textbooks, including some of the effective activity-based programs, are
developed from the perspective of scientists or the scientific community without any
consideration of students’ personal knowledge in content domains (C. Anderson, 1987;
Berkheimer, C. Anderson, 8: Blakeslee, 1988a).

A more basic problem in science curriculum materials is the traditional view of the
nature of science and student Ieaming as consisting of two independent components,
content knowledge and science process skills (C. Anderson, 1987). The traditional view
sees science curricula as being composed of two separate parts: (a) a body of scientific
knowledge, containing definitions, facts, laws, and theories; and (b) the scientific method,
which provides procedures for developing new knowledge. According to this view, new
knowledge which is generated by the scientific method is simply added to a current body
of knowledge.

However, our current understanding of the nature of science and student Ieaming
suggests that this traditional view of curriculum development has several major
shortcomings (C. Anderson, 1987). In particular, this view ignores the dynamic interplay
between the body of current scientific knowledge and the development of new knowledge.
This view also ignores that students (scientists as well) take an active role in building new
knowledge by integrating their personal knowledge with scientific knowledge and, in this
process, modifying or restructuring their existing knowledge. Further, this view ignores the
fact that, rather than simply being a body of knowledge and the method for developing
new knowledge, science serves basic functions of describing, explaining, predicting, and
controlling the world around us.

i In i 11
Research also suggests that science instruction often fails to help students achieve

scientific understanding (C. Anderson, 1987; C. Anderson 8: Roth, in press; C. Anderson 8:

65
E. Smith, 1987). Many teachers fail to encourage students to integrate their personal

knowledge with the scientific knowledge being taught. For instance, some teachers
present scientific information in the textbook, with little conceptual integration within or
between topics. These teachers also show little awareness of or interest in students’
personal knowledge. Thus, they teach science to students as a collection of isolated facts
or skills, without connection to students’ personal knowledge. Other teachers present rich,
conceptually integrated knowledge of science and demonstrate considerable awareness of
students’ prior knowledge. Even these teachers, however, do not incorporate students’
prior knowledge as an important component of instruction. They present well-integrated
knowledge which is conceptually coherent, but its relevance to students’ personal
knowledge is difficult for students to recognize themselves (Hollon 8: C. Anderson, 1987).

Further, many teachers do not provide students with opportunities to practice scientific
description, explanation, prediction, and control. Many teachers instruct students about
conceptual tools of science—vocabulary words, facts, concepts, and theories—but do not
teach them how to use those tools. In these classrooms, students are expected to
memorize large numbers of vocabulary words and facts and, later, to reproduce them upon
request. Students are evaluated to understand the content when they recall the words or
facts correctly, for instance, on tests (Eaton, C. Anderson 8: E. Smith, 1983, 1984; Hollon 8:
C. Anderson, 1987; Stepans, Beiswenger, 8: Dyche, 1986).

Even some skilled, experienced teachers do not engage students in description,
explanation, and prediction; instead, the teachers themselves engage in those activities.
They demonstrate to students how to make scientific descriptions, explanations, and
predictions, while their students participate in a limited way. In these classrooms, only a
few students can successfully engage in these activities themselves, whereas most of the
others can produce only the simpler parts or disconnected segments of the activities
(Hollon 8: C. Anderson, 1987; Roth, 1984, 1987; E. Smith 8: C. Anderson, 1984).

Thus, many science teachers engage students in a passive mode of learning by simply

66
transmitting knowledge to be acquired by students, rather than help students construct their

own knowledge by integrating personal knowledge with scientific knowledge and applying
scientific knowledge to understand and explain the world around them. As a result,
science is perceived by many students as a collection of facts or skills which has little
relevance to their personal life, while only a few students develop meaningful learning of

science.

Current Efforts in Curriculum and Instructional Development

As research findings repeatedly show that students in science classrooms fail to
achieve scientific understanding, efforts have been undertaken to help students with their
Ieaming difficulties. Such efforts can be grouped into two categories: (a) improvement of
curriculum materials and (b) effective instructional strategies.

Curriculum Dexglgpmmt

Recent research efforts have focused on developing curriculum materials that
encourage students to achieve scientific understanding (C. Anderson 8: E. Smith, 1983;
Berkheimer, C. Anderson, 8: Blakeslee, 1988a; Driver, 1987; Nussbaum 8: Novick, 1982;
Roth, 1985). The research shows that such curriculum materials can be effective,
especially for non-science major teachers or with minimum teacher training. Such
curriculum materials omit much technical detail and vocabulary, stress basic science
concepts, incorporate extensive knowledge about students’ personal knowledge in content
domains, and emphasize the use of scientific knowledge to understand and explain real-
world phenomena. This approach toward curriculum development is consistent with the
structural and functional criteria of scientific understanding.

Curriculum development sometimes involves teaching materials only, excluding texts
for students. Teaching materials generally provide teachers with four types of knowledge
to teach for conceptual change learning: (a) knowledge about the particular topic being
taught, including knowledge about main ideas, subordinate ideas, and relationships among

these ideas; (b) knowledge about specific students’ misconceptions that are common

67

among students and likely to be problematic for them; (c) knowledge about instructional
strategies that are effective in helping students modify or abandon these particular
misconceptions; and (d) a general orientation to conceptual change teaching and Ieaming
(Roth, 1987; Shulman, 1986; D. Smith, 1987). For more information about current efforts
in curriculum development, see C. Anderson (1987), C. Anderson and Roth (in press), C.
Anderson and E. Smith (1987), Berkheimer, C. Anderson and Blakeslee (1988a), Driver
(1987, in press), and Nussbaum and Novick (1982).
In i I r i

Several conceptual change models of instruction have been proposed (Nussbaum 8:
Novick, 1982; Pines 8: West, 1986; Posner et al., 1982). For example, Posner et al. (1982)
stress that four conditions must be fulfilled if students are likely to achieve conceptual
change:.

1. There must be dissatisfaction with existing conceptions.

2. A new conception must be intelligible.

3. A new conception must appear initially plausible.

$.75 marl conception should suggest the possibility of a fruitful research program

The conceptual change models of instruction proposed by Nussbaum and Novick
(1982), Pines and West (1986), and Posner et al. (1982) all suggest that effective instruction
must provide extensive support for students as they go through four major Ieaming steps:
(a) awareness of students’ personal knowledge, (b) recognition of conceptual conflict
between personal knowledge and scientific knowledge, (c) accomplishment of conceptual
change learning, and (d) application of newly acquired scientific knowledge in diverse task
contexts.

More specific guidelines and suggestions for effective instruction have also been
attempted (C. Anderson, 1987; C. Anderson 8: Roth, in press; C. Anderson 8: E. Smith,
1987; Blakeslee, C. Anderson, 8: E. Smith, 1987; Brook, Driver, 8: Johnston, 1988; Driver,

1987). For instance, C. Anderson, E. Smith and his colleagues suggest specific instructional

strategies that seem to be particularly effective in teaching for conceptual change under

68

three broad categories: (a) strategies for presenting information, (b) strategies for
questioning and discussing, and (c) strategies for using phenomena (laboratories,
demonstrations, and applications) (C. Anderson 8: E. Smith, 1987; Blakeslee, C. Anderson

8: E. Smith, 1987; Roth, 1987).

Curriculum and Instruction for This Study

The curriculum materials and instructional strategies that provided the research
context for the present study were developed by Science Achievement Project funded by
National Science Foundation (Berkheimer, C. Anderson 8: Blakeslee, 1988a). The primary
goal was to develop meaningful curriculum materials and identify effective instructional
strategies to promote scientific understanding for students. In particular, the curriculum
and instructional development was guided by conceptual change approach and cognitive
apprenticeship or scaffolded teaching (C. Anderson, 1987; C. Anderson 8: Roth, in press;
Collins, Newman, 8: Brown, in press).

An entire pool of 15 sixth grade science teachers in a midwestern urban school district
participated in the Science Achievement Project during its two-year period. Most had no
formal training in science. Among the 15 , four teachers who were recommended as
exemplary teachers from each of the four schools in the school district worked closely with
the Project as collaborating teachers. Two of these collaborating teachers participated in
the present study.

Cugigulgm Unit

The curriculum unit “Matter and Molecules" included various aspects of kinetic
molecular theory for sixth grade science students. Four kinds of curriculum materials were
developed: a text and an activity book for students, and teachers’ guides for the student
text and the activity book, respectively (Berkheimer, C. Anderson 8: Blakeslee, 1988b;
Berkheimer, C. Anderson, Lee, 8: Blakeslee, 1988).

The curriculum unit consisted of nine lesson clusters (L.C.), each dealing with a key

concept:

 

 

 

T. .1 TL. .2 TL .3 __C.__L. 8 ‘T‘L. .9 .
—States Other Iii; AI'r g filalning Eplalnlng
of Solids, Around Evapora- Conden—

 

Water Ligds Us Expanding] 8: Soli 1- tion 8: sation
8: ses

Contractin a fying Boiling

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Two basic assumptions guided the curriculum development (C. Anderson, 1987; C.
Anderson 8: Roth, in press; Berkheimer, C. Anderson 8: Blakeslee, 1988a). First, to be
adaptable to the complexities and constraints of Ieaming environments as they presently
exist in the classrooms, the curriculum materials were made as conventional as possible,
especially in terms of teachers’ expectations about classroom management and time
commitments. The curriculum unit did not include activities that demanded extensive
preparation time, expensive equipment, or non-traditional forms of classroom organization.
Second, detailed information about specific students’ misconceptions as well as a general
introduction to the conceptual change teaching approach were built into the teachers’
guides. This course of action was taken in response to research findings that most teachers
lack the knowledge base necessary to teach for conceptual change learning (Hesse 8: C.
Anderson, 1988; Hollon 8: C. Anderson, 1987; Roth, 1987; D. Smith, 1987). Thus, these
curriculum materials could be used by teachers with little background in science.

The curriculum unit minimized factors that lead to trivial learning. Unlike most
traditional textbooks, the unit carefully eliminated much technical detail and vocabulary.
It stressed central science concepts, rather than coverage of content that does not allow
students to engage in meaningful Ieaming of science (C. Anderson, 1987; C. Anderson 8:
Roth, in press; Blumenfeld 8: Meece, 1988; Blumenfeld, Mergendoller, 8: Swarthout, 1987,
Doyle, 1983; Mergendoller, Marchman, Mitman, 8: Packer, 1988; Roth, 1985).

In addition to differing from most traditional textbooks, the curriculum unit contained
distinctive features specially designed to help students achieve scientific understanding.
The readers are encouraged to compare these features, to be discussed below, with major
shortcomings typical in curriculum materials and instruction in science education, as
already discussed.

The curriculum development was guided by 8 tasks by conceptions chart and an

70
associated preconceptions by goal conceptions chart for kinetic molecular theory

developed by the Science Achievement Project (C. Anderson, 1987; Berkheimer, C.
Anderson 8: Blakeslee, 1988a; Eichinger8:Lee, 1988; Lee, et al., 1989). The two charts are
presented in tables 3.1 and 3.2, respectively.

The tasks by conceptions chart consists of two parts: (a) a list of phenomena that we
want students to describe, explain, predict and control; and (b) a list of scientific
conceptions that we want students to use for their descriptions, explanations, predictions,
and attempts to control those phenomena. These correspond to the structural and
functional criteria of scientific understanding. The conceptions represent scientific
knowledge that students are to master (structural criteria), and the tasks are the contexts in
which that knowledge is mastered and used (functional criteria). As shown in table 3.1,
the tasks and conceptions are interrelated, in that each task requires the understanding of
several scientific conceptions, and each scientific conception is needed for several tasks.
The X’s marked in the cells in table 3.1 identify the conceptions that are particularly
important and likely to be problematic for students to perform that particular task. (They
do not identify all the knowledge that is necessary for the performance of the task.).

The preconceptions by goal conceptions chart lists common students’ misconceptions,
as opposed to the scientific conceptions they are to accomplish after instruction. This
extensive knowledge base was obtained through clinical interviews and paper-and-pencil
tests with sixth grade science students (Lee et al., 1989).

The curriculum unit emphasized to students the structural and functional components
of scientific understanding. To help students recognize their misconceptions and
conceptual conflicts, the student text and the activity book presented common students’
misconceptions as opposed to scientific conceptions. Also, students were encouraged to

use scientific knowledge to describe, explain, predict, and control natural phenomena. In

71

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H.m ounflb

x x x x x x x x x x x ecuunncoocou caudaxa .m
x x x x x x x x x nnaoan sandman .o
ucaaaoo one
x x x x x x x x x x x noduMuoam>o cmmanxa .b
maunouuu 0:0
x x x x x x x oeaufloe camfloxu .8
ounce no
x x x x cogncmnxo dqmaaxu .n
councoaxo
x x x x x x x x Hashes» :nmaaxu .v
acn>aonnuc we soon
x x x x x x x x x can unououn cununxu .m
Mounds
x x x x x x x x no noumun onuuunoo .N
nonunEIco:
.m> uouums Nuunnnau
x x \unnuu:00\onuuunoa .a
ma ea ma ma va me «a Hg on m o p m n v n N
“ undouoHox “ dugounonumz m
. . .
oceaumoucoo dance
9 U COuu mu: 0

.uuuuus mfiaouu

.uue .mo—sou—os up dude

 

 

be: .HmumEoseo vouwvmmeoo mfifiosm .uouuna ououuuosu .aommm one uggoEm mgfioEm we ousumz .c
.umw
we acosu>oa we made“ cm vocmwma
Ixo mono» we cemmcwnxo «wound:
coca :e: Ho>muzmz awe moocmuopam .eouuuc cos: ecmaxu moucwuonsm commeomxo ~85~d£9 .m
=.uooaawmmv: new maxeocxo
on one: mmEmuoEOm :ouwuoaw>o:
van :m>~ooomv: oxm~ «who: .mmoaw
wcm>~o>cm mowcmso cm mafiwmuoamo .oowcusu duomahsm mounds we
vo>uomcou manage go: conga: Haw cm vo>uoocou am hogan: cemuw>uoacou .N
.Adomm no one emu do» wcmsu
rose» mm pounds ..w.ov momuuoaoun . .uo: noov
nosuo :0 women codewomummomdo .a. unnumalco: .ooomo a: noxuu Hogan: .n
n Jo: one 3:»:
.vomummwofio mauoouuoocm .uau; ..w.ov owemsu nosuo .umuuoa Hounds
:euuo congealed: use mumoo .e one noon» ecu .mvm:Vm~ .oemgom .n no cemumcmmua .~
mausocona can moocuuonsn o~nw>uumpo ozone o:0munuo:oo «~o>u~ umnoooouooz
cemueoocoo o>mwz fimomnhh cemunuocoo anew manna

 

>uoozH umHsowHo: uwumcwx pom

 

unmno cofiuqmuaou Hmoo an cowuqooaoooum

N.m manna

73

.Amucunnao cemnuu>
Icou ..m.0v moocoumnem mo mucqu>oE

.ncoEo>oE o~po>nomgo mo anacov

COMUOB HQHDUOHOE

 

 

o~nm>n8mno am onmzm zfiasmm muasooHoz Icoaovcm mononucoo cemnoe nmaaooaoz we humamnmom> .N~
.mvmnom cm agammooamo
.Hnnnm on mosmuo80m Ame moaauoaoz .wcm>oe >~nconmcoo one ownsowaoe HH< cemnoe ucoumcoo .-
.uuo .mxoomm nose .mfinoo On .oaoomOnOME a can:
memo cm manoanEOO on >85 measouaoz co>o .888 On game» eon one monsouaoz oo~SOOHOa mo dumm .o~
.mooconmnam am one moaaooHoa
A:mo~=uu~oe nous: ..w.oV moasooaoe mm nuance we
vonmnumov nunnmelcoc unmaaooHoE mo .uoc on neuumarcoc cemnanmuucoo
nonmnomuv no: mmucmuonom Humnoaw: .mdnauuaos mo meme on nounoa ~A< nuaeoudoz .o
unsung nmonu ecu nuancedos Ozone «cemnaoueoo unm>oa nonauuaoz
.v~oO one new;
cuoznon cemuooon m x; voEnOO mm MM .muuumno vaou
a:suounn: no :wOH: mm ouoacuecoo co mumcuecoo nae an nomm> noun: newumucovcoo .w
.A:Ewoum: .Anuneneanv nna
.wou ..w.ov unnnom> mm nmo cm neumz nomo> noun: oanmum>cm memuucoo nm< cm nonu> noun: .s
.vovcuaxo no communaaoo coca _ . . . noon»
nosnoco On acumen oco Eonu o>oE moooo .vooounasoo on coo mooou mo cemnmunnEoo .o
.=0muuonanu no cemncmmxu .haaooo xozn mound» dunno 6% «one»
nuuuo cu>uc= am noon» mo :Omuanmnumma one swoonnu >~co>o voonao nooao we :Omuanmnuown .n

74

.noommommnv no :ouonomo>o: moasooaoz

.Ono .:ononomo>o: .znnoS:
oonsuoHoa oxoa wcmnoou one wcmnoo:

.A.ouo nomonv am one
monsoonoa ensema .vno; ono oodoooaoe
vmnom ..w.ov mofisooaoe Hosvm>wvcm en

vonannnnuo onono ozn we oomunomone
MN oomunoaona o~no>nomno we oEnon
an aaco eonnnooov nouuoa mo mononm

.Eozn coozuon

nan: o>os ooasoofioz

mwcmsu nocuo no : .

.ocomxo oo>~omEozu moasooaoz

.vaoo
no no: on coo oo>HomEocn monsooaoz

.:o>~0oomv: oo>HooEonu ooaaooaoa
no ooocouonso o~no>noono co oaoom

.enaann
Eonw omoooo monsooaoe wcm>OEIuoom

.noaoao no nonmou
o>oa ooaaooaoa wcmxoe an ouono
mo oomeono oosoo wcmnooo can mongoom

oumema o: .comuoe Eovcon noooowl
unsann
canon; cemuoa eovcon "oemscnnr
xonno vmwmn cm ononnm> uoOMAOmI
. "monsooaoa
mo o:OmuoE poo oncoSowconno nco
Inouumo On one ono nouuoE mo mononm

.Eozu coozuoa

oooomm xumEo o>o£ oomow we ooasooaoz

.uneao noznnow
monsoonoe mo>os canuoe eoooonocu

.nouoou
o>oE ooucouonao no: we monsooaoz

.u:o>AOo uo monsoonos sum: xns
eco xozo soonn ouanoo mo monsooaoz

cemuonomo>o
no cemnocoaaxo
nonaooaoz

ououo uo
oomcoso mo cemuo
Ieoamxo nonaooaoz

nouuoa we
oonono no :OMno
Iocoamxo noaaooaoz

monsoouoa
:ooanon aoooam

cemocoaxo
Hoanonu we acmno
Iconmxo noasooao:

cemuoa
noflaooaoa co
goo: we ouuouum

mcm>~oo
lame no :Omuo
Iconmxo noaaoouoz

.m~

.wH

.hfl

.o~

.n~

.¢~

.n~

75

the first three lesson clusters of the unit, basic scientific conceptions of kinetic molecular
theory were emphasized. In the remainder of the unit, students were requested to engage
in scientific activities to describe, explain, and predict natural phenomena. Initially,
students were asked to explain relatively simple phenomena (e.g., expansion and
compression of air; thermal expansion). As the unit advanced, students had to combine
several scientific conceptions that had already been presented in order to explain
progressively more complicated phenomena (e.g., changes of state involving melting,
solidifying, evaporation, and condensation).

The curriculum unit was structured as a process of cognitive apprenticeship in three
steps: modeling, coaching, and fading (Collins, Brown 8: Newman, in press). The text
presented students with a few questions or problems involving natural phenomena familiar
to them in daily life. The purpose was to elicit students’ conceptions and make them
aware of their own conceptions for the topics to be studied. The text then presented
scientific conceptions along with extensive explanations or demonstrations about how to
use these conceptions to solve the problems already presented. As knowledge was
situated, students were not expected to transfer what they had Ieamed in one task context
to other contexts. Instead, important conceptions were presented in several different task
contexts within the same lesson cluster as well as over the entire unit. This, in turn,
provided students with repeated opportunities to use scientific knowledge in diverse
contexts. Also, the importance of these major conceptions was explicitly communicated to
students. As they gained mastery, the degree of assistance (i.e., prompts or probes) were
gradually withdrawn, until they were finally capable of working independently.

To encourage students to actively construct their own knowledge, the curriculum
materials included a variety of class activities. For example, reading and writing were
more prominent here than in traditional curriculum materials, where they tend to be
ignored (C. Anderson, 1987; C. Anderson & Roth, in press). For students to make sense

from reading, the curriculum unit contained sufficient information that could hang

76

together. Writing activities were stressed, requiring students to construct their own answers
in the activity book. Hands-on experiments involving everyday phenomena were
scheduled at least once for each lesson cluster (i.e., more than once a week). Class
discussion was also stressed, in order to provide opportunities for students to make
explanations and exchange their ideas with those of other students in the class.

Further, to encourage students to focus on the task content, the forms of classroom
tasks were carefully arranged. Research suggests that procedurally complicated tasks direct
too much student attention to how to carry out the tasks, distracting them from task content
(Blumenfeld 8: Meece, 1988; Blumenfeld, Mergendoller, 8: Swarthout, 1987; Doyle, 1979,
1983). To minimize such potential learning difficulties for students, the curriculum unit
included tasks that seemed to be simple and easy to follow procedurally. When
procedurally complex tasks were necessary to present important concepts, those tasks were
conducted through teacher demonstrations and explanations. Research also suggests that
when the cognitive purpose of classroom tasks is not clear, students are likely to be
confused and tend to employ inappropriate Ieaming strategies. Thus, the curriculum unit
made explicit to students the content objectives of classroom tasks (see the discussion,
‘Students’ interpretations of Science Classroom Tasks", in Chapter 2).

The teacher’s guides for both the student text and the activity book contained two
additional sources of information. First, when presenting a certain concept or idea, the
teacher’s guides directed teachers to pay special attention to those places where students’
misconceptions were expected to be problematic. Second, the teacher’s guides provided
instructional strategies, along with specific guidelines for implementation. Examples
included: what kinds of problems could be anticipated during a hands-on experiment and
how to manage the classroom; when a small-group activity might be effective; how to
structure the sequence of class activities in a lesson for most desirable learning outcomes;
how to prepare and set-up laboratory equipment or facilities; how to evaluate student

perfon'nance.; etc.

77

ll f In 1 n

Effective curriculum materials are necessary but not sufficient to promote meaningful
Ieaming of science for students. Most students also require the support of well
implemented instruction (C. Anderson, 1987; C. Anderson 8: Roth, in press; C. Anderson 8:
E. Smith, 1985; Blakeslee, C. Anderson, 8: E. Smith, 1987). Through their lengthy
involvement in the Science Achievement Project, the two teachers in the present study
developed an extensive knowledge base for teaching for conceptual change. This included
(a) knowledge about central concepts in kinetic molecular theory, (b) specific students’
misconceptions about aspects of matter and molecules, (c) effective teaching strategies,
and (d) a conceptual change orientation toward science teaching and learning.

The teachers taught the unit in accordance with the purpose of the curriculum
materials, paying attention to students’ misconceptions and closely following instructional
strategies suggested in the guides. Theyernphasized to their students how the students’
personal knowledge could often be in conflict with scientific knowledge, and they
encouraged students to use scientific knowledge to understand and explain natural
phenomena in diverse task contexts. To promote scientific understanding for students, the
teachers also encouraged students to be actively involved in a variety of class activities.

The nature of instruction was characterized as a process of cognitive apprenticeship,
involving modeling, coaching, and fading (C. Anderson, 1987; C. Anderson & Roth, in
press; Collins, Brown, 8: Newman, in press). Initially, the teachers and the students
together established problems to be solved through scientific thinking. Instruction started
with teachers asking students a few questions, using natural phenomena in everyday life
and eliciting students’ conceptions about a certain concept or idea to be studied (e.g., How
is water different from ice? How can we explain when water changes into ice?). This
served several important functions: (a) Students became aware of their prior knowledge
and its limitations; (b) teachers became familiar with students’ conceptions, especially

common misconceptions, and their reasoning; and (c) students and teachers together

78
established problems that were commme understood.

Once problems were established, the teachers and the students engaged in
instructional activities to solve these problems through scaffolded instruction. The teachers
initially presented scientific conceptions through modeling. This usually occurred as the
teachers demonstrated to students whether their prior knowledge was consistent or in
conflict with scientific knowledge and then showed how to use scientific knowledge to
make scientific explanations for these problems.

After presenting scientific knowledge to students, the teachers gave them opportunities
to use the new scientific knowledge to make explanations. The teachers provided
extensive support for the students with their initial attempts in various ways. The teachers
reduced the demands of classroom tasks on students by clarifying the tasks or simplifying
them into smaller steps, facilitated classroom dialogue in which students were encouraged
to express and exchange their ideas, and provided feedback to students to correct or
elaborate their reasoning. Thus, instead of presenting information directly to students, the
teachers tried to help students construct their own knowledge through active engagement.

Finally, as students achieved basic understanding of scientific conceptions, the
teachers gradually withdrew support until students were ready to perform independently.
While fostering independent student work, the teachers emphasized to students the power
and precision of scientific knowledge in diverse task contexts.

Thus, the teachers implemented this curriculum unit using conceptual change
strategies suggested in the teacher’s guides. Nevertheless, there was much to be desired in
the quality of instruction in order to represent an approximation of ideal circumstances.
This involved aspects of teaching that were not addressed in the curriculum but existing in
the social context of classrooms. Two of these seemed particularly apparent: pacing of
instruction and accountability system.

The teachers kept on schedule to complete the unit as planned. Even though some

students did nbt understand the content early in the unit, the teachers did not vary the

79
pacing of instruction according to the needs of individual students. There was little

discussion of individual work; instead, the class progressed at the same time.

Further, the teachers did not hold the students accountable for really thinking and not
just finishing the work assigned. Even when students did not complete tasks or did them
poorly (e.g., student answers in the activity book or tests), the teachers did not closely
monitor students’ performance. and provide adequate geedback for individual students to
realize their Ieaming deficiencies. Task completion was often accepted, although students
could have exerted effort to achieve scientific understanding with reasonable standard of
accountability system placed on them. In sum, the teachers implemented the curriculum
unit as planned in the unit according to a conceptual change approach. Yet, the teachers
did not interact with individual students in ways that would have led to greater students’
engagement within the social contexts of classrooms. Thus, the extent of support in the
instruction could be sufficient for some students, but not for others.

iv f rri l m n In

The effectiveness of the revised”Matter and Molecules" unit to promote students’
scientific understanding was compared to the commercial textbook unit ”Models of
Matter," found in the sixth grade version of the Hggghtgn Mifflin 31mg: series (Berger,
Berkheimer, Neuberger 8: Lewis, 1979), which provided the basis for the curriculum
revision (see Berkheimer, C. Anderson, 8: Blakeslee, 1988a about major contrasts between
the two sets of curriculum materials). The data were collected through students’ paper-
and-pencil tests administered in classrooms taught by the 15 teachers in the Science
Achievement Project.

The results show that 50% of the students who were taught by the ”Matter and
Molecules" unit demonstrated adequate scientific understanding of kinetic molecular
theory, in comparison to 26% of students taught by the commercial materials (see Lee et
al., 1989 for details). Thus, the ”Matter and Molecules" unit was significantly more

effective in promoting students’ scientific understanding. As indicated in the 50% of

80

success rate, however, many students still failed to achieve adequate scientific
understanding.
mm nDi in: rrilmnln in

Traditional science curriculum and instruction generally do not provide opportunities
for students to engage in classroom tasks in meaningful ways and, thus, they fail to
promote scientific understanding for students (Berkheimer, C. Anderson 8: Blakeslee,
I988a; Roth, 1985). Traditional textbooks and instruction tend to emphasize technical
details and vocabulary, rather than scientific understanding. Further, many teachers are
not trained in, or even aware of, the conceptual change approach and related instructional
strategies (Hesse 8: C. Anderson, 1988; Hollon 8: C. Anderson, 1988). These problems in
science curriculum and instruction seem to be a major cause of students’ failure to achieve
scientific understanding.

There have been renewed efforts to develop effective curriculum materials and
instructional strategies, based on current theories about human cognition and the nature of
science and student Ieaming. The focus in this study was on helping students integrate
personal with scientific knowledge and apply scientific knowledge to understanding and
explaining the world around them. This approach is represented by research on
conceptual change in science.

The curriculum and instruction in the present study was an attempt to help students
achieve scientific understanding according to research on conceptual change in science
and scaffolded instruction. The curriculum materials and instruction in the study
demonstrated significant advancement over traditional practices. Yet, the quality of
instruction in the study did not seem to be sufficient to provide needed support for
individual students.

The research context used here has important implications. First, the context did not
approximate the ideal conceptual change research context. Thus, the results of the study

can test conceptual change assumptions about issues of student motivation only in part.

81

Second, the research context did provide an opportunity to examine how features of
curriculum and instruction interact with student characteristics. Some students were
motivated to learn science with minimal support from the curriculum materials and
instruction. Others took advantage of the extensive support designed into the materials
and became motivated to Ieam science. Still others were not motivated to Ieam science,
despite extensive support of curriculum materials and instruction. These results should
have significant implications for curriculum development and classroom teaching in

science.

CHAPTER FOUR
METHODS

Since this study was to examine several research questions, various kinds of data were
collected at various phases of investigation. This chapter consists of four sections: (a)
subjects and research setting, (b) curriculum and instruction, (3) data collection

procedure, and (d) data analysis procedures.

Subjects and Setting

This study involved two schools from a midwestern urban school district with an
ethnically mixed student population: 25% black, 10% Hispanic, 3% Asian, 2% American
Indian, and 60% white students. The two schools were part of the larger Science
Achievement Project. One sixth grade science class was selected from each school.
Both classrooms were selected as representing average, regular sixth grade science
classes in the school district in terms of student achievement, behavioral conduct, and
other social and cultural aspects.

The study chose six students per each classroom from three achievement levels:
high, middle, and low. Other criteria for the selection of students included gender and
ethnic backgrounds. Based on these criteria, 12 students were selected from a pool of
students who agreed to participate in the study. The 12 students consisted of four
students from each achievement level; seven female and five male students, or eight
white, two black, and two Hispanic students.

Two male science teachers at the sixth grade level participated in this study.
Recommended as exemplary teachers from each school, both also worked as

collaborating teachers in the Science Achievement Project for the two-year period.

82

83

They developed the extensive knowledge base necessary to teach for conceptual change

learning. One teacher was a science major, and the other was a science department

chairperson.

Curriculum and Instruction

As already described in detail in chapter 3, the curriculum materials and
instructional strategies developed by the Science Achievement Project provided the
research context for the present study. To promote scientific understanding for students,
the curriculum materials incorporated extensive knowledge of students’ misconceptions
about aspects of matter and molecules. The curriculum materials encouraged students
to develop scientific understanding that both integrates personal knowledge with
scientific knowledge and is useful for describing, explaining, and predicting natural
phenomena. Further, to help teachers accomplish this curricular goal, the materials
suggested instructional strategies that seemed effective in helping students develop
scientific understanding.

The two teachers taught the unit in accordance with the general goal of the
curriculum materials. They paid attention to students’ misconceptions, helped students
solve conceptual conflicts between personal and scientific knowledge, and provided
Opportunities for students to use scientific knowledge to understand and explain natural
phenomena. Thus, the quality of instruction in both classrooms was superior to
conventional classroom teaching, although not ideal to meet the needs of individual
students.

The two classrooms provided comparable research settings as the two teachers
closely followed the instructional sequences and strategies suggested in the teachers’
guides. Yet, there were some differences in the ways they implemented instructional
activities. The teacher in Classroom I devoted a significant portion of class time to
individual or small-group activities (e.g., experimentation and writing). In comparison,

the teacher in Classroom 2 allocated less time to individual or small-group activities and,

84

more time to whole-class activities (e.g., class discussion and reading aloud). In a similar
vein, the teacher in Classroom 1 exercised less control over students during class activities
than the teacher in Classroom 2. For example, when a lesson contained a hands-on
experiment accompanied by questions in the activity book, Teacher I allowed a certain
amount of time for students to complete the experimentation and answer questions in
the activity book and, then, engaged in class discussion. Teacher 2 started with answering
questions in the activity book in class, allowed students to work on important segments of
the experiment, and continued class discussion on the remaining questions in the activity

book.

Data Collection Procedures

The research questions addressed in this study rendered it necessary to collect
various types of data at different phases of instruction of the “Matter and Molecules" unit.
The data were collected by two observersfinterviewers who worked with six target
students in the two classrooms, respectively. The types of data and the methods for data
collection along the timeline of before, during, and after instruction of the unit are
summarized in Table 4.1. In both classrooms involved in the study, the beginning and
end of data collection as well as the duration for instruction of the unit were almost
identical.

In this section, the types of data and methods for each of the research questions are
discussed with focus on: (8) kinds of data necessary to answer the research questions and
(b) rationales for using certain instruments or observation schedules.

1 P rn f ’ k n m n R 1

Information about the quality of students’ task engagement in terms of their choice
of goals and strategies in specific situations was collected. Students were observed and
engaged in informal conversations during class activities over the period of instruction of
the ”Matter and Molecules" unit. Three issues of data collection are discussed here: (a)

development of classroom observation schedules, (b) specific questions guiding classroom

85

observations and informal conversations with target students, and (c) procedures for data

collection and major sources of data.

 

Table 4.1
T fD th lnhTimlin fniln in
7 Before Instruction Ewing Instrggim Afig Instrugim
October 1987 October-December January 1988

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(2-3 weeks) 1987 (2-3 weeks)
(9-10 weeks)
engagement ‘
interpretation of R15. 2-a
classroom tasks
content understanding pro es in scientific content understandTng R.Q. 2-5
un erstanding R. . 3
goal orientations in goal orientations in R. . 2-c
science class science class K8. 3 ‘
affective orientations affective orientations R. . 2
toward science toward science R9. 3 ‘
Methods: formal (clinical) classroom observation formal (clinicall
interview and informal interview
conversation during
class activity

 

W. The study developed schedules for classroom

observations on the basis of the structure and sequence of lesson content and class
activities in the ”Matter and Molecules" curriculum unit. This unit consists of nine lesson
clusters (abbreviated as L.C.), each dealing with a key science concept (see the list on
page). Each lesson cluster contains three or four lessons, each one designed to last
approximately one class period. Based on the structure of the curriculum unit, it was
decided to observe each target student at least once in each lesson cluster. Further, the
study used event sampling to observe various aspects representing the quality of students’
task engagement for a meaningful segment of time.

The unit of observation was class activities during instruction. According to the
curriculum unit’s organization, there were generally three class activities contained in

each lesson (e.g., reading - writing - class discussion, or reading - experiment - class

86
discussion). It was predicted that three students could be observed in one lesson, one

during each class activity, and the researcher selected the activities and lessons for
observation accordingly. Based on the importance of dealing with lesson content and
the high frequenq' of appearance, the study design first identified four major class
activities: (a) reading the text, (b) writing answers in the activity book, (c) hands-on
experimentation, and (d) class discussion. Then, to facilitate observation of all six target
students in a classroom during a lesson cluster, the researcher chose two lessons from
each lesson cluster, using the criteria of: (a) main ideas of the lesson cluster; and (b)
similar class activities. The final observation schedule included a total of 18 lessons from
the entire unit, each containing some combinations of the above four class activities.

During classroom observations, an observer focused on one student during one class
activity, another student during the next class activity, and so on. The observation of one
target student lasted between 10 and 20 minutes, on average about 15 minutes. To
produce comparable data across students, the study arranged observation schedules so
that every student was observed the same number of times during each of the four class
activities across the nine lesson clusters. This procedure also produced the result that
each student was observed for an approximately equal amount of time in total.
Considering the possibilities for unexpected student absences or changes in teaching
schedules, observation decisions were made before each visit.

The final observation schedules in the two classrooms are shown in Table 4.2. Each
student was observed 10 or 11 times throughout the entire unit, totaling 130
observations in this study. Although 18 lessons were originally decided, actual classroom
observations included 20 lessons. The changes were to adapt to modifications or
unexpected class activities, differing from the structure of the curriculum unit. For
example, when one lesson lasted for more than one class period, the observer continued
observation the following day until the lesson was completed. Some lessons lasted for

less than a class period. There were occasionally quizzes or presentation of films, which

87
Table 4.2

 

 

E
E
IS‘
E
i It
s
“E

 

 

bx

 

 

 

 

 

‘
: in
___ ‘_ _ _

l8.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GP
#1
N

 

 

 

 

 

.VV“*"'V.. asst» “
bum—n >
lag:
U!
.‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 4 .3
8 8.2.4 4
S
'6.4 i
. 1 I52 3 I‘ 5 4
.1 18.2 4 1 I: 4.3.5.6
..2 1 I 3 l8 4
9.1 1.4 5 I18
9.2 It .4 3.5
9.3 1 f3 I 2

 

 

 

 

 

Total Number of Observations; 139

student #11: 11 student #21: 10
student #12: 10 student #22: 11
student #13: 11 student #23: 11
student #14: 11 student #24: 12
student #15: 11 student #25: 11

student #16: 11 student #26: 11

88

were not included as data sources in this study. When some activities continued longer
than 20 minutes, the observer shifted attention to the next student.

WW After setting UP the overall
observation schedules, the researcher designed specific questions guiding classroom
observations and informal conversations during class activities in advance, in order to
collect systematic data across students. Different sets of specific questions were
developed for each of the four class activities (see Appendix A). To examine the quality
of students’ task engagement in specific situations, the observers focused on two aspects:
(a) behavioral engagement; and (b) cognitive engagement.

Data collection for behavioral engagement was rather easy in terms of students’
observable behavior. The measures involved students’ attentiveness in class and
involvement in class activities. Major indicators of behavioral engagement included: (a)
on- or off-task behavior, (b) completion of assigned tasks, (c) pace of task completion, (d)
reactions to distractions, and (e) frequency of participation during whole class activities.

Because the focus of this study was on the quality of cognitive engagement, the
observers paid particular attention to students’ cognitive processes. The measures
involved the two criteria of scientific understanding: integration of personal and scientific
knowledge and application of scientific knowledge for scientific functions. Major
indicators of cognitive engagement included: (a) help.seeking or sources of students’
answers (e.g., copying from the text or other students, or independent work), (b) quality of
students’ answers (e.g., key vocabulary words, definitions, collection of facts, scientific
knowledge), and (c) relevance of students’ comments or questions to the content being
taught (e.g., irrelevant, request for clarification, elaboration on someone’s answers or
comments, cognition going beyond lesson content).

WWW Each classroom visit yielded a set of
observational data in narrative records, describing what the target students did and which

instructional events occurred. Systematic procedures for data collection (to be described

89
below) and specific questions to attend to (as described above) produced a semi-

structured approach for qualitative, descriptive data collection.

Since two observers collected date in each of the two classrooms, comparability of
data collection between the two observers was assured. Before the study, both observers
practiced together for two lesson periods, once in each classroom. During the early stage
of data collection, they exchanged observation notes and checked each other’s notes
with reference to the specific guiding questions for data collection. Throughout the data
collection period, the two observers continued to check each other’s notes occasionally,
looking for completeness and consistency of data collection.

To examine the quality of students’ task engagement, observers used four data
collection procedures from different sources of data. With the first procedure, each
observer kept narrative records of target students, focusing on one student during a single
class activity. Attending to specific guiding questions, the observer recorded information,
as complete as possible, about the focused student at that time. Throughout the class
time, the observers noted significant events with any of the six target students in that
classroom, even though this student might not be the current focus of observation, as
long as that did not detract the observer’s attention from the focusd student. For
example, one observer noticed that a target student not currently the focus of
observation was working on her mathematics assignment under her desk without being
detected by the teacher for a significant amount of the class period. Observers recorded
every lesson on audio tape to insure accurate data, and transcribed target students’
responses during class discourse after each visit

For the second procedure, the observers engaged in informal conversations with
target students. To examine the quality of cognitive engagement in specific task
situations, observers asked target students specific questions, chosen before each lesson
cluster, which covered the major concepts in that lesson. Observers conducted their

informal conversations mainly during the individual or small group activities (i.e., writing

90

or experimentation); they rarely gained access to target during whole-class activities (i.e.,
reading or class discussion). Informal conversations were also recorded, on a portable
tape-recorder carried by the observer; they were transcribed after each visit.

Constraints in classroom settings limited opportunities for informal conversations with
target students . This was especially problematic in Classroom 2, where the teacher
allocated most of the class time for whole-class activities. Even during individual or small
group activities, this teacher maintained tight control over the students. For this reason,
informal conversations in Classroom 2 often occurred after class periods.

The third data collection procedure involved written information from the
students.in their activity books and tests. After a reading assignment or experiment,
students answered a set of questions in the activity books. At the end of each lesson
cluster, they responded to review questions in their activity books. The target students’
answers in the activity books were collecte.

Finally, observers kept brief descriptions of instructional events and content. These
provided contexts for student responses during class. Observers noted which teaching
strategies seemed to be effective, especially those from the teachers’ own ideas rather
than the teacher’s guides. They also noted what went wrong during class or what failed
to help students with their Ieaming difficulties, such as, when the teachers failed to
address critical students’ misconceptions in class or clarify students’ conceptual conflicts
and confusions during discussion. Further, every lesson was tape-recorded in order to
complete any missing data the observer failed to record during class. Each observer
placed a second tape-recorder in front of the classroom to record instructional events
and content, and selectively transcribed the content of instruction after each visit.

Obervers also recorded other relevant information in their observation notes. They
noted the lesson cluster and lesson (e.g., L.C. 7.2 indicates the second lesson in Lesson
Cluster 7), type of class activity (i.e., one of the four class activities), student code (e.g., #25

designates target student #5 in classroom 2), and passage of time. After each visit, the

91
observers completed the day’s notes, filling in information missed during class and briefly

summarizing target students’ responses for the day. They sometimes recorded
impressions, emerging hypotheses, and other unplanned observations as well.
2, Factor; Relam t9 Patterns of Task Engagemmt (RQ, 2)

For each of the four factors examined in this study, three main issues will be
discussed: (1) data sources, (b) data collection procedures, and (3) specific questions
guiding data collection.

in r i f l r m k R. -

Whenever observers found an opportune time to interact with their target students,
they asked the students specific content questions (for Research Question 1) and then 7
continued the conversations to inquire about their interpretations of the nature of
classroom tasks they were currently engaged in. Specific questions guiding data
collection were developed in advance for each of the four class activities (see Appendix
A). First, the observer asked target students about how they understood the content
objectives. The observer provided no feedback to students even when their
understanding was inaccurate. Second, the observer asked the students about how they -
experienced the difficulty of the classroom tasks and why they felt so.

Since data could be obtained only through informal conversations with students, the
opportunities occurred during Individual or small group activities (i.e., writing or
experimentation) in which the observer could gain access to students. In Classroom 2,
where class time was spent mostly on whole-class activities, the observer often had to
arrange for informal conversations with target students after class periods.

Prrin'ifin ninR-

Data for students’ progress in scientific understanding were collected through the
entire span of the study: (a) prior to instruction of the unit, (b) over the period of unit
instruction, and (c) after completion of instruction. Prior to and after instruction of the

“Matter and Molecules” unit, the interviewers (who were also the classroom observers)

92

conducted clinical interviews with each of the target students with regard to his/her
understanding of aspects of matter and molecules. Over the period of instruction, the
observers collected data from several sources, that could render the assessment of
students’ success or failure in scientific understanding in specific task situations.

MW. Interviewers asked each of
the 12 target students about aspects of matter and molecules, using the clinical interview
protocol developed by the Science Achievement Project (see Appendix B, see Lee et
al., 1989 for details). Interviewers used the clinical interview method (Codd, 1981;
Posner 8: Gertzog, 1982), originally developed by Piaget and extensively applied in
research on conceptual change, to examine the nature and extent of students’
knowledge about aspects of matter and molecules. The method is highly flexible,
allowing an interviewer to probe a person’s knowledge structure in a content domain
while the person speaks freely. The method is also effective for distinguishing the extent
of conceptual understanding from factual knowledge (Finley, 1986; Roth, 1985; Stepans,
Beiswenger 8: Dyche, 1986).

The development of the clinical interview protocol was based on a tasks by
conceptions chart for kinetic molecular theory. The protocol included five major tasks:
(a) the nature of matter and its three states, (b) expansion and compression of gases, (c)
changes of state, (d) dissolving, and (e) thermal expansion. Each of these five tasks
examined students’ knowledge of matter and molecules at both the macroscopic level,
(concerning observable properties of substances and physical changes) and at the
molecular level (concerning properties of invisible molecules). Also, 19 major
conceptions about aspects of matter and molecules were included: 8 conceptions at the
macrosc0pic level and 11 conceptions at the molecular level.

Two interviewers completed the clinical interviews prior to and after unit instruction.
Both were experienced in conducting clinical interviews, as they had worked extensively

with the Science Achievement Project during the previous year, aiding in the

93

development of the interview protocol, the implementation of clinical interviews, and
the analysis of interview data. The two interviewers also followed standard procedures
and decision rules to conduct clinical interviews. The interview protocol included both
branch questions and main frame questions as means for responding to a variety of
student responses and probing their reasoning.

Each interview took about a class period of 45 or 50 minutes with each targert
student. During clinical interviews, the interviewers conducted hands-on experiments to
represent natural phenomena to students (e.g., sugar dissolving, boiling water on a hot
plate, melting ice cubes in a cup, evaporation of alcohol on a glass plate, condensation of
water outside of a cold glass with ice cubes in it, etc.). The interviews were tape-
recorded and later transcribed.

All the pre-instruction interviews in both classrooms took place about a week before
instruction of the “Matter and Molecules" unit began. The post-instruction interviews
started about two weeks after unit instruction (a delay due to Christmas vacation). This
delay provided an opportunity to examine students’ understanding of kinetic molecular
theory at a long-range term, not easily amenable to memory effect immediately after
unit instruction.

f ni in ' . Various

 

sources of data provided information for examining students’ success or failure to achieve
scientific understanding in specific task situations over the period of instruction. First, the
observer engaged in informal conversations with target students during class activities (or
after class periods in Classroom 2). To probe target students’ understanding of the
content being taught, the observer asked each of them specific content questions which
had been formulated before beginning each lesson cluster. Second, verbatim student
responses during class discourse were recorded in observation notes. Third, students’
conversations with the teacher individually or with other students in small groups were

also recorded as much as possible. Finally, students’ answers in their activity books were

94

collected. During classroom observations, the observer paid particular attention to
whether target students copied answers from the textbook or other students.
I i i n in i la R 2

To understand students’ goal orientations in science class, interviewers conducted
formal interviews with target students prior to instruction of the unit. (The interviews
were conducted again after unit instruction as part of the data for R.Q. 3.) These
interviews were separate from the clinical interviews concerning content understanding
that had already been completed.

A structured interview protocol was developed for the present study (see Appendix
C). The protocol contained several important features to facilitate examination of the
issues addressed in the study. First, the interview protocol included several opening
questions concerning students’ understanding of the nature of science and science
Ieaming. This was to elicit whether students were aware of the structural and functional
components of scientific understanding.

Second, the protocol specified as many as 13 goals in science class. This
specification of goals was designed as an exhaustive list of possible student goals in science
class. Students would also be able to understand these specified goals more
meaningfully than broadly defined goals. For example, the generic goal of Ieaming was
divided into four different kinds of learning, including acquisition of vocabulary words and
definitions, memorization of facts, mastery of scientific conceptions, and use of scientific
knowledge for scientific functions.

Third, the protocol consisted of four short sets of questions, each dealing with
student goals from four different perspectives: (a) myself, (b) a good science student, (c) a
science teacher, and (d) a scientist. These question sets examined students’ perceptions
of their goals in relation to various aspects of science and science Ieaming: (a) the goals
that the students perceived they were actually trying to achieve (i.e., from one’s own

perspective); (b) those they perceived as achievable, regardless of whether they personally

95
tried or not (i.e., from the perspective of a good science student); (c) those they perceived

as important in science class (i.e., from the perspective of a science teacher); and (d)
those they perceived as the nature of science and science Ieaming (i.e., from the
perspective of a scientist).

Fourth, students’ responses to these four sets of questions would also reflect external
influences on their goals in science class. An additional set of questions from the
perspective of parents was originally considered, although it was not included in the final
interview protocol for several reasons. According to the results of pilot testing for the
present study, most students perceived that their parents wanted them to get good
grades as the first priority. Also, students’ perceptions of their parents’ expectations
seemed to reflect student goals in school in general, not specifically in science class. In
contrast, the four sets of questions in the final protocol were all closely related to aspects
of science, science learning, and science class.

Finally, to understand how student goals were hierarchically organized into a goal
structure, students were asked to rate each goal on a five-point scale. After completing
ratings on each of the four question sets, students were asked to report three primary
goals in order and explain why they responded in the way they did.

Since social desirability response tendencies pose a problem in self-reports, the
interviewers tried to minimize this concern by informing target students in advance that
their responses would be kept confidential, particularly from their teachers and parents.
To avoid the problem of superficiality in student responses, the interviewers probed
students about their underlying reasoning. The interviewers also asked students to be
honest in their responses, so that they could be representative of other sixth graders in
the school district. During the interviews, students seemed to be serious and enthusiastic
in expressing their thoughts and feelings in response to questions.

All the interviews were conducted by the two interviewers outside the two

classrooms, respectively. To ascertain consistency between the two interviewers, each

96

followed the guidelines and questions in the interview protocol. Each interview took 20-
25 minutes, including the time spent for the first part of the interview for R.Q. 2-d
concerning students’ affective orientations toward science. This allowed for two students
in one classroom to be interviewed during a class period. The interviews were tape-
recorded and later transcribed. The two nterviewers completed all the pre-instruction
interviews in both classrooms several days before instruction of the unit. The post-
instruction interviews started about a month after completion of unit instruction (i.e., two
weeks for Christmas vacation and another two weeks for clinical interviews).

’Aff iv rienttinTwr i R.

To understand students’ attitudes and interest, formal interviews were conducted
prior to instruction of the unit. (The interviews were conducted again as part of the data
for R.Q. 3.) A structured interview protocol was developed for the present study (see
Appendix C).

Each interview began with the interviewer explaining to the students the purpose of
interviewing. Then, the interviewer asked students an opening question concerning
their general affective orientations toward science. After this opening, the interviewer
presented to the students a set of three questions about attitudes (i.e., like or dislike),
interest (i.e., interested or bored), and curiosity (i.e., curious or do not care to learn about
science). These questions were modified from the questionnaire on intrinsic versus
extrinsic motivation in the classroom developed by Harter (1980, 1981)

Using a sample question, the interviewer demonstrated to students how to respond
to these questions. For each of the three questions, students rated themselves on a four-
point scale that was designed to reduce social desirability response tendencies (Harter,
1980, 1981). After students finished answering the questions, the interviewer asked
them to explain why they responded in the way they did. This explored the nature of
students’ affective orientations.

Because the affective orientation interviews were conducted at the same time as

97

those concerning students’ goal orientations in science class (R.Q. 2c), the procedure
used was identical to that for the student goal interviews.

A i - n ., ,- i In _-t1nno._o Cl -_n:=:I _.. ’ o._lri-.onin .no
Aff i ri i n R

This question examined whether achievement of scientific understanding after

completion of unit instruction was related to changes in students’ goal orientations in
science class and affective orientations toward science. For this purpose, several sources
of data were required: (1) achievement of scientific understanding after unit instmction;
(2) students’ goal orientations in science class prior to and after instruction; and (3)
students’ attitudes toward and interest in science prior to and after instruction. Sources
of data as well as data collection procedures had already been discussed for Research

Questions 2-b, 2-c, and 2-d.

Data Analysis Procedures

Two main issues of data analysis will be discussed. The discussion of a general
approach in data analysis will emphasize how this approach differs from the conventional
hypothesis testing approach and how this approach attempts to establish objectivity
based on empirical and theoretical evidence. Second, specific procedures in data
analysis for each of the research questions will be discussed.

l in n l i

The purpose of data analysis in this study was to construct a theoretically and
empirically defensible account of the data. The data analysis approach used here had
two distinct features differing from the conventional hypothesis testing approach. First,
unlike the pre-planned procedures for data analyses in the hypothesis testing approach,
this was a post-hoc procedure. Analytical frameworks for the research questions
emerged or became apparent as data analyses proceeded. Second, instead of using the
pre-planned coding systems of the hypothesis testing approach to guard for objectivity,

the approach in this study combined both informal analyses (i.e., observers’ intuitive

98
reasoning) and formal analyses (i.e., coding systems using ratings or frequency counts).
This approach, however, did not consist simply of ad hoc descriptions. Although the
process of analysis involved intuitive reasoning and post-hoc theory development, an
attempt was made to establish systematicity and objectivity in the final analysis according
to the following criteria:
1. The accounts should be theoretically coherent and grounded in the literature;
2. It should produce accounts of student behavior and cognition that are systematic
across students, across occasions of observation, and across data sources; and
3. The relationship between observable student behavior and covert cognitive
and/or affective processes should be clearly specified.
The data analysis process involved three main stages: (a) informal analyses based on
the observers’ intuitive reasoning from a thorough reading of data, (b) formal analyses
based on coding systems using ratings or frequency counts; and (c) development of

summary charts and case studies. This three-stage process took more than one cycle (i.e.,

revision) until the final summary charts and case studies were formalized.

 

revision
informal forrilal summary
analyses 5 analyses _—"chartsd8: case
stu Ies

First, during the stage of informal analyses, the readers (who were also classroom
observers/Interviewers) read the entire data set thoroughly for individual students. When
the readers became familiar with students’ characteristics with regard to the research
question to be examined, they informally classified individual students into groups based
on common patterns among students in the same group but distinct contrasts across
students of different groups. This classification was concluded on the basis of the readers’
intuitive reasoning from their in-depth understanding of students. At the same time, the
readers also identified key issues that seemed to serve as the basis for a formal
classification system. These issues should be theoretically coherent and grounded in the
literature. Thus, this first stage of data analyses combined the readers’ intuitive reasoning
with theoretical and empirical rationale.

Second, for more formal analyses, coding systems were developed on the basis of

99

the key issues identified for each research question. Using ratings or frequency counts in
the coding systems, systematic analyses of data across students, across occasions of
observation, and across data sources were concluded. In this way, the original, informal
classification was validated by more objective evidence. The final classification system
was based on the results of consistency or inconsistency between the informal and more
formal classification. Then, students were classified into new categories.

Finally, based on the results using the new classification, summary charts were
developed. The summary charts, which were organized under the key issues for each
research question, featured common patterns among students in the same category and
distinct contrasts across students of different categories. The summary charts also
specified the relationship between behavioral, cognitive, and affective variables.

Further, case studies were developed, which best represented characteristics of
students in a category and which were well supported by a sufficient data base. The case
studies provided detailed, rich descriptions of students’ characteristics in the category that
were concisely presented in the summary charts.
231W

Within the framework of a general approach in data analysis, specific procedures
were developed to analyze the data for each research question.

P n f k R. 1

The entire data set for the 12 target students across the nine lesson clusters included
a total of 130 episodes, each including narratives of students’ behavior and cognitive
responses during class activities, transcripts of informal conversations, and student answers
in the activity book.

Theoretical rationale and the observers’ intuitive reasoning after thorough readings
of student data identified three key aspects of students’ task engagement. First, self-
initiated cognitive engagement occurred when students explained their thinking or

expressed ideas that were not solicited by the teachers but revealed cognition going

1 00
beyond lesson content. On their own initiative, students actively constructed their own
knowledge as they tried to integrate their personal knowledge with scientific knowledge
and apply scientific knowledge to understand and explain the world around them.
Second, cognitive engagement occurred when students, within the scope of the lesson
content being taught in class, tried to integrate their personal knowledge with scientific
knowledge and produce scientific descriptions and explanations of natural phenomena.
Finally, behavioral engagement occurred when students were attentive and involved in
class activities, such as listening to the teacher or other students during class discussion,
not talking to others inappropriately, and following the teacher’s directions.
The coding system, which incorporated states of existence, ambiguity, and non-
existence for each of the three aspects of task engagement, included seven categories:
Category 1: (a) existence of self-initiated cognitive engagement,
(b) existence of cognitive engagement, and

(c) existence of behavioral engagement;

Category 2: (a) existence of co nitive engagement, and
(b) existence of avioral engagement;

Category 3: (a) ambiguity of cognitive engagement, and
(b) existence of behavioral engagement;

Category 4: (a) non-existence of cognitive engagement, and
(b) existence of behavioral engagement;

Category 5: (a) ambiguity of cognitive engagement, and
(b) non-existence of behavioral engagement;

Category 6: (a) non-existence of co nitive engagement, and
(b) non-existence of be avioral engagement;

Category 7: (a) non-existence of cognitive engagement, and
(b) disruptive behavior . .

There are several points to be clarified regarding the coding system. First, existence
of self-initiated cognitive engagement occurred only for Category 1. Second, a possible
combination of (a) existence of cognitive engagement and (b) non-existence of
behavioral engagement was not included in the coding system, as this occurred only

once out of 130 episodes. Third, ambiguity of behavioral engagement was not included;

101

the assessment of behavioral engagement was generally clear. Also, eliminating this
category made the coding system more manageable. Finally, the assessment of cognitive
engagement was not always clear and recorded as ambiguity for various reasons: no
student response during class discussion; no answers in the activity book; no Opportunity
for the observer to interact with students during class activities; and ambiguous or
irrelevant response during class discourse or in the activity book.

Each episode was the unit of analysis. The episode was analyzed as representing one
of the seven coding categories based on the overall quality of students’ task engagement
described in an that episode. To examine general patterns of students’ task engagement
across task situations, the results of assessment in specific task situations were aggregated
over the period of instruction.

Two coders (who were also the observers/Interviewers) completed the data analyses.
After practicing with a sample of episodes, the two worked independently. The
reliability between the two coders was 81%; the remaining 19% of disagreements
involved mostly differences within two bordering categories (e.g., Category 2 or 3) or
occasionally the assessment of behavioral engagement (e.g., Category 3 or 5). These
disagreements were resolved through discussion between the two coders.

F r l f k R
’inrinflrmkR-

Due to the constraints in classroom settings (especially in Classroom 2), the two
interviewers could collect data only in a total of 33 cases of informal conversations with
target students. Student reports of the content objectives were coded as representing
one of three categories: (a) adequate, (b) moderately adequate, and (c) vague. Students’
responses were assessed as adequate when they demonstrated understanding of the
content objectives intended in the curriculum unit; moderately adequate when they
showed partial understanding of the curricular objectives; and vague when they did not

seem to understand the curricular objectives.

102

In a similar manner, student reports of perceived task difficulty were coded as
representing one of three categories: (a) easy, (b) medium (i.e., not easy but not difficult),
and (c) difficult. The analysis of student responses was straightforward. The data were
analyzed by two coders. Because of the small number of cases, reliability between the
two coders was not obtained. The two coders showed overall a high rate of agreements.
Occasional disagreements were resolved through discussion between the two coders.

r r in i ifi n n in R -

The data set for students’ progress in scientific understanding included: (a) clinical
interviews concerning content understanding before and after instruction of the unit and
(b) achievement of scientific understanding in specific task situations over the period of
instruction. Students’ actual performance before, during, and after unit instruction was
the basis for developing profiles of progress in scientific understanding for individual
students. The list of scientific goal conceptions as opposed to common students’
misconceptions for each of the 19 conceptions was the basis for the assessment of
student performance (see Appendix D).

Analysis cf clinical inmicws. The data set included a total of 24 clinical interviews,
i.e., pre- and post-instruction interviews for each of the 12 target students. Student
responses were analyzed using the tasks by conceptions chart for kinetic molecular
theory. Two steps were involved in data analysis: (8) analysis of student responses for each
task and (b) assessment of student performance for each conception.

The tasks-by-conceptions chart identifies several scientific conceptions that are
particularly important and likely to be problematic for students for each particular task.
The chart indicates them with blank cells (see Appendix E). Students’ responses for each
of these conceptions represented one of the following categories: (a) scientific goal
conception, (b) partial understanding of scientific conception, (c) misconception, or (d)
ambiguous responses The judgments were recordedin each of the blank cells for this

particular task in the chart. The analyses of students’ responses continued for all the tasks

103

included in the clinical interviews.

After completing the analyses for all the tasks, the coders assessed each student’s
performance for each conception, based on the results of assessment across several
relevant tasks, as representing one of the four categories: ( a) scientific goal conceptions,
indicating adequate understanding of the scientific conception across several tasks; (b)
mixed responses, indicating a mixture of scientific conceptions for some tasks and
misconceptions for other tasks; (c) commitment to misconceptions; and (d) ambiguous
responses, including irrelevant responses, inconclusive data, or "I don’t know" responses.
The final data analysis tallied students’ performance for all the 19 conceptions for the
relative frequency of the four coding categories.

The data analysis was completed by two coders, one interviewer, and a staff member
from the Science Achievement Project. Through involvement in various phases of the
Project, both coders had extensive knowledge of students’ misconceptions as well as
scientific conceptions about aspects of matter and molecules. Based on the system of
four coding categories, decisions of agreement between the two coders included four
sets: G-G (Goal conception), N-N (Naive conception), M-M (Mixed response), and A-A
(Ambiguous response). All the other possible combinations were decided as
disagreements. The reliability coefficient of agreement between the two coders was
88%.

5355mm; cf scicgtific andgfianding in spccific task sitaaticns. The data set
included a total of 130 episodes, each including student responses during class discourse,
informal conversations with students during class activities, and student answers in the
activity book. The extent of students’ scientific understanding in specific task situations
was assessed as representing one of three categories: (a) success in achieving scientific
understanding, (b) failure to achieve scientific understanding, and (c) ambiguity or
inconclusive data. The assessment ambiguity or inconclusive data was made for various

reasons, such as no student responses during class discourse, no answers in the activity

104

book, no informal conversations during class activities, or ambiguous or irrelevant
responses during class discourse or in the activity book.

To examine general patterns of progress in scientific understanding across task
situations, the results of assessment in specific task situations were aggregated over the
period of unit instruction. The data were analyzed by two coders (the same
observers/Interviewers); the reliability between the two was 85%.

’ l i i n in i l R -

The data set included 24 formal pre- and post-instruction interviews for each of the
12 target students. The data were analyzed using ratings and analyses of verbal reports.

First, the 13 specific goals in the interview protocol were grouped into six goal
clusters:

Cluster 1: Understanding

(a) use science to understand the world

(b) have scientifically correct ideas
Cluster 2: Fact acquisition

(a) learn vocabulary and definitions

(b) memorize facts and information
Cluster 3: Performance in class

(a) get work done on time

(b) do well in class activities

(c) get ood grades

(d) do tter than other students
Cluster 4: Expectations of others

(a) please my parents

(b) please my teacher

(c) show that I am a smart person

Cluster 5: Extrinsic rewards
(a) receive rewards from parents (e.g., extra money or gifts)

Cluster 6: Task avoidance
(a) do as little work as possible
Then, three primary goals on each of the four question sets (i.e., from four different
perspectives) were analyzed into relevant goal clusters. Some students reported three

primary goals that represented three different goal clusters, while others reported two of

105

their primary goals belonging to the same goal cluster. The results of students’ goal
clusters from the four perspectives (i.e., myself, good science student, science teacher,
and scientist) were aggregated as a summary chart. Finally, students’ reports were
analyzed to examine their perceptions of the nature of science and science learning and
whether they understood the structural and functional components of scientific
understanding.

’ffiv rintin wri R. -

The data set included 24 formal pre- and post-instruction interviews for each of the
12 target students. The data were analyzed using numerical scales and analyses of verbal
reports. The scales for each of the three affective orientations (i.e., attitude, interest, and
curiosity) included: +2 and +1 (positive) and -1 and -2 (negative). Further, students’
verbal reports were analyzed to examine the nature of their affective orientations toward
science.

A hi - n . -r ni Int grin .n: .n: a. in .- ’ o.l Ori ., in .no
Affmivc Qrimtaticnc (Raccarch chjicn 3),

The entire data set for each student included two sets, one before and one after unit
instruction, of: (a) clinical interviews concerning content understanding about aspects of
matter and molecules, (b) formal interviews concerning students’ goal orientations in
science class, and (c) formal interviews concerning affective orientations toward science.

With regard to students’ goal orientations, he study examined the relationship
between achievement and changes in student goals by simultaneously comparing the
extent of content understanding after unit instruction, on one hand, and changes in goal
orientations after instruction as compared to before instruction, on the other hand. The
focus was on changes in students’ perceptions of (a) the nature of science and science
learning and (b) the goal of understanding in science class. In a similar manner, the

relationship between achievement and changes in affective orientation toward science

was examined. The focus involved changes in the nature of students’ affective

106

orientations toward science. The final analysis examined changes in students’ goal

orientations and changes in affective orientations for any systematic relationship.

CHAPTER FIVE
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter describes research findings for each of the three research questions
addressed in the study. The descriptions involve common characteristics among students
of the same category but distinctive differences from students of other categories. Also,
exceptional cases are noted. Following the description of the findings for the research
questions is a discussion of those findings from the perspectives of the student motivation
and conceptual change in science research traditions (discussed in Chapter 2). The
discussion addresses the question of whether issues of student motivation in science
classrooms can be explained in terms of motivational variables of students or their content

- knowledge in science.

Patterns of Students’ Task Engagement (R.Q. 1)

Research Question I examined patterns of task engagement in science classrooms in
order to answer the question: What types of goals do students try to achieve and which
strategies do they activate while engaging in science classrooms tasks? The quality of
students’ task engagement was used as the measure which incorporated three key aspects
of students’ task engagement: (a) self-initiated cognitive engagement, (b) cognitive
engagement, and (c) behavioral engagement.

Ratings of the quality of task engagement in each task situation for individual students
across the nine lesson clusters (LC) of the ”Matter and Molecules" unit are shown in Table
5.1 . Results of ratings across the 12 students in the study are grouped into six categories:

Category 1 represents students who demonstrated self-initiated cognitive engagement

in many task situations by expanding their thinking beyond the lesson content being

107

108

Table 5.1

Rin fh li f ’T En

 

 

 

 

 

—721 (Jason) 1 x 2 1 1.1 2.1 1 1 1 1.2""
“—2 "1‘73” 3 ra) 3 4 2 4. .2 3 2 2 _"'—2.9 ‘
r11 4 mam 4 3.2 2 2 . 3 2 2 “‘25" "'

 

mTAnn) 2 1 3.2 x 2.2 2 3 2 3.2 22
—'_T—'5)"—#2s Marl ———————2.2 2 x 2 2.3 '2 4 2.4 2—T2. '

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 #16 TNeil) 8 7 1 1.2—8—_z'_f 1 1 2.8

TWfi x 3 2—‘T—2 4.4 3.3 4.3 3.5—

3— W 5 8 4 4 4 2 8 4 8 3.8 4.5—
"as rum 2 8 5.6 x 8.2—2 8 8 4 4.4
3728 (Kim) 8 F—TI—TT'T—E 4 4.3

 

 

O‘

—"'II23 (Noral 2.4 x 8 _7.6 s 8 6 _—7.8 7 _""s.8 ‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘Six students (#1 1 through #16) were from Classroom 1; the other six (#21
through #26) were from Classroom 2.

”The mark, x, indicates that data were not available.
”‘1' able 5.1 can be understood in connection with Table 5.4 presenting the

results of students’ actual chievement of scientific understanding in specific
task situations over the period of unit instruction

109

taught. They were also attentive and actively involved in class activities. The quality of
their task engagement is indicated by the high frequency of Scale 1 (i.e., existence of self-
initiated cognitive engagement and existence of behavioral engagement) of the 7-coding
system in Table 5.1.

Category 2 represents students who demonstrated cognitive engagement in classroom
tasks, although their thinking was limited to the lesson content actually being taught. They
were also attentive and actively involved in class activities. Unlike those in Category 1,
however, these students did not demonstrate any thinking going beyond the lesson content.
The quality of their task engagement is indicated by the majority of Scale 2 (i.e., existence
of cognitive engagement and existence of behavioral engagement).

Category 3 represents a student who demonstrated self-initiated cognitive engagement
in some task situations in which he was intrinsically interested, but was not even attentive
in other task situations. Thus, the quality of his task engagement seemed to depend on his
intrinsic motivation, which was inconsistent across task situations. This is indicated by the
combination of Scale 1 (i.e., existence of self-initiated cognitive engagement and existence
of behavioral engagement) and Scale 6 (i.e., non-existence of cognitive engagement and
non-existence of behavioral engagement).

Category 4 represents a student who appeared attentive and involved in class
activities, but was not really engaged in classroom tasks cognitively. The quality of task
engagement is indicated by Scale 4 (i.e., non-existence of cognitive engagement and
existence of behavioral engagement) and Scale 3 (i.e., ambiguity of cognitive engagement
and existence of behavioral engagement).

Category 5 represents students who were often inattentive or uninvolved in class
activities as well as not cognitively engaged in classroom tasks. The quality of their task
engagement is indicated by Scale 6 (i.e., non-existence of cognitive engagement and non-
existence of behavioral engagement) and Scale 5 (i.e., ambiguity of cognitive engagement

and non-existence of behavioral engagement).

1 10
Finally, Category 6 represents a student who demonstrated disruptive behavior in class

and active resistance to engaging in classroom tasks. This student was not engaged in
classroom tasks either behaviorally or cognitively. The quality of her task engagement is
indicated by Scale 7 (i.e., non-existence of cognitive engagement and disruptive behavior)
and Scale 6 (i.e., nonexistence of cognitive engagement and non-existence of behavioral
engagement).

Based on the results shown in Table 5.1, six patterns of students’ task engagement in

terms of their choice of goals and strategies are summarized in Table 5.2:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5.2
W
Pattern (‘3an Strat ies
Se -initiat Cognitive Be aviora
cognitive engagement engagement
engagement
1, lntrfisically es es
motivated to Ieam y yes y
science
2, Motivated to Ieam no yes yes
science
3, Intrinsically yes yes no
[T'OIIVaPEdr bUt sometimes sometimes sometimes
flonsimnt
4, Task completion no no Yes
5, Work avoidance no no no
6. Disruptive no no no &
behaVlOf active resistance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Several points regarding the nature of the goals and strategies in Table 5.2 need to be
made clear before describing the major characteristics of each pattern of task engagement,.
First, these goals and strategies are based on observations of the quality of students’ task
engagement, rather than on the students’ self-reports of their goals and strategies during
task engagement.

Second, goals and strategies are not clearly distinguishable from each other. Students

111

with a particular goal activated strategies associated with the achievement of this goal.
Thus, goals and strategies are inextricably related (Brophy, 1983, 1987).

Third, causal independence between goals and strategies may be artificial (Vallacher
8: Wegner, 1987; Wegner 8: Vallacher, 1986). Instead of setting the goal and subsequently
selecting strategies to achieve this goal, students often may choose a goal in an attempt to
identify a particular course of action after the action or, at best, concurrently with the
action. Conversely, the relationship of goals to stragegies may be cyclical, rather than
unidirectional in either way.

Fourth, students did not engage in task situations with any particular goal or strategies
consistently; rather, they varied in their choice of goals and strategies for different task
situations. Even students across different types of motivation shared some common
characteristics, which was especially true for students in adjacent categories. Yet,
distinctive patterns of goals and strategies across different types of student motivation
seemed to emerge.

Finally, the measure of student motivation involves the process of Ieaming during task
engagement rather than later performance. Assessment of student achievement in scientific
understanding was not considered here; it was reserved for Research Question 2-b, which
addresses students’ progress in scientific understanding.

As a result of the small sample size (12 students) in the present study, there was only
one student for three of the six patterns of task engagement (Patterns 3, 4 and 6). Despite a
great caution to interpret research findings based on only one case, it was decided to
maintain these three patterns, as the one student in each pattern demonstrated distinctive
differences from those of the other patterns of task engagement.

A detailed account of major characteristics for each pattern of task engagement
follows. The discussion focuses on two issues: (a) goals and strategies during task
engagement for each pattern and (b) distinctive differences across patterns of task

engagement. Specific examples are provided.

112

P lzlnini ll iv L rn i

Self-initiated cognitive engagement distinguishes the two students in this category from
those in all the other categories. Without solicitation by the teachers, these students
initiated thinking which was relevant to the content being taught and went beyond the
lesson content. They seemed to engage in classroom tasks primarily because they wanted
to Ieam science. They seemed to find classroom tasks intrinsically enjoyable and take
satisfaction in expanding and increasing their scientific understanding. The modifier,
intrinsically, denotes that the students seemed to display a general disposition of
motivation to Ieam science.

Their intrinsic motivation to learn science was uniquely different from other patterns of
task engagement. On their own initiative, me students actively constructed their own
knowledge as they tried to integrate personal knowledge with scientific knowledge. They
also took initiative in engaging in scientific functions of describing, explaining and
predicting natural phenomena. Their self-initiation in cognitive engagement not only
satisfied their own desire to learn science, but also contributed to class discussion and
helped other students in the class expand their thinking.

While engaging in classroom tasks, these students demonstrated various Ieaming
strategies, indicating their intrinsic motivation to learn science. They seemed to be
inquisitive about understanding and explaining natural phenomena. In their effort to
explain novel events that had not been discussed in class, they extended the lesson content
to relate to their prior knowledge or personal experience. For example, both Ken (#11)
and Jason (#21) in two different classrooms asked similar questions in several task contexts.
There was an occasion in each classroom when the teacher explained to the class that
evaporation occurs without heating, as opposed to a prevalent student misconception that
evaporation requires a heat source. Jason in Classroom 2 asked the teacher, ”Can it (water)
evaporate even when it’s below freezing?" In Classroom 1, the teacher was setting up a

solar still on his desk as a demonstration activity for evaporation and condensation of

1 13
water. Ken asked, ”What will happen if you set it up in snow? You can get pure liquid out

of snow Even it’s ice, evaporation is still coming out of ice."

On another occasion, the lesson designed to help students explain that exhaled air
contains more carbon dioxide than normal air involved students in hands-on
experimentation. They breathed into bromothymol blue (8TB) solution and observed the
solution changing from blue into yellow (as a result of the increased presence of carbon
dioxide). After the experiment, both Ken in Classroom 1 and Jason in Classroom 2 asked
whether it was possible to change BTB yellow back to the original 8TB blue. This question
expanded the lesson content, leading to class discussion about the molecular bondage
between a liquid (BTB solution) and a gas (carbon dioxide). Students in both classes
reached the conclusion (and later observed) that if they left BTB blue with carbon dioxide
in it for a while, the carbon dioxide would escape from the solution and 8TB yellow would
turn back to the original blue color.

On still another occasion, Ken and Jason used the idea of magnet attraction to explain
properties of molecules. In Classroom 1, when the teacher was explaining that molecules
are constantly moving and that there is empty space between molecules, Ken responded,
”It is like the feel of pressure, like two of the same magnets. They don’t go together. I was
wondering about what the force is." When the teacher in Classroom 2 was explaining
about attraction between molecules, Jason suggested a magnet attracting a paper clip as an
analogy.

The Pattern 1 students seemed to think about science outside science class and
expanded class activities to connect to their science experiences outside class. For
instance, students in Classroom 2 were engaged in hands-on experimentation on
dissolving, using sugar as an example. Jason commented in class that he was currently
growing sugar crystals on a paper clip at home. He had watched the activity on a TV
science program and decided to try it himself. When the teacher in Classroom 2 was

explaining that every substance has its own unique freezing or melting temperature, Jason

1 14
urged the teacher to explain his question from the previous day, ”I asked you a question

yesterday and you said you’d know by the end of the day. If you put whiskey in a freezer,
why doesn’t it freeze?" The teacher responded to Jason that they would get to that issue in
the day’s lesson.

The students fought for their ideas until they convinced the teacher of their ideas or
were themselves convinced by the teacher’s explanations. For example, to a quiz question
asking whether there is anything (e.g., air or water) between the molecules of liquid water
(Lesson Cluster 1 introducing molecules), Jason responded, "No. Water molecules are the
liquid water itself." The teacher gave a half-credit for this answer. In the following lesson
period, Jason asked the teacher in class about the half-credit. He said, “I know that there is
nothing between the molecules. Water is the water molecules." The teacher responded
that he knew what Jason was saying. However, since it was the beginning of the unit, the
teacher wanted students to be more accurate and exact in their answers. Only students
who gave answers explicitly in terms of empty space received a full credit, but Jason’s
answer deserved a half-credit. Jason stopped his argument with the teacher.

The students paid close attention to the content being taught in class and pointed out
mistakes, ambiguities, or places for further elaboration in the textbook or the teachers’
explanations. For example, one question in the activity book asked students to draw the
molecules of air before and after air was compressed in a syringe (Lesson Cluster 4 on
compression and expansion of air). Then, the next question asked students to draw the
molecules of air on a high mountain as opposed to those in a scuba tank. During class
discussion, Jason commented that compared to the molecules of air on a high mountain,
the molecules of the non-compressed air in the syringe (i.e., normal state of air) should be
closer together. He explained that he drew more molecules (9 molecules) for the non-
compressed air in the syringe, compared to the number of molecules of air on the high
mountain (6 molecules). His answers indicate that Jason had integrated the two apparently

separate but conceptually related questions.

1 15
The students frequently worked ahead of the rest of the class in class activities. They

often used this extra time to check or elaborate their answers in the activity book, listen to
teacher explanations or other students’ answers during discussion, or help other students
during hands-on experiments. However, this caused minor problems for Jason; he was
. reminded by the teacher several times to engage in certain activities as the rest of the class
or not to talk to his neighbors when he was helping them with their answers. In response,
Jason sometimes asked the teacher for permission to move on to the next activity ahead of
the class.

P ° M iv L m i

The students in this category engaged in classroom tasks with the goal of achieving
scientific understanding and activated strategies associated with the accomplishment of
their goal. While engaging in classroom tasks, they tried to integrate personal knowledge
with scientific knowledge and use scientific knowledge to describe, explain, predict ,and
control natural phenomena. They often displayed a state of motivation to Ieam science in
specific task situations.

Although the students of both Patterns 1 and 2 were motivated to learn science, there
was one critical difference. Compared to the students of Pattern 1 task engagement, the
students of Pattern 2 rarely showed evidence of self-initiated cognitive engagement.
Instead, their cognitive engagement existed within the lesson content being taught. It was
not clear, at least based on classroom observations and informal interviews during class,
whether they found classroom tasks intrinsically enjoyable or whether they engaged in
classroom tasks primarily because they wanted to learn science. In other words, although
they often displayed a state of motivation to learn science in specific task situations, they
did not demonstrate a general disposition of motivation to learn science.

The quality of their task engagement revealed that the students activated strategies to
achieve the goal of scientific understanding in specific task situations. It should be noted

that most of these strategies (to be described below) were also shared by the students of

116
Pattern 1. On the other hand, the kinds of strategies demonstrated by the students of
Pattern 1 (described above) were not observed with the students of Pattern 2 task
engagement.

The students tried to integrate their personal knowledge with the scientific knowledge
being taught. In the process of undergoing conceptual change, they recognized their
miSconceptions and tried to modify these misconceptions into scientific conceptions. The
following example shows how Sara changed her misconception into a scientific
conception and also illustrates her awareness of the process of her conceptual change
Ieaming. During Lesson Cluster 1 on three states of water, the teacher introduced a
scientific conception of “empty space between molecules" and emphasized to the class
that there is nothing but empty space between molecules of water. Sara failed to
understand the scientific conception, as indicated in her answer to the observer:

Sara: There is water around water molecules There is nothing between
molecules because molecules are all bunched and close together.

In Lesson Cluster 3 on the molecular composition of air, Sara was still confused about
the scientific conception of empty space between molecules:

0 (Observer): What do you think is between the molecules?
Sara: There is air in between them.
0: Do ou think there is air in between them?
Sara: Wel , something is in between them. There is space between them.
0: Is the space filled with anything or is it empty?
ra: Air molecules. No, air without molecules.
0: So there is space between molecules, and in the space there is air?
Sara: Air without molecules There is space between the molecules. So it’s
really air space.

During the study on compression and expansion of air in Lesson Cluster 4, Sara finally
demonstrated an understanding of the scientific conception:

0: What is between the molecules (of air)?

Sara: There is just space between them.

0: Is the space empty or is there anything in the space?

Sara: Well, there is like smoke in the air. But there is just space, nothing
between the molecules.

0: So is it empty?

Sara: Yeah.

0: Do you remember your answer a while ago when I asked you the same
question?

117

Sara: I think I said water or something.

0: So you have changed your idea now?

Sara: Yeah. A lot

The students displayed several patterns of task engagement, suggesting their effort to
engage in scientific functions of describing, explaining, predicting, and controling natural
phenomena. In classroom environments in which the teacher encouraged students to
express their thinking, these students were usually among the first to volunteer explanations
in class discussion. They also tried to make complete, although not always accurate,
explanations in the activity book or during class discussion. The teacher, in turn, provided
feedback to correct their confusions, elaborate their answers, or promote further
understanding.

For example, an question in the activity book asked students to explain how ice melts:
Molecules break out of their rigid pattern when ice is warmed up. Ann was among the first
to raise her hand and volunteer to give her answer in class. She provided an explanation
in terms of molecular arrangements and movements during changes of states, ”The
molecules are moving farther apart and vibrating and then they move into another pattern.”
This answer, however, indicated that she was confused about the movements of molecules
in liquids as opposed to solids. As feedback to the answer, the teacher tried to correct her
confusion by probing her reasoning, saying, ”Moving farther apart and vibrating sound
opposite to me," and “In which state do molecules vibrate?" Ann later changed vibrating
in her original answer into moving faster. Clearly, active participation in class discussion
helped Ann develop a better understanding of scientific conceptions.

These students actively sought help from the teacher or the textbook in order to
resolve learning difficulties or enhance their scientific understanding. They often expressed
to the teacher in class, ”I don’t understand what you just said (or a question in the activity
book)" and asked the teacher for clarification or further explanation. In the following
example, Maria had difficulty understanding how smell reaches her nose. To resolve her

Ieaming difficulty, Maria asked the teacher to explain it again:

118

Maria: I don’t understand that. How does that happen?

Teacher: When perfume dries up, where does it go?

Maria: Into the air.

Teacher: Right, the molecules go into the air. . .

During individual class activities, such as conducting hands-on experiments or
working on questions in the activity book, the students sometimes asked the teacher
individually to check their ideas or answers. For instance, while students in Classroom 2
were working independently on a question about water cycle in the activity book, Ann
finished her answer, then approached the teacher for verification of her answer.

The students were attentive in class and actively involved in class activities. They
demonstrated several unique patterns of behavioral engagement, which also seemed to
indicate the quality of their cognitive engagement. For example, they sometimes used a
finger or a pencil to point in the textbook as they followed reading aloud in class. They
sometimes reread sections of the textbook which the class had just finished reading aloud.
They usually completed answers in the activity book before class discussion started,
instead of waiting for other students to give their answers fist. They generally kept pace
with the rest of the class or were slightly ahead.

P n'Inini llMoivat lnoni n

The quality of task engagement of the one student in this category suggests that he was
engaged in classroom tasks to satisfy his intrinsic motivation, although his engagement was
inconsistent across different task situations. In those classroom tasks that he found
interesting, this student demonstrated his own initiative in cognitive engagement. He
successfully integrated his personal knowledge with scientific knowledge and applied new,
scientific knowledge to explain natural phenomena. In tasks that he did not find
interesting, however, he was inattentive in class or uninvolved in class activities. The
quality of his task engagement seemed to depend on his intrinsic interest across task

situations.

The quality of task engagement in this category showed both similarities to and

119

demonstrated self-initiated cognitive engagement in certain tasks and engaged in those
tasks primarily because he was intrinsically motivated. Unlike the students of Patterns 1
and 2, however, he was not consistently engaged in classroom tasks with the goal of
achieving scientific understanding. Further, he was not even attentive or involved in
several task situations.

Three characteristics of task engagement seemed to emerge across the different task
situations. In task situations which the student found interesting, he seemed to engage in
those tasks primarily because he wanted to Ieam science. For example, the first lesson in
Lesson Cluster 3 was designed to help students understand that air is a form of matter that
has certain definite properties, such as occupying space. Students in Classroom 1 engaged
in discussion about whether air is something or nothing. The teacher introduced the
hands-on experiment for the day, which involved blowing air through a hose into a cup
placed upside down in a container of water and then sucking the air out of the cup. Then,
the teacher said, “If you ride a boat, and the boat overturns..." Neil suddenly interrupted
the teacher and commented in class, "Oh, that’s right! You can breathe inside the boat
underneath. We did that riding a row boat. We went underneath and there is air you can
breathe around the seats." His comment led to adiscussion on air pockets in a boat as a
source of evidence that air is something and takes up space. Further, the teacher
emphasized that it is important to understand scientific knowledge for practical reasons in
daily life, citing Neil’s example that people can survive if they know the scientific principle
of an air pocket in an overtunred boat. Later, Neil was actively involved in the experiment,
leading the activity for his group members.

Neil also seemed intrinsically interested in evaporation (LC. 8) and condensation (LC.
9). During the first lesson in Lesson Cluster 8, the teacher introduced evaporation and
engaged the class in a discussion. Neil made two brief comments during class discussion,
suggesting his interest in the concept as well as his understanding of scientific conceptions.

After class discussion, the teacher told the class to work on the questions in the activity

1 20
book in small groups. Neil and his group called the observer for help to answer the
question, “If you want your towel to dry out quickly after you have used it, should you
leave the bathroom door open or closed? Why?" Neil tried to convince the other group
members of his idea, "I think you should leave it open because that way humidity or
whatever can get out of the bathroom. In the bathroom, after you take a shower, humidity
is always inside the bathroom. The mirror is all fogged up. When you open the door it
starts to clean up." One group member asked Neil how one knew that the towel was wet.
Neil responded, ”It is a bathroom!” The group finally agreed with Neil’s idea.

In contrast to his interest and cognitive engagement in some classroom tasks, however,
the student was neither attentive nor involved in other task situations. Instead, he played
with things (e.g., pencil or rubber eraser), talked quietly to his neighbors, looked around or
smiled at other students, and did not volunteer to answer or make comments in class. For
example, the observer noticed that Neil and two of his group members were not involved
in a hands-on experiment on dissolving of sugar in Lesson Cluster 5 (although Neil was not
one of the three target students for the day). Near the end of the class period, the observer
approached Neil and his group: 1

0: May I take a look at your answers?

Neil: That’s OK, you don’t have to.

0: Let me help you.

Neil: Help X (pointing at one of his group members). He needs help. (Then, he

went away from the observer.)

Member X: They (including Neil) didn’t do it, either. So, you better call them

back, too.

Immediately after this conversation, the class was over and Neil left the room. The
observer later noticed that Neil answered some of the questions mindlessly and left the
others unanswered in his activity book. In the following class period, while the class
discussed the results of the experiment from the previous day, Neil was not attentive and
did not engage in class discussion.

The quality of his task engagement seemed to depend on his interest or enjoyment in

certain task situations, rather than being guided by the goal of achieving scientific

1 21
understanding. Compared to the students of Types 1 and 2 motivation who tried to

achieve their goal of scientific understanding, Neil seemed to be more concerned whether
or not he enjoyed certain tasks or activities. For example, Neil commented to the observer
several times on what parts he liked in the unit and why he liked them. While the class
was studying evaporation, Neil told the observer, ”The water, that was fun. Like when we
turn the water into the water vapor and back into the water again." Neil also commented,
“I think this (condensation) is my favorite one...Because it is fun, like trying to build the
solar thing."

Although Neil repeatedly said that ”it’s fun when we get to do experiments," he
experienced some activities ”not fun." During the experiment on the expansion and
compression of air (LC. 4) in which he was interested and also cognitively engaged, he
told the observer, ”I like the experiment. But I don’t like writing on the (activity) book." In
fact, despite the teacher’s continual reminders to the class to complete the questions in the
activity book, Neil did not finish some parts of his activity book and left them unanswered.

If the quality of Neil’s task engagement depended on his interest, what caused his
interest in certain situations'and lack of interest in others? Although the findings do not
provide a clear answer, he seemed to be interested in hands—on experiments or topics of
class discussion that he could relate to his prior knowledge or experience and were,
therefore, personally meaningful to him (Floden & Buchman, 1984). In contrast, he
seemed to dislike activities that required sustained effort, such as writing answers in the
activity book. The quality of Neil’s task engagement poses an interesting question about
what triggered his interest inconsistently across classroom task situations.

Faun 4; Task Completion

The one student in this category seemed to be concerned about completing classroom
work, not necessarily with scientific understanding, and activated strategies that allowed
him to achieve his goal of task completion. This student generally appeared attentive in

class and involved in class activities. In contrast to his seeming behavioral engagement,

122

however, the student failed to demonstrate cognitive engagement. Thus, rather than
expending effort to try to achieve scientific understanding, he settled for the goal of
meeting the minimum requirements generally accepted in classroom settings, i.e.,
completion of classroom work.

The quality of his task engagement displayed major differences from the previous
patterns of task engagement. Unlike the students of Patterns 1 and 2, this student was not
cognitively engaged in many task situations, although he seemed to be attentive and
involved in class activities. Further, unlike the students of Patterns 1 and 3, he did not
show any evidence of self-initiated cognitive engagement or interest in classroom tasks.
Thus, the quality of his task engagement would be described as “failure in cognitive
engagement, although success in behavioral engagement” (Peterson & Swing, 1982).

While engaging in science classroom tasks, the student relied on his prior knowledge,
although incorrect, instead of trying to connect scientific knowledge to his prior
knowledge. Thus, he often failed to recognize his misconceptions or conceptual conflicts.
In the following example, the observer asked Sean to explain evaporation (LC. 8) at the
end of a class period:

0: We were talking about evaporation in your class today. What do you

mean when we say the air is humid? What does that mean to you?
Sean: We got a lot of water vapor in it, in the air.
0: OK. Is the air always humid? Is there always the same amount of water
vapor in the air?
Sean: No...
0: When you use the word evaporate, what do you mean by that?
an: It means, uh, it’s changing to the air, going to the air.
0: So when we say water evaporates, what happens?
Sean: Water will break up, water will go into the air, change into the air.
0: It will change into the air?
an: Yeah.
0: So, water will become air? Is that what you mean?

Sean: Yeah.

This conversation shows that Sean was not cognitively engaged. By the time the
students were studying evaporation later in the unit, they had already studied the
conservation of matter and the nature of air several times throughout the unit. Yet, Sean

failed to connect the content taught earlier in the unit with the content being taught

123

presently. Further, even during the conversation, Sean gave inconsistent responses. He
responded in the beginning that there is water vapor in the air (i.e., air contains water
vapor); but he later said that liquid water becomes air. Eventually, Sean relied completely
on his incorrect prior knowledge and maintained his initial misconceptions even after
instruction.

The student was not actively engaged in those class activities that provided
opportunities to promote scientific understanding. Sean did not participate in class
discussion, although students were strongly encouraged to provide their explanations in
class and, subsequently, receive feedback and help from the teacher. Nor was Sean
among the first group of students who volunteered to give their answers in class. Instead,
he usually waited until after other students provided and then started to raise his hand. In
fact, since Sean was not active in class discussion, the teacher called on him to check his
understanding more often than Sean volunteering to provide his explanations or seeking
help for his Ieaming difficulties from the teacher.

Although generally attentive, the student occasionally did not pay attention in class or
participate in class activities. For example, when the class engaged in a hands-on
experiment on dissolving of sugar, he teacher forgot to assign Sean to a group. While other
students were engaged in the experiment in small groups, Sean just sat at his desk and,
then, moved into one group. Instead of taking part in the group activity, he just stood apart
and looked around the other groups until the end of the activity (all this took place for
about 4 minutes). Sean sometimes did not answer questions in the activity book, even
when the teacher told the class to do so, but waited until class discussion started. When
Sean finished classroom work earlier than the rest of the class, he just sat back at his desk
and waited, looking at the teacher or his neighbors, until the class started the work

together.

1 24
Panfin 5; Task Avgidanga

The quality of task engagement of the students in this category showed that they
avoided engaging in classroom work. They were not cognitively engaged in classroom
tasks. Further, they were not even attentive or involved in class activities. They seemed to
be mainly concerned about getting the work done with a minimum of effort.

The quality of their task engagement showed distinctive differences from the previous
four Patterns. Unlike the students of Patterns 1 and 2, these students were not engaged in
classroom tasks with the goal of achieving scientific understanding. Unlike those of
Patterns 1 and 3, they did not demonstrate any initiative in cognitive engagement. Even
unlike the student of Pattern 4, these students were evidently not attentive or involved in
class activities.

The students used various strategies to minimize their effort in completing classroom
work. In the following example, Kim made no effort to engage in the classroom task and,
yet, successfully completed the work by copying her neighbor’s answer. This example also
shows how the quality of Kim’s task engagement differed markedly from that of her group
partner Maria (Pattern 2 engagement). The teacher in Classroom 2 told the class to work in
small groups on a question about evaporation (LC. 8) in the activity book:

(Bonus question) (a) Evaporation occurs when fast moving water molecules

escape from liquid water and leave the slower-moving molecules behind. What

do you think happens to the temperature of the liquid water?

While the observer was watching the group activity, each of the four group members
showed different reactions: One student believed that the temperature would go down;
another student insisted that the temperature would stay the same; Maria was not sure,
although she seemed to think that the temperature would go down; and Kim had not yet
made any comments. At this moment, the observer took part in the group conversation:

0: You have very different ideas. Some students say that the temperature will

gicgrtutp, and some say it will go down. You say that it will stay the same,

Student 1: I think it will stay the same, because if you take the cup outside, it is
going to turn to that temperature. It will stay the same as it evaporates.

125

(While Student 1 was responding to the observer, Kim talked to Maria briefly
about a school event and said that one of her friends needed a black skirt
for that occasion.)

Kim (to Maria): Do you have a black skirt that she can borrow?
Maria: Come on. We are thinking about science today. Just answer the
question.
0 (toward Maria): What do you think?
Maria: I think it will go—. Evaporation occurs when fast-moving—, so it has to
go up, because molecules move when it is hot. Catch my drift?
0: But there is something you learned in the last lesson. If you have a cup of
water, are all the molecules of water movin at the same speed?
Student 1: No, it can go higher or lower, and it wil evaporate.
Maria: Yeah.
0: If you have molecules moving at different speeds in the same cup of
water, which ones are the ones that are going to evaporate?
Student 2: The ones at the higher speed.
Maria: Because-—.
Kim (interrupted): So the temperature would go higher.
0: When the fast-movin molecules leave?
Maria: There will be two di erent kinds of molecules in the water. They move at
gifferent speeds. They are not in a rigid pattern, they are moving around
ee y.
Student 2: The temperature will go down.
Kim: It will go down. I will put it down. I like it.
Student 2: Because the fast-moving molecules go away, leaving the slow-moving
molecules to stay behind. 50 the temperature will go down.
Kim (toward Student 2): What are ou writing?
(Kim copied Student 2’s answer in er activity book.)
Student 2: We are not supposed to copy...
0: Do you think that is right what e (Student 2) said? Do you agree with
what he said?
Maria: Just a little.
0: Do you think his answer makes sense?
Maria: Yeah.
Kim: Yeah.

Following the group activity, the class engaged in discussion. Kim was called on by
the teacher to give her answer in class. She said, “The temperature will go down, because
the fast-moving molecules leave the slow-moving molecules behind." The teacher praised
her, ”Excellent! A very good answer."

This example illustrates several characteristics of Kim’s task engagement. First, Kim
was not actively involved in the group activity; her participation in class activities was
generally minimal. To encourage Kim to participate more in class, the teacher praised her
for any indication of good performance, as evidenced in the above example. Second,

without thinking, Kim impulsively accepted another student’s idea and copied his answer

1 26
(perhaps partially because Student 2 was a good science student in class). This is a
significant contrast to the case of Maria, who was struggling with her idea. Third, Kim was
imore nterested in social matters than engaging in the academic activity. Maria, in
contrast, urged Kim to engage in the task. Finally, the nature of Kim’s task engagement
suggested her passive attitude during task engagement. Kim rarely seemed to ask herself
whether or not something made sense to her. Further, she did not seek help from the
teacher in class or individually.

The students avoided, even when provided with opportunities, engaging in scientific
activities in class. They rarely volunteered to give their explanations in class discussion.
Instead, the teachers encouraged them to be more active in class participation. When
called on by the teachers to give their explanations in class, they often responded, “I don’t
know."

When guided by the teachers with prompts or probing questions, however, they could
provide adequate, scientific explanations. For example, after the hands-on experiment
using BTB blue solution, students engaged in discussion about why the original blue color
changed into yellow. The teacher called on Kim to give her answer in class:

Kim: It shows that there is CO; in the air.

Teacher: Which air are you talking about, air you breathe in or breathe out?

Kim: Air going in.

Teacher: What about air going out?

Kim: None. I don’t know.

Teacher: What do you think causes the solution to turn color?

Kim: The CO; in your breath when you breathe out.

Teacher: That’s very good. You do know. . .

In several other occasions, Kim showed inconsistencies or even contradictions in her
answer. For example, to examine the difference between compression of air (gas) as
opposed to water (liquid), students performed individual hands-on experiments which
involved pushing a syringe filled with air and then with water. While Kim was working at
her desk, the observer engaged in a conversation with her. Kim told the observer that she

could compress the water in the syringe (which is incorrect), as she could the air in it. Kim

explained that there was no difference between what happened with air and water (i.e.,

127

she could compress water as well as air in the syringe). Upon hearing this conversation,
her neighbor interrupted and said that there was a difference in the results. Right after, the
class engaged in discussion, and the teacher called on Kim to give her answer. Contrary to
what she told the observer, Kim answered that the plunger in the syringe did not move at
all with air in it, just like it did not move with water in it. She put down in her activity
book, ”I wasn’t able to push it (air) at all."

Thea and Lin in Classroom 1 were relatively more active in class participation than
Kim. When Thea and Lin sometimes made comments in class, their responses were based
on personal experiences irrelevant to the content being taught in class. For example, to
explain the different arrangements and movements of molecules in three states of matter,
the teacher used rock salt as an example. Thea raised her hand and made a comment in
class, ”We saw in the fourth grade. We went to Chicago and picked up rock salts." While
Thea was commenting, Lin kept her hand raised until being called on by the teacher, ”My
sister collects rocks, and she has some of it."

Of the three students of Pattern 5, Lin was the only one who sometimes volunteered to
give her answers in class. Even on those occasions, Lin relied on her common-sense
explanations, rather than trying to use scientific knowledge being taught in class. For
example, one of the questions in the activity book asked students to explain, ”Bonus
question (b): Why does your head get cold if you go outside without drying your hair?"
(LC. 8). The teacher had already explained evaporation in terms of molecules, and the
class jhad ust finished discussing a similar question (Bonus question (lal, described earlier).
Further, the teacher reminded the class to think about the idea of individual fast-moving
molecules. While the teacher was talking, Lin kept her hand raised until being called on.
Lin responded, “I say that when you dry your hair and walk out of the bathroom, you are
not used to dry air. You were used to humid air. It makes you feel cold because you used
to be warm."

A most critical aspect of students’ task engagement involves their lack of attention or

128

involvement in class activities, which also suggests their failure to engage cognitively. For
example, although quiet, Kim did not pay attention in class. Instead, she had an empty
gaze, looked around the room, focused outside the window, or played with things. Thea
constantly moved at her desk, looked around, or quietly talked to her neighbors. In three
lesson periods over the course of this study, Lin worked extensively on her mathematics
assignments under her desk without being detected by the teacher. On several other
occasions, Lin drew pictures, wrote on sheets of paper, put her head down on the desk, or
talked to her neighbors. She was admonished by the teacher several times to pay attention
in class, with such remarks as, “I guess you haven’t paid attention for 10 minutes."

The students also failed to follow the instructions or directions in class activities, and
did not complete their work as did the rest of the class. For example, despite the teacher
demanded that the class finish questions in the activity book before engaging in class
discussion, Kim usually waited until class discussion started. Lin failed to follow
procedures during several experiments, although the teacher provided specific directions
before the experiments or the instruction in the activity book was fairly easy to follow. Lin
sometimes did not engage in classroom tasks with the rest of the class, so by the time the
teacher told the class to finish their work, she had barely started it. Further, she left the
questions in her activity book unanswered.

P ° Di iv 8 vi r

The one student in this category displayed two major patterns of task engagement:
active task avoidance and disruptive behavior. Compared to the less obvious task
avoidance by the students of Pattern 5, this student actively avoided engaging in classroom
tasks or participating in class activities. She also seemed to resist engaging in classroom
tasks, and often displayed disruptive behavior or disciplinary problems in class.

The student actively avoided engaging in classroom tasks. For example, students in
Classroom 2 had finished a hands-on experiment on how to dissolve sugar faster. When

called on by the teacher to give her answer during class discussion, Nora provided a very

129

elaborate, scientific explanation. However, it turned out that she copied the answer from
the textbook. On two other occasions, when called on by the teacher to give her answers
in class, she started reading her answers in her activity book for the questions that had
already been discussed in class. For instance, Nora started reading her answer, “Paper
towel”, then stopped and asked her neighbor, ”Which question am I supposed to answer?"
Her neighbor pointed to her that she should answer the next question. On another
occasion, the teacher, while walking around the room during class discussion, pointed out
to Nora that she was on a wrong page.

The student seemed to resist engaging in classroom tasks. While walking around the
room, the teacher passed by Nora and reached to pick up her activity book to read the
answer for her in class (as the teacher sometimes did for other students). Nora suddenly
grabbed her activity book, refused to let the teacher read her answer, and hid her book
behind her back. On another occasion, during class discussion and a hands-on
experiment on thermal expansion of liquids using a thermometer as an example, Nora was
playing with her thermometer instead of writing her answers in her activity book or
engaging in discussion. At one point, she put her hand on the bulb of the thermometer for
a while, although both the activity book (in an underlined passage) and the teacher stressed
to the class before the experiment that this was not to be done. Noticing her behavior, the
teacher reminded Nora, ”I want to talk to you because you are holding the bulb." On still
another occasion when the teacher was explaining water cycle, Maria (Pattern 2) insisted
to the teacher that when water evaporates, it starts from the ocean and goes up. The
teacher tried to correct Maria’s confusion, explaining that the water cycle starts from
anywhere there is water, not necessarily from the ocean. Looking at Maria, Nora
sarcastically commented, ”Just believe it, Maria."

' The student often displayed disruptive behavior or disciplinary problems in class. The
teacher told her to change her seat during class, because she was disrupting her neighbors

and not attending to class discussion. The teacher also required her to remain after class

130

several times because of her disciplinary problems. In one class period, Nora was talking
to her neighbor and not involved in class activities. When instructed to pay attention,
Nora excused her problem by accusing her neighbor, saying that this neighbor kept asking
her for the answers in the activity book. On two occasions, Nora made faces at the teacher
behind his back while he was writing on the blackboard. Several other times, Nora
disrupted the class in a more subtle manner, by yawning or coughing loudly, reading her
answer in class loudly and quickly, or making faces at other students.
mm:meTEn ini lrm

The study identified six patterns of students’ task engagement. Students across
different patterns engaged in classroom tasks with different goals and activated different
qualities of cognitive or behavioral engagement.

Patterns 1 and 2 task engagement represent students who engaged in classroom tasks
with the goal of achieving scientific understanding, as they tried to integrate scientific
knowledge with personal knowledge and apply scientific knowledge to describe, explain,
predict, and control the world around them. The two patterns, however, differed in one
major aspect. The students of Pattern I seemed to be motivated to Ieam science as a
general disposition; they found classroom tasks intrinsically enjoyable and interesting. In
comparison, the students of Pattern 2 often displayed a state of motivation to learn science
in specific task situations but failed to demonstrate a general disposition of motivation to
learn science.

In contrast to the students of Patterns 1 and 2, the remaining students were not
motivated to learn science while engaging in science classroom tasks. They settled for less
than trying to achieve the goal of scientific understanding. The quality of task engagement
by the student of Pattern 3 seemed to depend on his intrinsic interest which was
inconsistent across different task situations, instead of being guided by the goal of
achieving scientific understanding. The student of Pattern 4 seemed to be concerned with

completing classroom work, not necessarily with scientific understanding. Although he

131

generally appeared to be engaged, he was not cognitively engaged in many task situations.
The students of Pattern 5 avoided engaging in classroom tasks and activated strategies that
minimized their effort in getting done with classroom work. Finally, the student of Pattern

6 actively resisted engaging in classroom tasks altogether. This student often showed

disruptive behavior and disciplinary problems in class.

Factors Related to Patterns of Task Engagement (R.Q. 2)

The second research question examines four key factors that seem to be related to
patterns of students’ task engagement: (a) students’ interpretations of the nature of
classroom tasks, (b) success or failure to make progress in scientific understanding, (c)
students’ goal orientations in science class, and (d) students’ affective orientations toward
science.

The descriptions of the findings proceed by examining how each of these factors is
related to students’ choice of goals and strategies during task engagement. In particular,
the discussion examines whether each of these factors can distinguish students who are
motivated to learn science from those who are not. After the descriptions of findings for
each factor, those findings are discussed from the perspectives of two research traditions:
(a) student motivation and (b) conceptual change in science.

To develop an extensive, complete profile of student characteristics for each pattern of
task engagement across all the four factors, a detailed account of one student from each
pattern is presented:

Pattern 1 engagement: Jason (#21)

Pattern 2 engagement: Sara (#13)

Pattern 3 engagement: Neil (#16)

Pattern 4 engagement: Sean (#24)

Pattern S engagement: Kim (#26)

Pattern 6 engagement: Nora (#23)

Two main criteria were used for the selection process: representativeness of the

student for the particular pattern of task engagement and sufficient data for the student

across all four factors:

132
’In i flrmTkR.2-

The first key factor concerns whether students’ task engagement is related to the way
they interpret the content objectives and difficulty of classroom tasks while (or, sometimes,
after) engaging in those tasks. Do students who are motivated to learn science interpret
academic tasks differently from those who are not motivated to Ieam science?

Four issues of research findings were examined. First, how did the students
understand the content objectives of classroom tasks? Second, how did the students
perceive difficulty of classroom tasks? Were they aware when they had Ieaming difficulty
and why they did so? Third, how did the students’ subjective judgment of task difficulty
compare with the observer’s assessment of their actual achievement in that particular task
situation? Finally, how were the students’ interpretations of classroom tasks related to their
goals and strategies during task engagement?

Table 5.3 presents a summary of three sources of data: (a) students’ understanding of
content objectives (i.e., accurate, moderate, or vague); (b) students’ perceptions of task
difficulty (i.e., difficult, medium, or easy); and (c) actual achievement of scientific
understanding (i.e., success, ambiguous, or failure , to be discussed in detail for R.Q. 2-b).
To examine the consistency (or inconsistency) between subjective task difficulty and actual
achievement, data from these two sources are connected with dotted lines.

As shown in Table 5.3, the results suggest there were significant differences between
students of the first three patterns and those of the remaining three patterns. The students
of Patterns 1, 2 and 3 show common characteristics: (a) They generally had accurate
understanding of the content objectives; (b) they were aware when they had Ieaming
difficulties, and why they did 50; (c) their subjective judgment of task difficulty was
consistent with the observer’s assessment of their actual achievement; and (d) their
interpretations of classroom tasks were related to the goal of scientific understanding and
strategies during task engagement in those situations.

There seems to be, however, one significant difference among the students of the first

1 33
patterns of task engagement. The students of Pattern I seemed stricter in their judgment of

 

Table 5.3
’In i n f h N r f i c la r T
Understanding of Perception of Achievement of Number
content objective task difficulty scientific of

understandin incidents

               

            

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intrinsica y accurate easy -- success 6
motivated to medium -- success
__ lern science difficult —— ambiguous ‘
2. Motivated accurate, easy -- success 1 0
to Ieam occasionally medium -- ambiguous/failure
science moderate difficult -- failure
3. Intrinsically accurate ea? -- success 5
motivated, di Icult - failure
but
inconsistent _
4. Task moderate easy - success/failure 2
completion vague
5. Task vague ea -~ failure/success 8
avoidance moderate medium -- failure
accurate difficult -- failure ‘
6. Disruptive accurate easy - faiFure 2
behavior medium -- failure ‘
Esta! 35

 

 

task difficulty than those of Patterns 2 and 3. When they perceived a certain task as
medium (moderately difficult), they still achieved scientific understanding. Even when they
perceived a certain task as difficult, they demonstrated partial understanding of scientific
conceptions. In fact, when they perceived certain tasks as difficult or moderately difficult,
those tasks tended to be inherently complicated (e.g., explaining dissolving or
condensation). Thus, they seemed to be very sensitive when something did not completely
make sense to them.

In contrast to the first three patterns of engagement, the students of the remaining three
patterns (except Lin of Pattern 5) show a different set of common characteristics: (a) Their
understanding of the content objectives was sometimes inaccurate or vague; (b) they were

sometimes unaware of their learning difficulties; (c) their subjective judgment of task

1 34
difficulty was sometimes inconsistent with the observer’s assessment of actual
achievement; and (d) their interpretations of classroom tasks were related to their goals,
such as simply completing classroom work or trying to avoid the work, and the activation
of strategies to achieve these goals.

Since two sets of common characteristics across the six patterns of task engagement
seem apparent, discussion here will not exhaust findings for each pattern of engagement.
Instead, four cases are presented. The first case, Jason (Pattern 1) ,represents accurate
interpretations of classroom tasks by the students of Patterns 1, 2 and 3. Two cases, Sean
(Pattern 4) and Kim (Pattern 5), represent different types of inaccurate interpretations of
classroom tasks by the students of the last three patterns. The final case, Lin (Pattern 5),
illustrates an exception to the two sets of common characteristics.

Wm. Jason (of Pattern 1) usually had a good
understanding of what the classroom tasks were intended to teach. For example, the class
had just started Lesson Cluster 5 on dissolving of sugar in water: Molecules of water hit the
grains of sugar and break off sugar molecules, and sugar molecules mix with the water
molecules. When asked by the observer about the main idea of a handsoon experiment on
dissolving, Jason responded, “Like if somebody asked you why is it dissolving, then you
have an answer if you have known it."

Further, Jason was aware of his learning difficulties. When the observer asked him to
explain how sugar in a tea bag dipped in a container of water dissolved in the water, Jason
tried to apply his prior knowledge about properties of molecules (e.g., the arrangements
and movements of molecules in different states of substances). Yet, he seemed to be
confused:

Jason: Molecules of the water started mixing molecules of the sugar and escaping

from the tea bag.

0: What do you mean, molecules of water started mixing with molecules of

sugar? Do you have any idea how that happens?

Jason: Sort of like the movie said. I didn’t include as much as the movie said.

Umm. The molecules—There was almost the same—It was just—Umm.

The sugar molecules started—I can’t say—Umm. They started sliding and
bumping past each other, like they started taking the same action as the

135

water movement.

0: What makes them start doing that?

Jason: The movement of the water molecules are different than the solid of the
grains. The movement of water molecules mixes the movement of sugar.
Instead of the movement, the molecules themselves try to break them up.

The observer continued the conversation, asking Jason whether he experienced the
task as easy or difficult, and why:

O: Did you think these questions (in the activity book) were hard to answer?

Jason: Difficult, yeah.

O: Why were they hard for you?

Jason: I couldn’t just gather my thoughts. I couldn’t think, you know. It is pretty

confusing, sort of. Umm. It was sort of hard.

O: Cause the material, the stuff you are learning was hard?

Jason: No. The stuff that I am learning, it’s interesting, you know. And it is sort

of fun being and science and stuff, but it wasn’t hard at all. It was difficult,
difficult.

Thus, Jason’s subjective judgment of task difficulty was consistent with the observer’s
assessment of his actual performance. As Jason expressed that the task was difficult for
him, he had not constructed a complete scientific explanation for dissolving, although his
explanation included some components of scientific conceptions (e.g., molecules breaking
up or mixing). In contrast, when he perceived certain tasks as easy, he achieved scientific
understanding in those situations.

Finally, Jason’s interpretations of classroom tasks seemed related to his choice of goal
and strategies during task engagement. Even when he experienced certain tasks as
difficult, he expended sustained effort to achieve the goal of scientific understanding. For
example, in the following lesson period, the class continued discussion of the questions in
the activity book from the previous day. Jason frequently raised his hand to volunteer his
answers, although he was not called on by the teacher. Before moving on to the next
lesson, Jason finally had a chance to ask a question: “Like my pencil, why doesn’t it
dissolve? Molecules are hitting it, too.” Jason’s question indicated that he adequately
understood scientific conceptions for dissolving. This question led the teacher to explain
to the class that pencil and sugar are different substances and that their molecules behave

differently.

136
W. Sean (of Pattern 4) sometimes did not accurately

interpret the content objectives of classroom tasks. For example, the teacher emphasized a
new, complicated idea to the class that evaporation occurs when individual fast-moving
molecules break away attraction of the other molecules and escape from the surface of a
liquid (LC. 8). During a conversation with the observer, Sean responded:

0: Why do you think you were studying this stuff today?

Sean: Because I think it was to refresh our memory, because pe0ple thought we
knew it but people don’t, and teach them.

(Note: Sean told the observer that he had studied evaporation in the fifth grade.)

Further, Sean failed to understand scientific conceptions for evaporation:

0: You talked about the water escaping from the towel toda (a question in
the activity book). Can you talk about that in terms of su stance and
molecules?

Sean: The substance is water, and the water on the towel. And then when there
is not as much as humid, as humid, then they sort of escape and break. I
mean the molecules sort of escape and break up and go to the air and
evaporate.

: When you say the molecules esca , what makes them escape?

n: Umm. They, probably because 0 evaporation?

O: OK. What do you mean by because of evaporation?

Sean: Like, sort of, evaporates on the towel, then it breaks off and then
evaporates.

O

This example shows that Sean failed to construct a molecular explanation of
evaporation. He repeated escape and break up without understanding how those ideas
were related to the process of evaporation. He seemed to pick up these familiar
expressions without trying to make sense of them in the context of scientific knowledge.

Nevertheless, Sean thought the task was not difficult for him:

0 Was this stuff new for you, what you were talking about today?

an: Um, no, not really.

0: Have you talked about evaporation before?
Sean: Yeah, in the fifth grade.

0: Did you? Was anything difficult for you?
Sean: No, not really.

Thus, Sean’s subjective judgment of task difficulty was inconsistent with the observer’ 5
assessment of his actual achievement. Although Sean perceived the classroom task as
rather easy, he did not understand scientific conceptions of evaporation.

Finally, Sean’s interpretations of classroom tasks seemed to be related to his goal of

137
task completion and choice of strategies during task engagement. As described above,

Sean failed to understand the content objectives of classroom tasks. He interpreted the task
based on his inaccurate or insufficient prior knowledge Since he thought that he already
knew the content of the lesson, the task appeared rather easy to him and there was nothing
new. While engaging in the tasks, Sean tried to complete the classroom tasks according to

the way he interpreted them, which was not compatible with scientific understanding.

WWW. Kim (of Pattern 5) usually failed to understand the
content objectives of classroom tasks. For example, students engaged in a handsoon

experiment in which they warmed up a cold soda bottle with a dime on the neck and
observed the dime popping up and down (i.e., thermal expansion of air in LG 6). When
asked by the observer to explain the objective of this activity, Kim did not respond:

O: Why do you think you did this activity today? What do you think the
purpose of the activity was?

Kim: (pause)

0: You don’t know? Any idea?

Kim: No.

Further, Kim could not explain why the dime popped up and down in the activity:

0: Can you tell me anything about molecules? What was happening to the
molecules of air?

Kim: They were moving closer together, cause when you makesomething warm,
when you heat something, the molecules get close together. So when you
put your hands around it, the bottle got warm, so it caused the dime to
jump up and down.

0: OK. You said that when ou heat something, the molecules get closer
together. I think it might be the other way around. When you heat
something—

Kim: They move farther apart.

0: Anything else?

Kim: (pause)

 

Even when the observer tried to help Kim make scientific explanations, she almost
refused (although covertly) to engage in the task:

0: Right. When you heat them, they start moving faster and they also start
moving farther apart. When you cool something, that is when they start
moving slow and get close together, too. OK? So, can you tell me what
happened? Can you talk about molecules in your answer?

Kim: (pause)

O: No? What happened to the molecules of air when the air got warm?

Kim: (pause)

138

0: Do they move farther apart or close together?
Kim: They move farther apart.

Although the observer assured Kim that her explanation was incorrect, she said that
the task was not difficult for her:

O: Did you find anything difficult about today’s activity?

3m: 33the questions? Were the questions hard at all?

Kim: No.

Finally, Kim’s interpretations of classroom tasks seemed to be related to her task
engagement. She did not understand what the classroom tasks were intended to teach, and
she was unaware of her learning difficulties. Yet, she expressed the Opinion that the tasks
were not difficult for her. She did not seek help from the teacher in class or individually.
Instead, she tried to avoid engaging in classroom tasks and chose strategies that minimized
her effort.

Exgaptign; Lin’s saga. Unlike the students of Patterns 4, 5 and 6, Lin was usually
aware when she had Ieaming difficulties, and why she did so. Further, she sometimes
accurately understood the content objectives of classroom tasks. In the face of tasks she
perceived as difficult, she seemed easily discouraged or frustrated and quick to terminate
task engagement.

For example, the class studied how substances melt or solidify (freeze) at different
temperatures (LC. 7). To explain this concept, the textbook told a story of taking a trip
through a tunnel, ”Adventure into the Hot Zone and Cold Zone." After the lesson, the
teacher told the class to answer the questions in the activity book for the remaining of the
class period (about fifteen minutes). About the end of the class period, Lin waived her
hand to the observer:

Lin: I need help on this one (question 5). I don’t understand the question.

Question 5: ”How is freezing liquid oxygen like freezing water? How are they

different?"

0: Think about the today’s lesson. What was the lesson about today?

Lin: (pause)

0: What was the main idea of the lesson today?
Lin: It was about taking trips through tunnels.

139

O: OK. What were the trips about?
Lin: (pause)

Further, Lin could not formulate a scientific explanation for the question in the activity
book:

0: What state is both liquid oxygen and water?

Lin: Liquid.

0: When you freeze liquids, how do they change?

Lin: They become ice.

0: Ice?

Lin: 1 mean, solid.

(Then, Lin started writing in her activity book, ”They both become solids." )

Lin: I don’t know how they are different.

0: mink about the temperature. What did you Ieam about temperature
t a ?

Lin: I wil write down, ”I don’t know." I am finished.

O: Wait. Do they become solids at the same temperature?

(Then, T121 wrote down, “But at different temperature." )

Lin’s answer to Question 5: “They both become solids. But at different

temperature."

In the example above, Lin realized that she had difficulty answering a question in the
activity book and sought help from the observer. Instead of engaging in cognitive strategies
to overcome her Ieaming difficulty, Lin tried to have the observer give the answer for her.
Eventually, she got discouraged and terminated her engagement in the task. In several
other occasions, Lin told the observer that she had difficulties carrying out experiments or
answering questions in the activity book. However, she was not persistent in task
engagement or not willing to put effort to achieve scientific understanding.

mm n i in°TkIn r in

The findings suggest two distinctive sets of common characteristics in students’
interpretations of classroom tasks. Further, students’ interpretations seemed to be related to
their choice of goals and strategies during task engagement. Students who were motivated
to learn science accurately understood the content objectives of classroom tasks and
realized when they had Ieaming difficulties. In contrast, those who were not motivated

failed to understand the content objectives and did not realize their learning difficulties.

Thus, accurate understanding of the content objectives and Ieaming difficulties seems to be

140

a critical factor for student motivation to learn science. When students do not know the
problems that should be solved through scientific reasoning and monitor their learning
difficulties, they do not expend high quality of effort to solve those problems and overcome
their learning difficulties while engaging in classroom tasks.

Why did students display different characteristics of task interpretations? Research on
conceptual change in science finds explanations in the scientific knowledge being taught.
Jason and the other students of Patterns 1, 2 and 3 understood what the classroom tasks
were designed to teach. They realized there were conceptual conflicts between their prior
knowledge and the new, scientific knowledge and, thus, experienced difficulty
understanding the scientific knowledge. In contrast, Sean and some other students of
Patterns 4, 5 and 6 interpreted scientific knowledge based on their incorrect prior
knowledge and, thus, did not realize there were conceptual conflicts or learning
difficulties.

The conceptual change approach, however, does not seem sufficient to explain other
characteristics of task interpretations. For instance, although Lin often interpreted the
nature of classroom tasks adequately, she did not expend sustained effort to achieve
scientific understanding. Kim did not even attempt to understand what the tasks were
about in the first place. For these students, problems of task interpretations seemed to be
attributed to motivational factors. According to research on student motivation, Lin’s
behavior seemed to indicate Ieamed-helpless pattern of motivation, and Kim’s behavior

indicated her indifference to classroom work altogether or a defense mechanism.

Prggrass in Sgiantifig Unggstanging (R.Q. Z-b)

A second factor of this investigation concerns how students’ task engagement is
related to their success or failure to make progress in scientific understanding. Do students
who are motivated to learn science show different patterns of progress in scientific
understanding than those who are not motivated to learn science? The discussion focuses

on three aspects of students’ progress in scientific understanding: (a) background

141

knowledge in kinetic molecular theory prior to instruction of the “Matter and Molecules"
unit; (b) progress in scientific understanding over the period of unit instruction; and (c)
achievement of scientific understanding after unit instruction.
WWW To examine the degree
of students’ background knowledge prior to instruction, researcherrs conducted clinical
interviews on aspects of matter and molecules. Of the 19 issues identified for kinetic
molecular theory, the frequencies of students’ conceptions representing each of the four
categories are counted: (a) scientific understanding, (b) mixed response (partially scientific
and partially misconceptions), (c) ambiguous respons, and (d) misconception. The results

are summarized in Table 5.4, below:

Table 5.4

’Bakr n anl Pri ni In 'n

 

Prior to instruction of the unit, only three students seemed to have some understanding
about aspects of matter and molecules. The sources of knowledge differed among the
three students: Ken Ieamed from a science TV program; Jason learned from his father who
was an engineer; and Dan learned in elementary school. Although Thea (Pattern 5) studied
about molecules in elementary school, her knowledge was grossly incorrect. The

remaining students had almost no understanding about aspects of matter and molecules, or

142

had not even heard of the term molecules.

Thus, students started instruction of the “Matter and Molecules" unit with varying
degrees of background knowledge. In particular, the two students of Pattern I seemed to
have greater amount of knowledge than the other students except Dan of Pattern 2.
Interestingly, both students Ieamed about molecules outside science class.

WWW The results of
student achievement of scientific understanding in specific task situations over the period
of instruction are shown in Table 5.5, below. To assess student achievement in specific
task situations, a 3-scale rating system was used: success (5), ambiguous (A), or failure (F)
in scientific understanding. Then, overall assessment of student achievement for the entire

unit is summarized in the last column.

 

 

TABLE 5.5
A hi f i ifi n n in in
ifi T k i i P i f ni ln i
LCr.1 23458289 era
attem Assess-
Student ment

 

I IV;

A» of A ins
la__ n a :- :- :Z-uccess

2. o era
CCBSS

mm-_--fl--_lm- exceo ion

UCCESS

I‘
I‘ Il I‘

I

I‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. mm--F_-H- F mixture
. a s i . .
im 1 ~ I . .A ' failure
6. lNora .F . F.F r . consistent
‘ failure

 

 

 

‘Table 5.5 can be understood in connection with Table 5.1

The results suggest that students displayed different rates of progress in scientific

understanding over the period of unit instruction. The results seem to be generally

143
consistent with the quality of students’ task engagement. The students of Pattern I

demonstrated consistent progress in scientific understanding over the period of instruction.
The students of Pattern 2 (except Maria) and the student of Pattern 3 were successful
overall, with some occasions of failure. The student of Pattern 4 showed mixed
performance, with more occasions of failure. The students of Pattern 5 showed overall
failure, with a few occasions of success. Finally, the student of Pattern 6 displayed
consistent failure.

In particular, the students of Patterns 4, 5 and 6 showed consistent failure achievement
later in the unit, as compared to some success earlier in the unit. It is noteworthy that none
of them demonstrated adequate, scientific understanding in Lesson Clusters 7, 8, and 9. In
fact, the science tasks in these clusters involved inherently complicated phenomena during
changes of state, requiring students to integrate several components in order to make
adequate scientific explanations.

The results above present a sharp contrast to the students of Patterns 1 and 2 (except
Maria). Although some of them failed to achieve scientific understanding in Lesson Cluster
7 (which introduced the idea of changes of state), all the students demonstrated success in
scientific understanding in Lesson Clusters 8 and 9. Considering the inherently
complicated nature of the tasks, their achievement indicates significant accomplishment.

The student of Pattern 3 displayed achievement consistent with the pattern of his task
engagement. Neil achieved scientific understanding in task situations in which he was
interested, but failed in other task situations in which he was inattentive in class. Thus,
Neil's achievement seemed to depend basically on his intrinsic motivation, which was
inconsistent across task situations.

The cases of Sara and Sean present a great contrast. Sara’s case (Pattern 2) illustrates
successful progress in scientific understanding over successive task situations Sean’s
(Pattern 4) case illustrates failure to make progress. Both cases indicate how students’

progress in scientific understanding is related to their task engagement: (a) success in

144

progress and the goal of scientific understanding during task engagement; and (b) failure in
progress and the goal of task completion.

W. Students were engaged in a hands-on
experiment in which they observed that the colored liquid in a thermometer went up
(expanded) when the bulb of the thermometer was placed in hot water and, then, went
down (contracted) in cold water (i.e., thermal expansion of liquids in LC. 6). The scientific
conception for thermal expansion is: When a substance is heated, its molecules move
faster and farther apart, causing the substance to expand. During the experiment, Sara had

difficulty explaining the phenomenon:

0: Why does the liquid go up in hot water? What happens to the molecules?
ra: They are being pushed up.
0: Why?
ra: Because of the heat. It rises.
0: Heat rises?
Sara: Yeah, so it pushes the molecules up. And the molecules push the liquid
up.
0: You say that molecules are pushed up. Do you mean that molecules move
from the bottom up to this point?

Sara: No. Mine was on 29 (Celsius scale). It went all the way up there. And
then it dropped way back here.

0: Why does the liquid go up and down? What happens to the molecules?

ra: They are getting colder and hotter. '

0: Do molecules get colder and hotter?

Sara: Yeah, they are warming up. The liquid is. And that warms, kind of, just a
little bit, kind of warms up.

0 (to other group members): Molecules get colder and hotter. Do you
agree?

Group member 1: Molecules get spread apart.

Sara: Oh, yeah!

0: There is one more point, when a substance is heated-

Group member 1: They move faster.

Sara: They move faster, yeah.

0: Now, can you explain why the liquid goes up and down in terms of
molecules?

Sara: They go down. When you cool it, the liquid goes down and molecules can
go down, too. And then they go back up again.

0: Think about in terms of the movement of molecules. When you heat a
substance, molecules move faster—

Sara: And slower. And then they move slower and closer together.

In the conversation above, Sara tried several explanations, most of them
misconceptions. She thought that molecules were pushed up, because heat rose. She also

thought that molecules got colder and hotter. Basically, she hypothesized that what

14S
happened to the observable substance also happened to its molecules. Although Sara

realized scientific conceptions with the help of her group member, she was still having
difficulty giving an adequate, scientific explanation.

During the rest of the class period after the hands-on experiment, students discussed
the results of the experiment and read the textbook aloud in class. Sara did not volunteer
her answers or make comments in class. Instead, she was very attentive to the teacher and
class discussion throughout the remaining 20 minutes.

In the subsequent lesson period, the class engaged in another hands-on experiment in
which they warmed a cold soda bottle with a dime on the neck and observed the dime
popping up and down (i.e., thermal expansion of gases). Sara could give a scientific
explanation for this phenomenon:

0: What substance are we talking about here?

Sara: Air inside.

0: What happened to the air when you warmed it?

ra: When you heat it, it expands.

0: When you cooled the air, then what happened?

Sara: It contracts.

0: When you warmed the air, what happened to the molecules of air?
Sara: They spread farther apart.

0: Somet ing else?

Sara: Faster.
0: Then what happened to the air?

Sara: It spreads farther apart, it expands. It tries to get farther and farther apart.
0: Do you think air is moving from the bottom to the top, or does it expand?
Sara: It expands.

The observer continued the conversation to see whether Sara still had difficulty
explaining the colored liquid in a thermometer from the previous day’s lesson. Sara
demonstrated scientific understanding of thermal expansion of liquids:

0: Let me ask you some questions about the activity you did yesterday. When
you put the thermometer in hot water, what happens to the colored liquid?

Sara: The liquid gets heated. It expands, and goes faster and up.

0: What happens to the molecules?

Sara: They are getting farther apart and going faster.

0: Then, where do they 0?

Sara: Wherever they can. ey can go up.

0: What happens if you put the thermometer in cold water?

Sara: It falls down. It contracts.

0: What happens to the molecules of the liquid?

Sara: They are going slower and getting closer together.

146

Further, Sara was aware of how she resolved her Ieaming difficulty and came to
achieve scientific understanding:

0: Was this activity difficult yesterday?

Sara: Kind of, kind of hard for me to understand until he (the teacher) really
explained it.

0: But can you understand it now?

Sara: Yeah. When you understand it, it is simple because you know exactly
what happens.

3' F il r m k r r . During the first lesson in Lesson Cluster7on

melting and solidifying (freezing), the textbook introduced a new concept: attraction of
molecules. In a sense, Lesson Cluster 7 was an extension of Lesson Cluster 6, thermal
expansion and the effects of heating on molecular movements and arrangements. In
addition, the textbook emphasized molecular attraction to explain how a substance
changes its state (e.g., from a solid to a liquid during melting). The textbook also presented
a model explanation, accompanied by a drawing, for melting and freezing of water.

Despite the emphasis in the textbook and by the teacher, Sean failed to understand the
concept of molecular attraction and did not use this concept in his explanations:

0: When ice melts into water, what happens?
Sean: Zeat Is getting into it, and molecules are trying to spread apart and move
ster.

0: OK. Do you remember that you Ieamed one more concept in the lesson
today, besides the two points?

Sean: (pause)

0: What happens to the pattern when Ice melts?

Sean: They move all over, not in a certain pattern, not like In a solid.

0: Why does the pattern change?

Sean: (pause)

0: There Is one more concept you Ieamed today.

Sean: (pause)

0: Let me show you in the book (opens the textbook). Do you remember?

Sean: They stick together and push apart

Further, Sean failed to understand how molecular attraction is related to molecular
movements and arrangements during changes of state, producing an incoherent and
illogical explanation. The scientific explanation for melting is: When ice melts, molecules
move faster and farther apart, and there is less attraction between molecules to break of a

rigid pattern:
0: When ice changes into water, are the molecules more or less attracted?

147

Sean: They are more attracted.

0: What about when water changes back into ice?

Sean: They are less attracted, because they are getting cold.

0: Do you mean that molecules are getting cold?

Sean: No, gettin slower.

0: Now, wou d you try to give me a complete explanation? When ice

changes into water, what happens to molecules?

Sean: They move faster and they attract more to each other.

0: What about the space between molecules?

Sean: They are farther apart.

Throughout Lesson Cluster 7, Sean failed to demonstrate scientific understanding of
molecular attraction. Sean never included the concept of molecular attraction in his
explanations, as shown in his answers in the activity book over two subsequent lessons:

Question 5 (LC. 7.2): Pick one kitchen substance and explain what happens
when it solidifies.

Sean’s answer: Ice cream changes from a solid to a liquid. In a solid, the
molecules are closer together. In a liquid the molecules are farther apart.

Question 2 (LC. 7.3): Why do molecules of a solid break of their pattern if the
solid is heated enough?

Sean’s answer: becaus (sic) when you heat them the molecules go faster or speed
up and spread out or expand.

Question 3 (LC. 7.3): Why do molecules of a liquid forrna rigid pattern if the
liquid is cooled enough?

Sean’s answer: becaus (sic) the molecules get closer or contract, then go slower.

Exception: Maria’s case. Maria's performance (Pattern 2) presented an exception.

She was engaged in classroom tasks with the goal of achieving scientific understanding and
expended sustained effort in task engagement. Yet, she failed to achieve scientific
understanding. The case illustrates that the process of learning is not necessarily consistent
with later performance.

There seem to be several reasons for why Maria failed to achieve her goal of scientific
understanding. Although Maria tried to connect her personal knowledge with scientific
knowledge, she was not easily convinced of scientific knowledge being taught. For
example, earlier in Lesson Cluster 1, the class discussed the differences among three states

of water, i.e., ice (solid), water (liquid), and water vapor (gas). To demonstrate to the class

148

that liquid water and water vapor are two states of the same substance, the teacher distilled
water in an apparatus. Although the teacher emphasized that water vapor is invisible but
still exists, Maria insisted that she could see bubbles and water vapor in the distillation
apparatus. In the next lesson period, the teacher introduced the concept of molecules to
the class and explained that water, for example, is made of molecules, although molecules
are too small to be seen. Maria fought for her ideas: When water boils, there are bubbles;
bubbles are the molecules; and, thus, molecules can be seen. The teacher tried to help her
confusion by stressing that molecules are not bubbles and that there are millions of
millions of molecules in a bubble. Maria was not convinced and asked the teacher, “If you
see bubbles in the water, why can’t we see the molecules? " Several days later, Maria still
showed her confusion when she asked the teacher in class, “If I can’t see water molecules,
how can we see water? "

Even when Maria knew that she was confused or had learning difficulty, she could not
easily resolve her difficulty. For example, she had difficulty explaining evaporation and
condensation of water. She was confused about whether evaporation involves the process
of change from a liquid to a gas or in the reversed way. Maria was also confused about
whether molecules move faster or slower during condensation. She told the observer,
”That always confuses me. I am still kinda confused when we take our test. I try to
concentrate so hard, and I get messed up because I always think that molecules of cold
water move faster and molecules of hot water go slower." .

W The results of student
achievement after instruction of the unit are summarized in Table 5.6. Of the I9 issues
identified for kinetic molecular theory, the frequencies of students’ conceptions
representing each of the four categories are listed: (a) scientific understanding; (b) mixed
response (partially scientific and partially misconception); (c) ambiguous response; or (d)
misconception.

The results show that students developed different degrees of achievement in scientific

149

Table 5.6

Ahi nfiifi n ninA niln i

understandi

 

understanding after unit instruction. The students of Patterns 1 and 2 (except Maria) had
successfully developed a general understanding of kinetic molecular theory. A major
difference between the first two groups, however, is that the students of Pattern I gave
more spontaneous, elaborate explanations without being probed by the interviewers than
the students of Pattern 2.

The students of Patterns 3 and 4 were both moderately successful. Yet, they displayed
several major difficulties. The student of Pattern 3 had difficulties understanding some
basic, scientific conceptions and also tended to fall back on misconceptions in his initial
attempts to give explanations. The student of Pattern 4 maintained several misconceptions
to explain complicated phenomena involving changes of state.

Finally, the students of Patterns 5 and 6 generally failed to achieve scientific
understanding. Even after instruction, they maintained many of their misconceptions and
had difficulty giving adequate, scientific explanations.

In the following, a more detailed account of students’ achievement of scientific

understanding for each of the six patterns of task engagement will be presented.

150

n I in rin i ll m iv l rn i n . The students successfully
developed scientific understanding of kinetic molecular theory. Further, they
spontaneously gave elaborate, scientific explanations without being probed by the
interviewers. For example, when asked to explain boiling, Jason expanded the question by
explaining how boiling, evaporation, and condensation are all related:

I (interviewer): OK. And when you say it’s boiling, what do you mean by that?

Jason: Ah, the molecules—well, the heat from the hot plate is heating up the
water, and it’s making the molecules move faster—they move farther
apart, urn, lose attraction and the molecules, when they move faster, they
rise and escape from the surface of the water and evaporate. And when
they hit the—when it hits the cold air, it condenses into water droplets and
goes up into steam...

I: Now I put that (a glass plate) over the top of the beaker of boiling water.
Do you see anything happening?

~ Jason: Yeah. The water vapor’ s condensing on the glass.

I: OK. And when you say it’s condensing, what do you mean?

Jason: The water molecules are—they are—once they change into water vapor, it
reaches the glass which is cooler than the—the substance—the water

vapor.

I: Um hum.

Jason: And it slows down the water vapor molecules and turns the water vapor
into water.

Pangn g (motivated 19 learn gigngg). All students (except Maria) demonstrated

adequate, scientific understanding of kinetic molecular theory except Maria. Although
successful, their explanations were not as spontaneous or elaborate as those given by the
students of Pattern I. In the following example, Sara gave an adequate, scientific
explanation for condensation with the support of probing questions by the interviewer:

I: If we leave the ice cubes in the glass for, say, thirty minutes or so, what do
you think will happen outside the glass?

Sara: The glass will become cold because the ice is in there and the ice is cold.
And so the air will condense.

I: OK. So, what do you expect to see outside the glass?

Sara: Water....

I: Where does this water come from?

Sara: The air.

I: When you say the air, do you mean that the air changedinto water?

Sara: No. It condensed.

I: What condensed?

Sara: The water that is in the air.

I: How do you call that?

Sara: Water vapor.

I: OK. So when you say condenses, what change of stateis occurring?

Sara: From gas to a liquid.

151

I: Can you explain what’s happening here In terms of molecules?

Sara: Well, the molecules are moving closer together and slowing down.

I: OK. When molecules slow down, then what happens?

Sara: As they get closer together, together, they become water droplets that form
outside the glass.

I: OK. Do you remember one thing you Ieamed in the unit, attraction of
molecules? Do you remember that?

Sara: No.

Pangn 3 (intrinsically motivated, gm inconsistent), The student developed a

reasonably good understanding of kinetic molecular theory. Yet, his explanations show
some major difficulties. First, Neil failed to understand some of the basic conceptions for
kinetic molecular theory, including molecular constitution of matter, empty space between
molecules, and the size of molecules. For example, Neil thought that there must be
”something" between molecules, as if something that could hold the molecules together in
substances (continuous model), instead of substances are made of only molecules:

I: OK. You 'ust draw the molecules here (in the water). Is there anything
betweent e molecules?

Neil: Well, there has to be. You don’t see 5 aces in water.

I: So IS there space between the molecu es?

Neil: Well, yeah, there’ 5 space but there’ 5 got to be something in it.. ..There’s
got to be something. I mean you don’t see open spaces in water.

I: OK. What will that be?

Neil: I don’ t know...

I: Is there anything In this space between molecules (in the rock)?
Neil. There Is something... .Because you don’ t just see open spaces with nothing
in a rock....

I: Is there anything between the molecules (in the air)?
Neil: There’s something in all of them. ..

Second, the student tended to fall back on his misconceptions in several task
situations. He attempted to give explanations in terms of his misconceptions, noticed
inconsistency in his responses, and then gave scientific explanations. For example, Neil
started to explain, in terms of his misconceptions, why the balloon on top of a cold bottle
blew up when the bottle was warmed (i.e., thermal expansion of gases):

I: What is happening to the balloon?

Neil: It’s starting to fill up with air.

I: Can you tell me why?

Neil: Well, warm air rises, and warming up the bottle is warming up the air
molecules inside, and molecules are rising up and going into the balloon.

152

Over the course of interviewing, Neil changed his incorrect ideas and made a
scientific explanation:
I: So the warm air goes up to the balloon?
eil: Right.
I: Can you tell me in terms of molecules?
Neil: Well, the molecules get faster and farther apart.
I: Uh huh.
eil: Spread out up into the balloon.
I: You just told me that hot air rises to the top?
Neil: Well, the molecules get farther apart.
I: Uh huh.
Neil: So there’s more space in between the molecules, and they need
somewhere to go, so they go up into the balloon.
I: How about the hot air?
Neil: It’s not really. Just the molecules spreading farther apart
I: OK. Is it because air spreads farther apart or air rises to the top?
Neil: Because they are spread farther apart It doesn’t really rise. It just

spreads apart.
mm. The student was moderately successful in developing a

scientific understanding of kinetic molecular theory. He failed to provide scientific
explanations for complicated phenomena during changes of states of matter, including
melting and freezing, evaporation and boiling, and condensation. For science tasks
involving these phenomena, Sean either gave inadequate explanations based on his
misconceptions, or simply said, "I don’t remember,” apparently without even trying:

I: Is there anything inside those bubbles (of boiling water)?

Sean: Yeah, water vapor.

I: OK. What is water vapor?

Sean: It’s—it’s, urn it’s water but it’s in a gas.

I: OK. So, how does the, ah, water gets into a gas form?

Sean: Um, by the heat.

I: OK. What does the heat do?

Sean: The heat will make them, um....I, um, can’t remember that.

As another example, when asked to explain why there was water outside a glass
container with ice cubes in it (i.e., condensation), Sean gave a scientific explanation in
terms of substances: ”Because the glass would be cold and the, and, um, and—and water
vapor is attracted to cold and then it’ ll go on the glass and it changes to water." However,
when asked to explain condensation in terms of molecules, Sean gave an inadequate

explanation based on his misconceptions:

153

Sean: Urn, because of the cold of the glass, it’ll sort of make the molecules hard.

I: Hum.

Sean: And they change back to water.

I: OK. When you say it’ll make the molecules hard, what do you mean by
that?

Sean: Um, that, um, it’ll chan e them.

I: So the coldness of the g ass will change the molecules?

Sean: Yeah. . .

W The students failed to develou

scientific understanding of kinetic molecular theory. They maintained many of their
misconceptions and failed to make scientific explanations. They often had to be supported
by the interviewers with encouragement, prompts, and probing questions.

Kim’s (Pattern 5) explanations were often one-line responses, ”yes", “no", or ”I don’t
know.” For example, the interviewer asked Kim to explain how sugar dissolved in water:

I: OK. And then what happens? You said something about the water
molecules hitting the sugar. Is that right?

Kim: Yeah.

I: OK. Can you tell me more about that?

Kim: No.

I: So if the water molecules hit the sugar, what happens then?

Kim: Idon’t know.

I: What would happen to the sugar?

Kim: It dissolves.

l: OK. Then what?

Kim: Then it goes into the bottom of the cup.

I: When you say dissolves, can you tell me anymore about that? What that
means?

Kim: No.

Kim sometimes gave contradictory responses within the same task context. For
example, the interviewer showed Kim that he could easily pull a metal ball through a metal
ring. When the ball was heated, he could not pull the ball through the ring anymore; but
when the ball cooled, he could pull the ball through the ring again. Asked to explain this
phenomenon in terms of molecules (i.e., thermal expansion of solids), Kim gave
contradictory responses based on her misconceptions:

I: Why can’t you pull the ball through the ring?

Kim: Because the mo ecules expanded and caused it to get bigger, so it wouldn’t

go through the ring.
I: Does the movement of the molecules change at all? The movement of the

molecules of the ball?
Kim: No.

154

I: That stays the same?

Kim: Yeah

I: OK. You just got it through. Why do you think you got it through now?

Kim: Because it coo ed down and the molecules moved closer together and it
went through.

I: You said it cooled down and the molecules moved closer together?

Kim: Uh huh.

I: Before when you were talking about it, when you couldn’t get it through,
you said the molecules got bigger, right?

Kim: Uh huh.

I: OK. And when the molecules get bigger, does the space between the
molecules change?

Kim: No.

I: No? OK. But when it cools, the space between the molecules does
change?

Kim: Yeah.

Exception; Maria’s Case. Unlike the other students of Pattern 2 who successfully
achieved scientific understanding, Maria showed overall failure in her achievement. As a
result, her achievement after instruction was no better than students who avoided engaging
in classroom tasks. Despite the similarity to the students of Patterns 5 and 6 in terms of
failure achievement, the nature of Maria’s responses revealed some distinctive differences.

On several occasions, Maria was aware when she had difficulty giving explanations
and told the interviewer, 'I am confused about that," or 'I don’t understand that." Yet,
Maria did not readily give up and persisted making explanations, however unsuccessful
they were. In the following example, the interviewer asked Maria to predict whether she
could push on the plunger in a syringe with water in it, after having tried with air in it (i.e.,
compression of gases vs. liquids). Maria predicted incorrectly that she could compress
water as she had done with air:

Maria: Um. At first if you just pull the water in, the molecules are far apart, but

then when you try to push it together, it will just, um, do the same
movement of the air. The molecules will go closer together so that then it
will stop you from pushing the syringe down anymore. . .

When Maria actually tried to push on the plunger with water in the syringe, she found

that she could not push the plunger down at all. Maria told the interviewer that she did not

understand why that happened:

Maria: Because the molecules wouldn’t Well, I didn’t understand this, when
you pulled it out, when you pushed, when you pulled the water in, wait

155

....When you pulled the water in.
l: Uh huh.
Maria: And I tried to push it down, and it would stay right there.
I: Uh huh. '
Maria: But I don’t, I don’t understand why.

Despite her confusion and frustration, Maria kept trying:

I: OK. Why can you push it down with the air but you can’t push it down

with the water?

Maria: Urn I’d say, because it’s a liquid and it takes up more room, and the

molecules, with the molecules being in there, you wouldn’t be able to
push it and make room for the molecules with the liquid and the
molecules being in the same place. Got it?

Maria’s struggle and persistence occurred on several other occasions. As another
example, Maria failed to give an explanation about condensation, but hoped that she could
be successful on the next task about thermal expansion of solids (i.e., the ball and ring
experiment):

I: OK. Does that mean that the water came through the glass?

aria: From the water vapor in the air? In—
I: OK. So how does the water vapor in the air get on the glass?
Maria: I’m confused about that.
I: Are you?
aria: Yeah, pass.
I: OK. We will just for et about that one for now I have a bottle here—
and it’s cold. And w at I’m going to do is, I’m gonna put the balloon on
top of it.
Maria: Here. Maybe I can get it. . .
m nDi in-Prr iniifi n anin

The results show that students who were motivated to Ieam science displayed
distinctively different rates of progress than those who were not. Students who were
motivated to learn science made continuous progress over task situations. When
instruction of the unit was completed, they successfully constructed an integrated body of
scientific knowledge for kinetic molecular theory. In contrast, students who were not
motivated to learn science failed to make progress over task situations. Their performance
deteriorated as instruction of the unit continued. Eventually, they failed to develop general

understanding of kinetic molecular theory. Thus, the results suggest that students’ success

156

or failure to make progress in scientific understanding is a key factor related to their
patterns of task engagement.

According to research on conceptual change, the students of Pattern I had greater
background knowledge than other students when instruction of the science unit started.
Based on such content knowledge to start with, the students were more likely to initiate
scientific thinking independently than other students with little background knowledge.

Students who had little background knowledge to start with expended high quality of
task engagement as they gained better understanding of scientific knowledge (e.g., the case
of Sara). In contrast, when students failed to make progress in scientific understanding, that
failure imposed an increased difficulty for the expenditure of high quality of task
engagement (e.g., the case of Sean). Thus, their achievement deteriorated as instruction
confinued.

Research on student motivation, on the other hand, provides explanations in terms of
motivational variables of students. The results suggest that students’ content knowledge
does not always explain the quality of task engagement. For instance, when instruction of
the unit started, Dan of Pattern 2 had as much background knowledge as the students of
Pattern I and, yet, did not demonstrate self-initiation of scientific thinking as did those of
Pattern I .

Motivation research also suggests that when students succeed or. fail to achieve
scientific understanding, their expectations of success or failure also change. This seems to
be the case with Maria. She engaged in classroom tasks with the goal of scientific
understanding and usually failed to achieve understanding in classroom tasks. Realizing
her Ieaming difficulties and failure achievement, she seemed to lower her expectations of

success in achieving scientific understanding. .

en’ lrinioninin l R. 2-
This research question examines how students’ goal orientations in science class are

related to patterns of task engagement. Do students who are motivated to learn science

157

possess different goals in science class from those who are not motivated? Of particular
interest here is students’ perceptions of the goal of understanding in science class.

Three aspects of student goals in science class are discussed. The first aspect concerns
students’ personal goals in science class. The second concerns students’ perceptions of
various goals from the perspectives of: (a) myself (i.e., personal goals), (b) a good science
student, (c) a science teacher, and (d) a scientist. The final aspect concerns students’
perceptions of the nature of science and science learning.

3W How did each student perceive his or her
personal goals in science class? First, three priorities of individual goals reported by each
student were identified. Then, these individual goals were classified into relevant goal
clusters. Finally, major goal clusters for each student across patterns of task engagement
were identified; they are summarized in Table 5.7, below. The number, I, 2, or 3,
indicates the priority of each goal cluster reported by each student.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5.7
’ P nl in i l
Understandfig Fact fidormance Others’ Extrinsic Avoidance
a uisition in class ex tions rewards

1. Ken I 2 3

Jason 1 2,3
2. Sara 3 1,2

Dan 1,2 3

Ann 1,3 2

Maria 2 1,3
'3. Neil i I 3
4. Sean 1,2 3
S. Thea 2 1,3

Lin 3 2 1

Kim 1_ 2,3
6. Nora 1,2 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘Out of their first three priorities, some students reported two goals which belong to
the same goal cluster

The results show similarities among the students in the study. First, none of them

perceived extrinsic rewards or task avoidance as one of their primary goals in science

l 58
class. Second, most students perceived performance in class (e.g., get good grades, do
well in class activities, and get work done on time) as their top priority, except the two
students of Pattern I andone student of Pattern 2 for whom this goal cluster was secondary
to the goal of understanding. The result suggests that most students were concerned with
good performance, especially good grades, in science class. V

The results also show differences across students, especially between students who
were motivated to Ieam science and those who were not. The students of Patterns 1, 2 and
3 (except Ann) all reported understanding as one of their primary goals. Some of them also
reported fact acquisition as one of their primary goals. Thus, the students perceived task
endogenous reasons, in terms of understanding and fact acquisition, as one of their major
goals in science class.

Yet, there seemed to be some significant differences between the students of Pattern 1
and those of Patterns 2 and 3. The students of Pattern 1 reported the goal of understanding
as their first priority and good performance in class as their second. In contrast, the
students of Patterns 2 and 3 reported the goal of good performance as first priority and
understanding as secondary. Thus, the priority of understanding versus good performance
seemed to be reversed.

Among the students of the first three patterns of task engagement, Ann was the only
one who did not report understanding as one of her primary goals. Yet, she indicated a
strong orientation toward good work ethics in learning, suggesting a willingness to expend
effort and persistence by a sense of duty (Brophy, 1987, p. 182):

Ann: Sometimes I don’t want to do it but I do it anyway Usually I’m not the

type to not do your work or something because I’ve never got a zero yet
and stuff. So I do the work no matter what And sometimes it’s fun and
sometimes I’d rather not do it, but I do it anyway. But other people may
not do it just because, you know, they want to do something else, like if
they want to watch their TV program, and so they say ”Oh, I’ll just do it
later" and then they don’t get to it, so they can’t do it.

In contrast to the students of the first three patterns, none of the not-motivated-to—

learn-science students (Patterns 4, S, ahd 6, except Lin) identified understanding or even

159
fact acquisition as one of their primary goals. Instead, most of them reported good

performance in class as their first priority, and pleasing their parents or teachers as their
second priority. These students were primarily concerned with task exogenous reasons in
science class.

WWW To understand students’
goal structures, we need to examine not only their personal goals but also external
influences, such as expectations of parents, teachers, and peers. In addition, examining
students’ perceptions of goals from different perspectives can enrich our understanding of
their goal structures in science class.

This approach seems to be particularly effective for examining why some students did
not perceive the goal of understanding as one of their priorities in science class. Is this
because: (a) The students did not realize that the goal of understanding exists in science
and science learning (i.e., from a scientist’s perspective); (b) they did not perceive that this
is a major goal in science class (i.e., from the perspective of a science teacher); (c) they did
not expect that this goal was achievable by students (i.e., from the perspective of a good
science student); or (d) they decided not to try to achieve this goal, even when they
perceived it within the reach of students (i.e., from one’s own perspective)?

Table 5.8 presents the summary of three major goal clusters from each of the four
perspectives across different patterns of task engagement. To develop this summary chart,
relative frequencies of the first three priorities reported by students of the same pattern
were tallied, following the format and procedure used for Table 5.7 above.

The results show some similarities among students. All the students reported
understanding as the first priority in science class from a scientist’s perspective, suggesting
that they recognized its existence in science and science learning. Also, none of the
students reported extrinsic rewards or task avoidance as a major goal from any of the four
perspectives.

However, students’ perceptions of goals from the perspectives of oneself, a good

160

science student, and a science teacher varied widely across students, especially between

students who were motivated to learn science and those who were not. The following

discussion focuses on whether students placed high or low value on the goal of

understanding, compared to other competing goals, in science class.

W The students reported

understanding as the first priority from all the four perspectives. They perceived that

understanding was a major goal in science class, that this goal was achievable by students,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5.8
’ P i f I fr m iff P r 'v
Perspectives-> Myself Good science Science teacher Scientist
Pattern student
ntrinsica y ' uno-orstanIng n-oerstaning n-ersta oIng oersta oIng
.- ivated to Ieam ) rformance . rformance acts cts
. ience t) acts -x-- rtions o-rformance
2. . ivated to Ieam pe ormance unooerstanIng understanding nderstanding
. ience ; understanding performance performance cts
K
1 ntrinsIcally ITperformance performance understanding nderstanding
ivated, ') understanding expectations performance cts
nconsistent 1:) expectations understanding
ask compTetIon ) performance understanding understanding nderstanding
I') expectations expectations acts acts
t) . rformance rformance
ask adeance ) performance xpectations understanding
I; expectations rformance nderstandIng facts
: acts
isruptive behavior j )perforrnance Ffirmance rformance understanding
v; expectations xpectations xpectations Jexpectations
K

 

 

 

‘Out of their first three priorities, students sometimes reported two goals that belong to
the same goal cluster.

and that they were actually trying to achieve this goal. Good performance in class was the

second priority, and fact acquisition was the third priority. Pleasing parents or teachers

was not perceived as a major goal cluster, except,to a certain extent, from the perspective

of a good science student. The results suggest that the students placed high value on the

goal of understanding, above any other competing goal in science class.

 

161
MW. All the students except Ann Perceived good

performance in class as their first priority and, then, understanding as their second priority.
Yet, understanding was perceived as increasingly more important in the order of myself, a
good science student, and a science teacher. Pleasing parents or teachers was perceived
as a major goal only by one student. The results suggest that although the students
recognized understanding as a major goal in science class and also perceived this goal
within the reach of students, they were personally more concerned with doing well in class
to get good grades than understanding. Thus, the students placed reasonably high value on
the goal of understanding, along with other competing goals in science class.

Paggn 3 (intrinsically mggivagag, but inggnsigmt). The student perceived good
performance in class as his first personal priority. He listed understanding as first priority
from the perspectives of a scientist and a science teacher, second priority from his own
perspective, and third priority from the perspective of a good science student. Satisfying
others’ expectations was also one of his priorities. As the results suggest, although the
student recognized understanding as a major goal in science class, this goal could not
easily be achieved by students. Instead, students, including himself, would be more
concerned with extrinsic reasons. Thus, although the student placed moderately high
value on the goal of understanding, other competing goals were more salient to him.

Pangn 4 (task samplegign). The student perceived good performance in class as his
first priority and satisfying the expectations of others as his second priority. However, he
perceived understanding as the first priority from all the other perspectives. The results
suggest that although he recognized understanding as a major goal in science class and
perceived this goal to be within the reach of students, he did not try to achieve this goal
personally. Thus, the student placed low value on the goal of understanding, despite his
clear awareness of its importance in science class, and endorsed other competing goals.

W The students perceived good

performance in class as their first priority and satisfying others’ expectations as their second

1 62

priority. Understanding was not perceived as one of their priorities, or even from the
perspective of a good science student. Further, understanding was perceived only as the
second priority from the perspective of a science teacher. As the results suggest, the
students perceived that understanding was not a major goal in science class, this goal was
not within the reach of students, and that they did not try to achieve this goal personally.
Thus, the students placed low value on the goal of understanding, below any other
competing goal in science class.

in fh n r f i n i I rnin. Ifstudentsacross
patterns of task engagement perceived their goals in science class differently, how did they
perceive the nature of science and science learning in the first place? The results show that
there were significant variations in the way students from different patterns of engagement
perceived the nature of science and science Ieaming. Further, their perceptions seem to be
compatible with their goal priorities in science class, discussed above.

Pangn 1. The students had a conception of the nature of science and science
Ieaming as understanding and explaining the world around them. For example, Jason told
the interviewer:

Jason: Um, every move you make, like, you know, if I just hold up this pencil,

there is, like, an explanation why I could put the pencil on there. I want it
high, I pick it up, and everything. Every move I make, there’s, you know,
there’ 5 a reason for it. In science class because it’s a really important
subject' In school and it’s interesting for me.. ..Ther’e 5 always somewhere
there’ 5 science, and science, you know, explains things.

Pangn 2, The students had some understanding that science had something to do
with the world around them, although it was very general. For example, Sara perceived
science learning as follows:

I: What does Ieaming science mean to you?

Sara: Well, some people just—if u didn’t have science, you wouldn’t know
probably just about as muc as trees and nature in science. That’s all
probably you wouldn’t know about it.

I: So, do you think science is important?

Sara: Science Is important to me, because there wouldn’ t be like nature and there
wouldn’t be, um, trees and stuff IIke that ..Because it helps me live.

163

Pangas 3 and 4, Both students showed some understanding that the nature of science

and science Ieaming had something to do with the world around them:

Neil: It (science) has a lot, science deals with just about everything that has to do
around the world I want to know about what the world’s doing because
science has a lot to do with the world.

Sean: It (science) is mainly to Ieam about the things around us, like things about
the earth or something about our planets and the solar system. That’s why
we do science. You learn different things in science, new things. . .

Pangn 5, The students (except Lin) did not seem to perceive the nature of science

and science Ieaming as understanding and explaining the world around them. Instead,
they perceived science Ieaming as something required in school or memorization of
factual information:

I: Why do ou study science?

Kim: So that en you go on next year, so that the teacher, they will teach it
right over mostly. So when you go to the seventh grade next year, you will
know more about what they gonna teach.

Thea: I guess it (science) is just something we have to learn Some things that
we should really know, so we have to study them and read about them and
answer questions about them. Because there are a lot of things in science
that you need to memorize and know.

Both Kim and Thea gave low ratings to the goal, to make sure my ideas are

scientifically correct, because they felt they were not competent in science learning:

Kim: Because all the work ain’t going to be correct. It might be OK, but it isn’t
all goin to be correct all of the time Because I know that I, most of
them, I now that me, I, I ain’t better than some of the students in my class.
So you can’t put five (scale) when you know that you’re not better than
some other students.

Thea: Because I am not that good in science and I guess my ideas are just ideas.
I am not too good in science.

Unlike Kim and Thea, Lin had some understanding that science explains nature:

Lin: Sometimes I get questions in my mind, like, I wonder why something works
like this. But science figures it out, I guess. . .

Pangn Q, The student seemed to have some understanding of the nature of science
and science learning. However, she also seemed to actively deny its importance. In fact,

she gave the lowest ratings to both goals, to use science to understand the world, and to

164

make sure my ideas are scientifically correct.

Nora: I just don't like Ieaming about the world because, I don't know, because
like, when they talk about different states and stuff, it’s like, because I don’t

care and stuff because I’m not livin there so it’s not happening. If I get my
work done, I don’t go back and ma e sure th (my ideas) are correct. If I
get them wrong, then they’re wrong. I don’t Ii e science.

 

The results show that there were definite differences between students who were
motivated to learn science and those who were not. Students who were motivated to Ieam
science perceived understanding as one of their primary goals in science class. They also
had a conception that the nature of science and science learning is to understand and
explain the world around them. In contrast, students who were not motivated to learn
science did not perceive understanding as one of their primary goals in science class, or
even did not recognize understanding as a major goal in science altogether. Further, some
did not have any understanding of the nature of science and science learning.

The results suggest that students’ goal orientations in science class are a key factor for
patterns of task engagement. Students’ general goal orientations in science class were
generally consistent with their choice of goals and strategies during specific task
engagement. Further, students’ perceptions of the nature of science and science Ieaming
also seemed to be generally consistent with the quality of their task engagement.

According to research on student motivation, students who were motivated to learn
science placed high value on the goal of understanding, above or along with alternative
goals in science class. In contrast, students who were not motivated to learn science
placed low value in the goal of understanding, compared to other competing goals in
science class.

Conceptual change research, on the other hand, explains the results in terms of
content knowledge of students. When unit instruction began, the only students who
reported understanding as their primary goal were also the ones with greater background

knowledge than any other student (Ken and Jason of Pattern 1, and Dan of Pattern 2).

165

Thus, the results suggest that having content knowledge was closely related to an
awareness of what it means to understand in a content area. Further, the awareness of
what scientific understanding involves seemed to be related to high quality of task
engagement. In contrast, students with initially low content knowledge would not
articulate or even have a conception of what understanding involves. Such lack of
conception, however, did not seem to prevent them from expending high quality of task
engagement (e.g., Sara and Ann of Pattern 2).

’ Aff iv ri i w r i R

This research question examines how students’ affective orientations toward science
are related to their patterns of task engagement in science classrooms. Do students who
are motivated to learn science possess different attitudes and interest than those who are
not motivated?

Two issues of findings are discussed: (a) students’ ratings of their attitudes toward and
interest in science and (b) the nature of students’ affective orientations toward science.

AW StudentS' reports of their
attitudes toward science showed that 11 of the 12 students in the study had positive
attitudes toward science (average rating +1.5 of maximum +2). On a scale ranging from
minimum -2 to maximum +2, nine students reported +2, and two students reported +1.
Only one student (Thea of Pattern 5) reported -2, negative attitudes.

In a similar manner, students’ reports of their interest/curiosity in science also showed
that 11 of the 12 students were interested in science and curious to learn about science
(average rating +3.5 of maximum +4). On a scale ranging from minimum 4 to maximum
+4, nine students reported +4, and two students reported +3. Only one student (again,
Thea of Pattern 5) reported 0, neutral orientation.

The results suggest three major points. First, most students reported positive attitudes
and high interest (curiosity) in science. Consistent with previous research findings, students

in the present study showed positive attitudes toward and high interest in science when

166

they started formal Ieaming of science in middle school.

Second, students’ reports of their attitudes and interest did not seem to be significantly
related to patterns of task engagement. Although almost all the students reported positive
attitudes and high interest, only some of them were motivated to Ieam science during task
engagement. Further, even fewer students actually seemed to engage in classroom tasks
with interest or enjoyment in learning science.

Finally, since students’ reports of their attitudes and interest were almost identical, in
terms of both magnitudes and directions of orientations, attitudes and interest might be a
single construct or, at least, extremely highly correlated (Harty, Samuel & Beall, 1986).

MW It most students
perceived that they liked science, science was fun and interesting, and that they were
curious to learn about science, what was the nature of their affective orientations toward
science? Students’ reports show that the nature of affective orientations did not differ
significantly across different patterns of task engagement. In fact, almost all the students
reported positive attitudes and high interest because it was ”fun to do experiments and
stuff" and ”fun to Ieam science":

Jason (Pattern 1): You know, science is interesting, to Ieam a bunch of things
about science. I think it’s just interesting.

Sara (Pattern 2): Yeah, I like it. I like science, to do experiments and have fun. I
think it’s fun and stuff.

Neil (Pattern 3): Because you learn more and usually it’s pretty fun when you get
to do experiments and stuff...Well, it’s just fun to Ieam.

Sean (Pattern 4): Science is one of my favorite subjects and plus you do a lot of
fun things in it, like experiments and stuff. Like that, you have fun with
science. Um, you learn different things in science, new things.

Kim (Pattern 5): Because it (science) helps you learn and I like doing experiments
and stuff.

The responses above suggest that students’ affective orientations toward science
combined their perceptions of both affective (e.g., fun, liking or interest) and cognitive

components (i.e., Ieaming). Interestingly, affective components were rather specific and

167
concrete mainly in terms of science experiments, whereas cognitive components were
vague and abstract.

Of the 12 students in this study, only one student (Thea of Pattern 5) reported negative
attitudes:

Thea: I don’t like science. It’s sometimes boring Boring in science class.
Sometimes teachers just tell stuff that makes it boring and you’re getting
ready to fall asleep.

Nora’s case (Pattern 6) was rather comMicated. Although she reported positive
orientations on the questionnaire (rating +4 of maximum +6), her affective orientations
seemed to fluctuate depending on contexts. Although she liked some aspects of science,
she did not like the science class because of her personal conflicts with the teacher:

Nora: I don’t really like the teacher that much I don’t really like science class.

I: Is science ever fun?

Nora: Sometimes.
I: Yeah? What parts of science are fun for you?

Nora: When you do experiments with models and different kinds of things.*

Thus, in the cases of Thea and Nora their negative attitudes toward science seemed to
be related to the nature of their motivation during task engagement. With Thea, her lack of
interest in science and negative attitudes seemed to be related to her avoidance to
engaging in classroom tasks. With Nora, her active resistance to the teacher and, for that
matter, negative orientations toward science class seemed to be related to her disruptive
behavior and disciplinary problems in class. In fact, Nora’s attitudes seemed to explain
that her disciplinary problems in class might be a means of actively expressing her negative
feelings toward the teacher and science class.

mm an Di i n: Aff iv rienta ions Toward i nc

The results show that almost all the students reported positive attitudes toward and

high interest in science. Students’ positive orientations toward science seemed to depend

heavily on science experiments, in addition to some vague notion of Ieaming. However,

 

‘Note: Nora's negative perceptions of the teacher do not seem to indicate any mistreatment of this student on
the part of the teacher. On the contrary, according to classroom observations, the teacher tried to help this
student with her learning. The two observers who visited the classroom puzzled about the origins of her
negative perceptions of the teacher.

1 68
one student expressed negative attitudes, and another student reported mixed feelings.

The results suggest that students’ reports of their affective orientations toward science
did not distinguish different patterns of task engagement, especially between students who
were motivated to Ieam science and those who were not. Students who had positive
attitudes and high interest were not necessarily motivated to learn science during task
engagement. However, negative affects seemed to be related to lack of motivation to learn
science. Thus, students’ reports of their affective orientations seemed to be related to their
task engagement to a limited extent.

As research on student motivation suggests, students’ reports of their affective
orientations seem to be quite different from actual task engagement in classrooms (Brophy
8: Merrick, 1987). Further, as conceptual change research suggests, students’ affective
orientations did not seem to be related to the nature of science learning or enjoyment of
scientific understanding. Instead, their affective orientations seemed to be related to

insignificant aspects of science Ieaming or science class, especially “fun" experiments.

Achievement after Unit Instruction and Changes in Students’ Goal Orientations and
Affective Orientations (R.Q. 3)

The question examines whether students’ success or failure to achieve scientific
understanding after unit instruction leads to any change in their general goal orientations in
science class (i.e., cognitive aspects of student motivation) and affective orientations
toward science (i.e., its affective aspects). Does success achievement lead students to
internalize the goal of understanding in science class and also more positive affective
orientations? Does failure achievement lead to deterioration of students’ cognitive and
affective aspects of motivation?

Three major issues of findings are discussed. First, is success or failure to achieve
scientific understanding related to changes in students’ goal orientations in science class?
Have students’ perceptions of the nature of science and science Ieaming been changed?

Second, is success or failure achievement related to changes in affective orientations

169

toward science? Has the nature of their affective orientations been changed? Finally, are
changes in students’ goal orientations related changes in affective orientations? Is there
any consistency (or inconsistency) in changes between cognitive and affective aspects of

student motivation?

n in ’ l ri i in i n l

The assessment of scientific understanding for individual students at the completion of
unit instruction has already been discussed for Research Question 2-b, student progress in
scientific understanding (see Table 5.6).

The examination of changes in students’ goal orientations in science class, with focus
on the goal of understanding, show three major patterns. First, some students more
strongly emphasized the goal of understanding after unit instruction than prior to
instruction. Second, some de-emphasized the goal of understanding. Finally, others failed
to recognize understanding as a major goal in science class and, thus, showed no change.

When the results from the above two sources are related, four major patterns seem to
emerge. Some students successfully achieved scientific understanding, and more strongly
emphasized the goal of understanding after unit instruction. Some failed to achieve
scientific understanding, and de-ernphasized the goal of understanding. Others failed to
achieve scientific understanding, failed to recognize the goal of understanding as a major
goal in science class, and showed no change in their perception of the goal of
understanding. Still others were successful or moderately successful in scientific
understanding, but de-emphasized the goal of understanding after instruction. The results
are summarized in Table 5.9.

The question to be examined is: Did success or failure in the achievement of scientific
understanding lead to changes in students’ perceptions of the goal of understanding in
science class? As shown in Table 5.9, the relationship between achievement and changes
in students’ goal of understanding is not completely systematic. For some students, there

seemed to be a systematic relationship; for others, there was not a systematic relationship.

170

In the following, four major patterns of change will be described. For each pattern, two
types of results will be described. First, according to research on student motivation,
changes in students’ perceptions of the goal of understanding in terms of expectancy of

success and value for the goal of understanding will be described. Second, according to
Table 5.9

Ahi - ._no h.n+in tt‘ 0-_l01’lnlnt'-in-ot' -. ni In an

Achievement] mass Moderate success Overall Failure Number of 7
Chan e students
More emp asis Jason PattemI 4

Sara (Pattern 2)
Dan (Pattern 2)
Ann (Pattern 2)
Less emphasis Ken (Pattern 17 Neil (Pattern 3) Maria (Pattern 2) 5

Sean (Pattern 4) Lin (Pattern 5)
No change "Ea (Pattern S) 3

Kim (Pattern 5)
_ Nora (Pattern 6)
Total 12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

research on conceptual change, changes in students’ perceptions of the nature of science
and science Ieaming will be described.
W The first group involves students
who successfully achieved scientific understanding and more strongly emphasized the goal
of understanding after unit instruction (Jason of Pattern 1 engagement, and Sara, Dan, and
Ann of Pattern 2). For instance, Jason emphasized that ”to use science to understand the
world” and ”to have scientifically correct ideas” were his top two priorities in science
class:
Jason: Because that (i.e., to use science to understand the world) is mainly why
I’m in science, just to use science to understand the world, and science
stands for everything around us and eve hing. I think they (i.e., to use
science to understand the world, and to ave scientifically correct ideas)

would almost make a tie, because you have to know science, correct
science, to use science to understand the world.

171

On the contrary, Jason de-emphasized the goal of good performance in class that he
had reported as his second priority before unit instruction:

I: What do you think about these two reasons (i.e., get good grades, and do

well in class activities)?

Jason: To get good grades would now probably be my fourth reason. To get

good grades. I would, that’s a major part of it, of using science to
understand the world is more like me.

Further, Jason developed a more definite conception of science and science learning
as a way to understand and explain the world around him:

I: 00 cu have any idea why your thinking might have changed?

Jason: Wel , in earlier, I might have, earlier I might have counted vocabulary

and, vocabula and facts and memorizin facts as a part of using science
to understand e world. I don’t know. ey are very different.

I: Does that surprise you?

Jason: Sort of. That does surprise me.

Similarly, Sara emphasized the goal of understanding as her first priority in science
class after unit instruction, as compared to her second priority before instruction:

I: Could you tell me why you think now that understanding is the most

important reason than anything else? Why your idea has changed?

Sara: Yeah, well, because I just feel that it’s more important than others I just
think that it’s more important because I’d like to learn more about science
than to please my parents or to get good grades or whatever I said before.
That’s what science is.

Clearly, these students had successfully achieved scientific understanding. Through
the experience of success achievement, they seemed to develop a better conception of the
nature of science and science Ieaming. They also internalized the goal of understanding as
their first priority in science class. External factors, such as getting good grades or pleasing
their parents and teachers, became only secondary reasons. The results suggest that the
students developed a higher value for the goal of understanding in science class.

r : F il r hi n l h i . This group involves students who
failed to achieve scientific understanding and de-emphasized the goal of understanding
after instruction, although it had been a primary goal for them before unit instruction
(Maria of Type 2, and Lin of Type 5). Instead, other competing goals became far more

salient to them after instruction. For example, Maria reported the goal of understanding as

172
her second priority before instruction; after instruction, she reported this goal as her third
priority. She also de-emphasized this goal from the perspectives of a good science student
and a science teacher. Explaining why she gave one of the lowest ratings to the goal, to
have scientifically correct ideas from her own perspective, Maria expressed her Ieaming
difficulty as a cause:

Maria: Because sometimes when we take tests, it is like one after another...We
would first study about molecules, then we would take the test last. And it
would be hard for me to remember all of them if I have—I know that I am
taking all kinds of tests, it would be hard for me to study and everything,
so I wouldn’t remember all that well.

Despite her reduced emphasis on the goal of understanding and recognition of her
learning difficulty, Maria seemed to have developed a better conception of the nature of
science and science learning:

Maria: He (teacher) wants me to know about the world and explain things, about

what kind of ases are in the world, what kinds of molecules are in the

air, what kin of—what molecules do, how molecules are, and to know
more about science

On the other hand, Lin reported the goal of understanding as her third priority before
instruction. After instruction, she did not identify this goal either as one of her primary
goals or from the perspectives of a good science student and a science teacher. She
wondered whether her science teacher would emphasize the goal, to have scientifically

correct ideas:

Lin: Well, he doesn’t usually care about if they’re scientifically correct.
Well....that’s—he wants us to understand what they are, what they mean,
what the real meaning is. I don’t know if he really wants us to know if
we’re scientifically correct for answers, or ideas are scientifically correct,
you know.

When asked by the interviewer about such changes in her thinking after instruction,
Lin was unresponsive:

I: You said that "to use science to understand the world” is an important
reason in the beginning of the year. And now you didn’t even mark it.
Can you tell me why you have changed your idea?

Lin: I don’t know. That was in the be inning of the school year. This is in the
middle of the school year. I swit ed Um, maybe, I think I have a
different, um, how should I put it? Different view of it Well, that was a
long time ago. I don’t remember it.

173

1: Why you have changed your idea?
Lin: I don’t even remember it, or I wouldn’t have changed it.

Yet, evidence suggests that these changes seemed to be related to her sense of Ieaming
difficulty and cognitive demands of classroom tasks:

Lin: I don’t know. Because it’s hard work. Probably because it’s easier to
understand, and hard work is a big challenge. BIG challenge.

Before unit instruction, Lin had some understanding about the nature of science and
science learning as a means to understand and explain the world. After instruction, Lin
became sarcastic about science Ieaming:

1:. What. do you think is really important in science learninF?.

LIn: LearnIng about SCIence. Umm, you know, how the wor d Is compared to

other planets and all that crap -—oh, excuse me. The earth compares—

Thus, both Maria and Lin de-emphasized the goal of understanding, which seemed to
be related to their learning difficulties or cognitive demands of classroom tasks. The results
suggest that after experience of Ieaming difficulties and failure achievement, the students
developed lower expectancy of success in achieving scientific understanding, which also
led them to develop lower value in the goal of understanding.

However, there was a significant difference between the two students in their
perceptions of the nature of science and science learning. Maria who was motivated to
learn science (Pattern 2) developed a better conception of what scientific understanding
involves. In contrast, Lin (Pattern 5) did not demonstrate a conception of scientific
understanding. In fact, she seemed to be sarcastic about science learning and science class
and was not open to talk about her thoughts and feelings.

grgap 3; Failara aghiavamgt, and n9 ghange. This group involves students who
failed to achieve scientific understanding, failed to realize understanding as a major goal in
science class, and showed no chance in their perception of the goal of understanding
(Thea and Kim of Pattern 5, and Nora of Pattern 6). Further, they remained unaware of
what scientific understanding involves.

For example, Kim did not show any significant change in her ideas about science class

1 74
after unit instruction:

I: In general, when you think about how you feel about science class, do you
think your ideas have changed since the beginning of the year, or are they
pretty much the same?

Kim: Pretty much the same.

Like Kim, Thea maintained basically the same ideas after instruction as prior to
instruction. She reported memorization of factual information as one of her primary goals.
Further, she perceived the nature of science and science learning as memorization of facts:

Thea: (to memorize facts and information) If I have a test and if I don’t know it,
then I am in trouble. I guess ifI memorized the facts and information, I’d
know about the outside. Well, I’d know the facts and information so I
could understand it.

In contrast to her emphasis on memorization of facts, Thea gave one of the lowest
ratings to the goal, to have scientifically correct ideas after unit instruction, exactly the way
she had done before instruction:

Thea: I don’t, I really don’t care whether I am right or wrong scientifically.

Nora’s case was more complicated. She gave identical ratings (lowest) to the goals, to
use science to understand the world and to make sure my ideas are scientifically correct
both before and after unit instruction:

Nora: Because I don’t like to understand the world. I don’t like to know about

things that go on. I don’t like to correct my answers and I don’t like to go
back and look through things ’cause it’s boring and I’d rather do other
things.

Although Nora actively denied the importance of understanding, she seemed to have a
better conception of the nature of science and science Ieaming than her rating of the goal
indicated:

Nora: For me or for us to get good grades and so we could learn more about the

matter, like um, learn more about science and things that happen in
nature, and like, and solids and liquids and gases, what really goes on and
like that.

Her denial of the goal of understanding seemed to be related to her personal conflicts
with the teacher. Further, her reaction seemed to be complicated by her learning difficulty

or sense of failure in science Ieaming. Unfortunately, the data in the study did not provide

1 7S
evidence for any possible causal linkage between her negative feelings toward the teacher
and Ieaming difficulty in science:

Nora: I don’t know. He (teacher) is just, he’s 'ust weird. It’s like if you don't

learn science, he don’t like you, but I on’t know

I: Do you think your reasons for doing work in science class have changed

since the beginning of the year?

Nora: I hate doing work in science If I don’t do it, I will get suspended, I’d get

bad grades. 50 that’s one reason I do it.

Thus, the results suggest that without experience of success in achieving scientific
understanding, the three students showed no change in their perception of the goal of
understanding in science. class. In the cases of Thea and Kim, they maintained their low
value for the goal of understanding in science class. Further, they remained unaware of
what scientific understanding involves. Nora, for example, developed even lower value on
the goal of understanding due to personal reasons. Further, she also deveIOped lower
expectancy of success, as she implied her Ieaming difficulty and failure in science class.
Yet, she seemed to develop a better conception of the nature of science and science
Ieaming.

W. This group involves students who
were very successful or moderately successful in achieving scientific understanding after
unit instruction. Yet, they put less emphasis on the goal of understanding after instruction
than prior to instruction (Ken of Pattern 1, Neil of Pattern 3, and Sean of Pattern 4). Rather,
other competing goals, including good grades and expectations of parents and teachers,
became more salient to them.

In the case of Ken, prior to instruction of the unit, the goal of understanding was his
first priority, fact acquisition the second, and good grades the third. After instruction,
pleasing his parents became his first priority, understanding the second, and pleasing his
teacher the third:

Ken: Well, I want, I just want them (parents) to be happy with my school work,

happy with what I am doing.

1: Before the unit, the primary reason was understanding. After the unit, it is

pleasing your parents?
Ken: I just, I don’t know. I just want my parents to be happy, I guess, happy

176

with my science work.

I: Can you tell me why you have changed your idea?

Ken: I guess then it wasn’t really important because I guess I just like started.
And I wanted to get used to it or something. I don’t know. . .

In Neil’s case, he reported understanding as his second priority before unit instruction.
After instruction, he did not report understanding as one of his primary goals at all.
Instead, he emphasized getting good grades, pleasing his parents, and doing well in class

activities as his three primary goals:

I: Why didn’t you include to use science to understand the world this time?

Neil: I don’t know why I put that last time. Well, it is kind of, but this (to do well
in class activities) is more important.

1: Why is this more important now?

Neil: Well, it’s more important to do this, and get that.

I: Get what?

Neil: Well, if you do good in this, you usually get good grades.

For all the three students, good grades seemed to serve as means for other personally
important goals:

Ken: Well, they (parents) just like it because I get good grades. I don’t know.
They just li e when I do good work in science I need good grades
because then I could get into a ood college, a real good college. Cause I
want to be a marine biologist w en I grow up.

I: So, you are concerned with getting good grades and pleasing your parents
now? '

Neil: Right. Well, ifl don’t, I don’t get to play hockey, so—l mean, I won’t be
able to do anything else, like, I won’t be able to do any, any extra activities
after school or anything.

Sean: Because I’d rather et good grades, and ifl get good grades, then my
parents would be p eased Because my ma said that if you’re going to go
to college, you’re going to need your science to pass something, to get
something.

Despite less emphasis on the goal of understanding after unit instruction, the students
seemed to have developed a better conception of the nature of science and science
Ieaming. For example, all of them emphasized the goal of understanding as the first
priority from the perspective of a science teacher:

Ken: I think that (to use science to understand the world) is one of the most

important ones, because he (teacher), that’s why he’s teaching you is to use
science to understand the world.

I: You think that to use science to understand the world and to make sure my
ideas are scientifically correct are the two most important reasons—

177

Neil: Yeah, to a science teacher. I wouldn’t think so, but a science teacher

would.
I: Would a scientist think that these two reasons are the most important?
Neil: Yeah.
I: But you wouldn’t think so?
Neil: Right.

Sean: He (teacher) does want us to use science to understand the world, like the
molecules. He is teaching us to understand about molecules and stuff like
that.

Thus, after having experienced scientific understanding, the students developed a
conception of the nature of science and science Ieaming. Yet, they became more
concerned with other competing goals than the goal of understanding in science class.

The results suggest that the students developed lower value for the goal of understanding
(despite, possibly, higher expectancy of success). Funher, the results seem to reflect
students’ experiences in school environments during the transition to middle school, where
there is heavy emphasis on external evaluation, primarily through the form of grading.

mm nDi in: hn in lri ai

The results suggest that the relationship between achievement and changes in goal
orientations is not completely systematic. For some students, there seemed to a systematic
relationship. Some of the students who successfully achieved scientific understanding
seemed to develop higher value for the goal of understanding in science class. Others who
experienced learning difficulties and failure achievement in scientific understanding
developed lower value as well as lower expectancy of success in the goal of understanding
in science class.

The relationship, however, was not systematic for other students. Some of the students
who failed to achieve scientific understanding showed no change in their perception of the
goal of understanding. Other students, despite their successful or moderately successful
achievement, developed lower value for the goal of understanding in science class and
became more concerned with other competing goals.

According to research on student motivation, the results seem to be explained in terms

of expectancy x value theory. Success or failure to achieve scientific understanding led to

178

changes in students’ expectancy of success and value in the goal of scientific
understanding (i.e., Groups 1 and 2). Some students did not show any change, since they
never realized the goal of understanding in the first place (i.e., Group 3). Further, students’
goal orientations were influenced by extemal factors (i.e., Group 4).

Research on conceptual change in science also seem to be consistent with the results
of the study. Students who achieved scientific understanding developed a better
conception of the nature of science (i.e., Groups 1 and 4). Some students did not show
any change in their perception of the nature of science and science learning, since they
never had an awareness of what it means to understand science in the first place (i.e., Kim
and Thea of Group 3).

However, conceptual change research does not seem sufficient to explain the
remaining three students (Lin and Maria of Group 2, and Nora of Group 4). All of them
had some understanding of what scientific involves initially, experienced Ieaming
difficulties over the period of instruction, and failed to achieve scientific understanding
after instruction. Yet, during post-instruction interviews, they exhibited different
perceptions of the nature of science and science learning. These differences seem to be
more adequately explained in terms of motivational variables of students: Maria was
willing to expend effort to achieve scientific understanding; Lin exhibited a learned-

helpless pattern of motivation; and Nora had personal conflicts with the teacher.

n in ’Aff iv rinin r in
This section describes the findings in relation to two issues: (a) changes in students’
ratings of their attitudes toward and interest in science; and (b) changes in the nature of
students’ affective orientations toward science.
a, Qangas in gugangs’ affggiva mimtatigns. When instruction of the unit was
completed, almost all the students reported positive affective orientations toward science.
With regard to student attitudes toward science, 10 of the 12 students reported positive

attitudes, and two reported negative attitudes (average rating +1.2 of maximum +2). With

1 79
regard to these two students (Thea and Nora), Thea remained to be negative, and Nora

changed from mixed to negative attitudes. Thus, thereiwere no significant changes in
students’ attitudes toward science after instruction as compared to before instruction.

With regard to interest/curiosity in science, 11 students reported high interest and
curiosity in science after instruction (average rating +2.8 of maximum +4). Only one
student reported complete lack of interest and curiosity in science (Nora, -4). Thus, two
students showed changes in their interest after instruction as compared to before
instruction: Thea changed from neutral to high interest and Nora, in contrast, changed
from high interest to complete lack of interest.

The results suggest two main points. First, students (deSpite the small number in the
study) generally showed less positive orientations after instruction compared to before
instruction. The average rating of students’ attitudes prior to instruction was 1.5 of
maximum 2, which dropped to 1.2 after instruction. In a similar manner, the average
rating of students’ interest/curiosity prior to instruction was 3.5 of maximum 4, which
dropped to 2.8 after instruction. Not counting the drastic changes with Nora, the trend of
change was still on the decline. The results suggest that consistent with previous research,
students’ attitudes and interest in science seemed to decline during the transition to middle
school.

Second, students’ reports of their affective orientations toward science showed that
most of the students did not show significant changes in their affective orientations after
unit instruction. Although some students failed to achieve scientific understanding, they
still reported positive attitudes and high interest. Thus, success or failure achievement did
not seem to be significantly related to changes in students’ affective orientations.

. hn inhn r f n’ff iv orin in.Iftherewereno
significant changes in students’ ratings of their affective orientations toward science after
unit instruction, was there any change in students’ reports of the nature of their affective

orientations? If so, was the change in affective orientations related to students’ Ieaming

180

experience or achievement?

The results suggest that success or failure achievement did not seem to be related to
changes in affective orientations in a systematic manner. For some students, changes in
their affective orientations seemed to be related to their Ieaming experience or
achievement. For other students, however, changes in their affective orientations, if any,
seemed to be related to other aspects of science class, rather than their Ieaming experience

or achievement. These two patterns will be described in the following.
W This group involves
students for whom changes in affective orientations seemed to be related to their learning
experience or achievement. The students who had successfully achieved scientific
understanding (those of Patterns 1 and 2 engagement, except Maria) seemed to enjoy and
appreciate expanding scientific knowledge. Their successful experience of scientific
understanding seemed to produce more positive attitudes and higher interest in science:

Jason: Well, in September I wasn’t in that much of science and I didn’t have a lot
of interest in it and now it’s January and I’ve gained an interest in science,
so of truthfully.

I: Why do you think your interest has changed?

Jason: Because I’ve Ieamed a lot more than in September about science. I got
different ideas, explanations, and I’ve got, I like challenging work.

I: Do you think your reasons for doing work or feelings about science have
changed since September?

Jason: A little, a little—I gained an interest in science, Ieamed a lot more, a lot
more and I’ve just changed my explanations and all that kind of thing.

Sara: It’s kind of fun to Ieam about the world, about, you know, how it works
and stuff, cause before I didn’t know about molecules, I didn’t understand
it, and it was fun to Ieam.

In contrast, one student (Maria of Pattern 2) experienced frustration and confusion
over the period of instruction. She knew that she was not successful in achieving scientific
understanding. Yet, she maintained positive attitudes toward science after instruction:

Maria: Because, you see, in the beginning of the year, I liked science and I like
science now. It’s my best subject next to math. I don’t get the best
grades in science, but I get good grades, and I want to know more about
science to get the best grades. And I like science to know about the
molecules and the gases and everything, so like when my sisters need
help in that kind of situation, I would know how to do it and how to
explain it. I like science.

181

W This group involves

students for whom there was no systematic relationship between changes in affective

orientations and Ieaming experience or achievement. Instead, their affective orientations

seemed to be related to class activities, especially science experiments. Even when

students were not successful in achieving scientific understanding, their affective

orientations remained positive and unchanged after instruction:

Neil:
I:
Neil:
I:
Neil:
I:

eil:
I:
Neil:
I:
Neil:

Lin:

I:
Lin:

Well, sometimes it’s fun.

When is it fun?

When we get to do experiments.

What else?

That’s about it.

Is there a time when science is not fun?
When we have to a lot of work?

Like what?

Like a lot of writing stuff—uh, listening to the teacher talk a lot.
Wait: there a lot of writing in the unit?
Yea .

Sometimes it’s fun when we do experiments, and sometimes it’s boring
When you do experiments in science, it’s fun. It’s a lot of fun.

When is it boring?

Sometimes I don’t like to do the work, things I don’t like.

Although two students (Thea and Nora) reported significant changes in their affective

orientations after instruction, their changes were influenced by reasons other than Ieaming

experience or achievement:

Thea:

Nora:
I:
Nora:
I:

Nora:
I:

Nora:

It (the unit) was fun, and we get to do a lot of experiments and talked
about all the things that had molecules in it It was boring at first, but it’s
not any more.

Science is boring. In science, you have to be quiet.

Other reasons why science is boring?

The work is boring.

Does that mean that you don’t think the work that you are doing in science
class is important?

Well, it’s important, but it’s boring.

Can you tell me at all why your feelings about science class have changed?

Because in the beginning, I thought school was fun and that science was
fun, too. But now it’s boring. The teacher, you know, I don’t know, he’s
weird.

1 82
mm n Di in: hn inAff iv ri i

The results suggest that success or failure to achieve scientific understanding did not
seem to be related to changes in students’ affective orientations in a systematic manner.
Students who successfully achieved scientific understanding seemed to enjoy and
appreciate expanding scientific understanding. However, many others who were not
successful generally remained positive in their attitudes and maintained high interest after
unit instruction. The results suggest that changes in students’ affective orientation often
seemed to be related to aspects of science class, especially science experiments, rather

than Ieaming experience or achievement.

hn d’ lnAffiv riti

Is there any systematic relationship in the changes between these two aspects of
student motivation? Did students change their affective orientations toward science as
they developed different conceptions of the nature of science and science learning and,
thus, changed their goals in science class?

As already discussed, success or failure to achieve scientific understanding did not
seemed to lead to changes in either students’ goal orientations or affective orientations in a
systematic manner. Thus, it is quite complicated to find a relationship in changes between
student goals (i.e., cognition) and attitudes and interest (i.e., affect). The following
discussion covers only two major patterns, disregarding other variations.

When students successfully achieved scientific understanding and experienced
meaningful learning of science, they developed a better conception of the nature of
science and science learning and also more strongly emphasized the goal of understanding
in science class. Further, they seemed to enjoy and appreciate a deeper and richer
understanding of scientific knowledge. In this case, achievement of meaningful
understanding led to the internalization of the goal of understanding and also enjoyment of

scientific understanding in a consistent manner.

183

In contrast, some students were not successful in achieving scientific understanding
after unit instruction, failed to develop a conception of the nature of science and science
learning, and did not recognize understanding as a major goal in science class. Or, others
de-emphasized the goal of understanding after having experienced Ieaming difficulties or
failure achievement. Nevertheless, the students reported positive affective orientations
toward science mainly due to aspects of science class, especially science experiments. In
this case, changes in students’ goal orientations and affective orientations were not

consistent.

CHAPTER SIX
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS

This chapter begins with a summary of the findings. Then, implications of the study

for research and curriculum development and classroom teachingwill be addressed.

Summary of Findings

The present study examines three research questions: (a) What are the patterns of
students’ task engagement (i. e., choice of goals and strategies) in science classrooms? (b).
What are the key factors related to patterns of task engagement? and (c). What happens to,
student motivation when students succeed or fail to achieve scientific understanding?

The findings of the study showed six different patterns of task engagement. These
patterns are related to several key factors, including (a) students’ interpretations of the
nature of classroom tasks, (b) students’ success or failure to make progress in scientific
understanding, (c) students’ general goal orientations in science class, and (d) to a limited
extent, students’ affective orientations toward science. Finally, achievement of scientific
understanding after a period of instruction seemed to lead to changes in students’ goal
orientations and affective orientations, although not in systematic ways. The findings of
this study are summarized below; they are arranged by patterns.of task engagement
Pagern 1; Intrinsically Mgtivatg tg Laarn Ximga

On their own initiative, the students actively constructed their own knowledge as they
tried to integrate their personal knowledge with scientific knowledge and apply scientific
knowledge to understand and explain the world around them. Thus, they seemed to be
motivated to learn science as a general disposition because they found Ieaming science

intrinsically interesting and enjoyable.

184

1 85
While engaging in classroom tasks, these students adequately understood the content

objectives and difficulty of those tasks. They recognized that the problems posed in the
classroom tasks had to be solved through scientific thinking, and they monitored their
Ieaming difficulties. They made consistent progress in scientific understanding as
instruction of the unit continued. They had a conception of the nature of science and
science Ieaming as a means for understanding and explaining the world around them.
They emphasized the goal of understanding as their first priority in science class and
reported positive attitudes and high interest in science.

When the unit was completed, these students successfully achieved scientific
understanding of kinetic molecular theory. They could construct spontaneous and
elaborate scientific explanations. They had developed a clear conception of the nature of
science and science Ieaming and also enjoyed a deeper and richer understanding of
scientific knowledge. One student internalized the goal of understanding in science class,
while the other became more concerned about other competing goals, such as getting
good grades and pleasing his parents and the teacher.

P 2 M ivat L rn ci

With the support of the curriculum unit and the teacher, the students tried to integrate
their personal knowledge with scientific knowledge and apply scientific knowledge in
order to understand and explain natural phenomena. Thus, they demonstrated a state of
motivation to Ieam science in many specific task situations.

While engaging in classroom tasks, these students adequately understood the content
objectives and difficulty of those tasks. Able both to recognize the nature of the problems
posed in the classroom tasks and to monitor their learning difficulties, Pattern 2 students
made overall progress in scientific understanding as instruction continued. They had some
knowledge of the nature of science and science Ieaming and emphasized understanding as
one of their major goals, although not the first priority, in science class. They also reported

positive attitudes and high interest in science.

186

When the unit was completed, the students successfully achieved scientific
understanding, developed a conception of the nature of science and science learning, and
internalized the goal of understanding in science class. They also enjoyed and appreciated
expanding their scientific knowledge.

P 'IninillMiv In nin

The quality of the task engagemnt for this one student seemed to depend on his
intrinsic interest; it was inconsistent across task situations. In those task situations that he
found interesting, he demonstrated initiative in cognitive engagement. In other situations,
however, he was neither attentive nor involved in class activities.

While engaging in classroom tasks, be adequately understood the content objectives
and difficulty of those tasks. As instruction of the unit continued, he made overall progress
in scientific understanding, although he failed in those task situations in which he was not
attentive in class due to his lack of interest. He had some knowledge about the nature of
science and science Ieaming and emphasized understanding as one of his major goals in
science class, although this was not the first priority. He also reported positive attitudes
and high interest in science.

When instruction of the unit was completed, the student was reasonably successful in
achieving scientific understanding. Although he demonstrated a clear conception of
science and science Ieaming, he no longer emphasized understanding as one of his major
goals in science class. He reported positive attitudes and high interest in science.

Pattgn 4; Task Campletian

The Pattern 4 student generally appeared to be attentive in class and involved in class
activities. However, he was not cognitively engaged in classroom tasks. He seemed to be
concerned with completing classroom work, not necessarily with understanding.

In specific task situations, this student often failed to understand the content objectives
or difficulty of classroom tasks. Over the period of instruction, he showed mixed

performance in scientific understanding. He seemed to have some knowledge of the

187

nature of science and science Ieaming, although he did not emphasize understanding as
one of his major goals in science class. He reported positive attitudes and high interest in
science.

At the completion of unit instruction, the student was moderately successful in
achieving scientific understanding and seemed to develop a better conception of science
and science Ieaming. Yet, he did not emphasize understanding as one of his major goals
in science class and, instead, remained more concerned with other competing goals in
science class.

Pa : Ta k Av i n

The Pattern 5 students were not cognitively engaged in classroom tasks. They were
neither attentive nor involved in class activities. Their main concern seemed to be getting
the work, done with a minimum of effort.

In specific task situations, these students failed to understand the content objectives of
classroom tasks or monitor their learning difficulties. As instruction of the unit continued,
they generally failed to achieve scientific understanding. They did not have knowledge of
the nature of science and science Ieaming and did not emphasize understanding as one of
their major goals in science class. Yet, they generally reported positive attitudes and high
interest in science.

When the unit was completed, the students failed to achieve scientific understanding,
develop a conception of science and science Ieaming, and recognize understanding as a
major goal in science class. Yet, they reported positive attitudes and high interest in
science.

P rn ' Di iv 8 vi r

The Pattern 6 student actively avoided engaging in classroom tasks or participating in
class activities. Further, she resisted engaging in classroom tasks and often displayed
disruptive behavior and disciplinary problems in class.

While engaging in classroom tasks, she had some understanding of the content

188
objectives of the tasks, but did not seem to admit when she was having Ieaming difficulty.

Over the period of unit instruction, she consistently failed to achieve scientific
understanding. Despite the fact that she had some knowledge of the nature of science and
science learning, she seemed to deny the goal of understanding in science class. She
reported negative attitudes toward the science teacher and science class, although she
liked some aspects of science and had high interest in science.

When instruction of the unit was completed, this student actively denied the goal of
understanding in science class. Further, she developed completely negative attitudes and

no interest in science.

Conclusions and Implications for Research

The goal of this study was to better understand the critical problem of students being
unwilling to work hard in science classrooms. Even when they are willing, they expend
effort to achieve less valued outcomes, such as memorizing vocabulary words or facts,
rather than trying to achieve scientific understanding. While engaging in classroom tasks,
many students rely on strategies that minimize their efforts in completing the work. This
raises a concern among science educators about how to stimulate student motivation to
learn science.

Problems of student motivation in science classrooms have been addressed by two
research traditions: conceptual change in science tradition and student motivation.
Conceptual change researchers stress content knowledge and propose various ways to
improve curriculum materials and develop instructional strategies to help students
understand the content in science. Motivation researchers, on the other hand, focus on
motivational variables, proposing various strategies to stimulate aspects of student
motivation. Prior to the current study, research in the two research traditions was
conducted separately, focusing either on content knowledge or on motivational variables,
but never addressing the two in conjunction. This study attempted to examine issues of

student motivation in science classrooms according to both research traditions.

189

The present study was conducted in science classrooms where the curriculum
materials were developed according to a conceptual change approach and instruction was
implemented as intended in the curriculum. This research context provided a test case for
examining the assumptions of conceptual change research about issues of student
motivation. The results show that when the curriculum materials and instruction provided
students with the opportunity to Ieam science in a meaningful way, some students
accepted this opportunity and were motivated to Ieam science, while others still expended
little effort to achieve scientific understanding.

Do the results indicate that the assumptions of conceptual change research are wrong?
Unfortunately, the results allow only partial testing of the assumptions, because the
research context did not approximate ideal conditions for study according to the
conceptual change approach. There were aspects of teaching that were not addressed in
the curriculum, and the implementation of instruction was inadequate. The teachers did
not interact with individual students in ways that would have led to greater students’
engagement within the social contexts of classrooms.

Since the research context was not ideal for student Ieaming of science, the student
motivation problems encountered in the study can be attributed either to features of
curriculum materials and instruction or to motivational variables of students. The results of
the study suggest that both of these traditions have important insights to offer to those who
wish to understand and improve science teaching. Yet, there are limitations and conflicts
that make it difficult to integrate knowledge generated by the two traditions.

For instance, consistent with conceptual change in science, the extent of students’
background knowledge and constructed knowledge over the instructional period seemed
to be important factors for the quality of students’ task engagement. Further, the effects of
curriculum and instruction in helping students expend high quality of task engagement

seemed to be significant. (e.g., Patterns 1 and 2). However, many students did not accept

190

the opportunity provided in the curriculum and instruction as a better alternative (Patterns
3 to 6).

Consistent with research in student motivation, on the other hand, problems of low
quality of task engagement could be attributed to students’ low expectancy of success or
low value for the goal of scientific understanding. Further, negative affects could also be a
barrier to task engagement.

The results of the study, however, do not permit a complete resolution about problems
of student motivation during task engagement. Sine the curriculum and instruction did not
approximate the ideal situation, problems of students’ low quality of task engagement
would be attributable to either (a) the inadequacy of curriculum and instruction, although
they would be willing to expend effort if they received more support, or (b) their lack of
willingness to expend effort due to inappropriately low expectancy of success or low value,
even when the curriculum and instruction provided a better context for their learning.

These results rail fundamental questions about issues of student motivation in science
classrooms for further research. Can we separate content knowledge from motivational
variables of students? How much of students’ patterns of task engagement or their success
or failure to achieve scientific understanding can be attributed to content knowledge?

How much is the work of motivational variables? The results here suggest that student
motivation is a complex problem. To solve this problem, both content knowledge and
motivational variables need to be considered.

The methodology used in the study has significant implications for the research
community. The rich descriptions in this study provide a deeper understanding of the
constraints as well as contributions of each tradition to explain issues of student
motivation. Further, the rich descriptions show how various factors interact in individual
students.

This study only begins to tackle these questions. Although the results of the study do

not provide clear answers, they make significant contributions to the research community

191

about how to integrate the two research traditions. Future research should investigate the

limitations of each tradition and how to resolve conflicts between the two.

Implications for Curriculum Development and Classroom Teaching

The following discussion covers two issues related to the findings of this study. The
first part of the discussion concerns the effects of curriculum materials and instruction on
patterns of student task engagement in the present study. The second part of the discussion
uses the study findings as a starting point, relating them to implications for future
curriculum and instructional development in science education.

E f rriclman Intr i

The curriculum materials and instruction in this study were designed to help students
expend high quality of task engagement and, thus, achieve scientific understanding. The
results of the Science Achievement Project show that a higher proportion of students taught
by the revised “Matter and Molecules" unit achieved scientific understanding (50% success
rate) than those taught by a commercial curriculum unit (26% success rate). However,
only half of the 12 students in this study accepted the opportunity provided by the
curriculum and instruction as a better alternative and exhibited clear motivation to learn
science during task engagement (Patterns 1 and 2). Five of these students successfully
achieved scientific understanding of kinetic molecular theory (Patterns 1 and 2, except
Maria). The results of the Science Achievement Project also showed that 50% of students
who were taught by the revised “Matter and Molecules" unit failed to achieve scientific
understanding of kinetic molecular theory. Thus, the effectiveness of the curriculum
materials and instruction seems to be limited.

Pangn 1; These students were distinguished by their self-initiated cognitive
engagement. They expanded their thinking and understanding about science beyond the
scope of the content presented in the curriculum and instruction. Further, they seemed to
engage in science tasks primarily because they wanted to learn science. When instruction

started, they had substantial background knowledge and placed high value on the goal of

192
understanding. In this regard, they did not seem to need extensive support from

curriculum materials and instruction. Even without such support, they could have
demonstrated high quality of cognitive engagement independently

Pangn Z. The quality of task engagement for Pattern 2 students occurred within the
scope of the content that was actually presented. This suggests that their pattern of task
engagement was closely related to the special features of the curriculum materials and
instruction. While engaging in science tasks, these students recognized their
misconceptions and the confusion between their personal knowledge and scientific
knowledge. With the support of the curriculum materials and instruction, they resolved
their learning difficulties and achieved scientific understanding. The curriculum materials
and instruction seemed to be most effective for these students; they realized the value of
scientific understanding and recognized their chances of success in achieving this valued
outcome.

Pangns 3 and 4. The curriculum materials and instruction were only partially
effective in helping these students expend high quality of task engagement. For Neil
(Pattern 3), the meaningfulness of the curriculum materials and instruction triggered his
intrinsic motivation in certain task situations. In those instances, Neil successfully
connected his prior knowledge to the content being taught and applied scientific
knowledge to explain his personal experiences. Sean’s (Pattern 4) primary goal was to
complete classroom tasks; the curriculum materials and instruction were effective for him
because they set a high standard of curricular goals and forced him to exert enough effort
to complete classroom tasks.

Despite some potential, however, neither student accepted scientific understanding as
a preferred alternative. The results suggest that both Neil and Sean were more concerned
with other competing goals than with achieving understanding in science class. Thus they

seemed to have low value in the goal of understanding, although they were reasonably

 

successful in achieving scientific understanding.

193
Pangn 3, The curriculum materials and instruction did not have any significant

impact on helping these students expend high quality of task engagement. While engaging
in science tasks, Pattern 5 students tried to avoid task engagement and relied on strategies
to minimize their efforts in completing the tasks. The results suggest that the students never
claimed scientific understanding as a preferred goal. Further, they had low expectancy of
success in science class altogether.

Pangn s, This student’s low quality of task engagement stemmed primarily from her
personal conflicts in science class and was further complicated by her sense of failure
achievement. Study results suggest that her negative attitudes toward science class led her
to actively resist the goal of understanding.

r i M iv ' n l rri

The effects of curriculum and instruction differed across patterns of task engagement.
The two students of Pattern 1 might have been successful without extensive support of
curriculum and instruction. Research also shows that in traditional classrooms using
commercial textbooks, a small proportion of students (about 20% of the student
population) can expend the high quality of task engagement needed to achieve scientific
understanding. (C. Anderson, 1987; Fensham, I985; Yager and Hofstein, 1986).

The curriculum and instruction seemed to be most effective for students who were
willing to expend effort but needed extensive support from curriculum materials and
instruction (Pattern 2). Without such support, they might have expended their effort for the
less valued outcomes, as is often the case in traditional practice. Thus, the results indicate
significant improvements of the curriculum and instruction in the present study over
traditional practices.

The effects of curriculum and instruction, however, were limited for other students.
(Patterns 3 to 6). They needed more support than the curriculum design and instructional
method provided. This uneven distribution of task engagement was especially noticeable

in the students of Patterns 3-6. What might have happened to these students if the

194

curriculum materials and instruction had provided more support? Such methodological
and content additions as slowing down the pacing of instruction for individual students,
using additional tasks, more scaffolding for conceptually complicated tasks, and increasing
expectations for students to be accountable for their learning outcomes instead of just
finishing the work are among the possible devices for improving the supportive nature of
the curriculum and classroom teaching.

The results of the study suggest implications for science educators to help students,
including those who are currently failing, expend high quality of task engagement. The
following discussion suggests strategies to overcome the four factors identified as barriers to
student motivation to learn science, and considers the effects of constraints in the social
contexts of classrooms on student motivation.

MW Students’ interpretations of the
nature of classroom tasks are a particularly serious problem in science class. Many
students, like Pattern 4 student Sean, are committed to their common-sense explanations.
Relying heavily on his incorrect prior knowledge, Sean often misinterpreted the content
objectives of classroom tasks and, thus, failed to realize when his prior knowledge was in
conflict with scientific knowledge.

Curriculum materials and instruction should clearly communicate to students what
classroom tasks are intended to teach. They should make explicit how the scientific
knowledge presented in the tasks is related to students’ prior knowledge. Curriculum and
instruction also need to emphasize places where many students are expected to have
Ieaming difficulties. For this purpose, curricular development should be based on an
extensive knowledge base about common students’ misconceptions in a content domain.

2; Hglp studagts makg prggrgs in aghiaving gigatifig anggmnging; Curriculum
materials and instruction should provide extensive support for students to realize that they
can achieve scientific understanding if they expend a reasonable effort. They should help

students actually experience scientific understanding, as illustrated by the case of Lin

1 95
(Pattern 5). Although Lin accurately identified both what the classroom tasks were

intended to teach and her own Ieaming difficulties, she was easily discouraged and quickly
terminated task engagement. Lin seemed to focus on low expectancy of success at the
expense of the value of understanding. The case of Maria (Pattern 2) was more
complicated. Although Maria tried hard to achieve scientific understanding, she failed.
The results suggest that her low expectancy of success after failure achievement could be a
problem in motivation.

One way to help students like Maria and Lin is to design curriculum materials to be
simpler for the student to access. More importantly, teachers need to provide such
students with more individual attention and scaffolding. Continuous experiences of
success achievement would gradually build up their knowledge base; as a consequence,
their expectations of successfully achieving scientific understanding would also increase.

WWW Some students
recognized understanding as a major goal in science class, but did not emphasize it as a
personal goal. Instead, they were more concerned about other competing goals. A major
motivational problem seemed to be their low value in the goal of understanding,
considering that they were moderately successful in achieving scientific understanding.
This is especially true of Neil (Pattern 3) and Sean (Pattern 4).

Well-designed curriculum materials and teaching methods can help students realize
the value of the goal of scientific understanding. The teachers’ initial prodding of students
toward realizing the importance of the goal of understanding serves as a means toward
achieving other goals, probably the ones that the students themselves are more concerned
with. As students experience the value of scientific understanding, teachers can guide
them to internalize the goal of scientific understanding as an end itself in science class.

The value of understanding is a far more important factor for the students of Pattern 5,
who never realized the goal of understanding in science class. Curriculum materials and

instruction should help students realize that the goal of understanding is relevant to their

196

performance in science class. Recent research suggests various motivational strategies for
tapping the value aspects of understanding (Brophy, 1986).

4; Hglp figdmts devalop pgsitiva affe_c3iva gientations tgward scienca. Curriculum
materials and, particularly, teaching methods should incorporate an awareness of students’
affective orientations. It is likely that negative feelings toward aspects of science class,
including curriculum materials, class activities, and teachers, is detrimental to students’
willingness to expend effort during task engagement (e.g., Nora of Pattern 6). For these
students, sources of negative feelings or personal conflicts need to be eliminated early on
in the instruction (Brophy & Rokrkemper, 1982, 1987).

Finally, in addition to effective curriculum materials and implementation of instruction
as planned in the curriculum, teachers should provide well-conducted scaffolding for
individual students according to their individual needs. However, the constraints of the
typical social context of classrooms could be a barrier to student motivation to learn
science. For example, the teacher’s decisions about the pace of instruction and
accountability system require substantial modifications of traditional whole-class
instruction methods. To provide needed support for individual students, especially those
who possess less content knowledge or are less motivated than others, teachers need to
pay more individual attention to such students and hold them accountable for their
Ieaming.

Maria’s (Pattern 2) case presents an example of how constraints in classroom settings
can be a barrier to student motivation to learn science. Even under the best conditions,
when the curriculum materials, instruction, and the student all are oriented toward the goal
of scientific understanding, classrooms are structured in such a way that one teacher can
not attend to the needs of every single student. Teachers have to decide how to conduct

instruction within the social environments in classrooms.

 

 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

CLASSROOM OBSERVATION GUIDELINE
l READIN
Ii fT k En a R. 1
1. Behavioral Engagement
a. Student involvement, on-task behavior:

What is the student’s apparent target of attention? (e.g., read text, talk to others,
look at neighbors, look around the room, put one’s head down on desk, draw or
write on paper)

b. Is there any indication that the student pays extra attention to reading? (e.g.,
move one’s mouth, follow reading with a finger or pencil, reread passage)

c. When the student is off-task, what is the nature, duration, and the apparent
cause of the behavior?

(I. (read aloud in class)

How frequently does the student volunteer to read aloud?
How frequently is the student called on to read aloud by the teacher?

2. Cognitive Engagement (during informal interview)

a. The observer asks the student about content of reading:

“What did you read about?"
”Can you summarize what you read?”

b. A couple of specific content questions will be selected in advance and used to
probe the student’s content understanding. (e.g., How big are molecules? How
does their size compare with, for example, the size of a speck of dust? Can you
see molecules with a very powerful miscroscope?)

In rtai fl sr mTk R..2-
1. Content Objectives (during informal interview)

a. “Do you learn anything new in the reading?"
”What is new in the reading?"

197

198

b. ”What is the main idea of the reading?"
”What is the readin about?"
“What does the rea ing help you to learn about?"

c. “Why do you think you read these pages?"
”What is t e purpose?"

2. Perceived Difficulty (during informal interview)

a. ”How difficult is the reading to you?"
”Is there anything you don’t understand?”

b. “Which parts of the reading are difficult? Why?"
”Which parts of the reading are easy? Why?"

ll WRITIN IN A IVl K
li T k En R 1
1. Behavioral Engagement

3. Student involvement, on-task behavior
What is the student’s apparent target of attention? (e.g., talk to other students,
work on assignment)

b. Are there any indications of persistence or lack of persistence?

c. How does the student respond to distraction?

d. How many questions in the activity book has the student finished?

e. If the student finishes ahead of time, what does the student do next?

f. After the student finishes the activity book, does the student read over, check, or
revise the answers?

2. Cognitive Engagement

a. Where does the student find information for questions in the activity book? (e.g.,
read textbook, discuss with others, copy someone’s answers)

b. Which questions has the student finished? What is the nature of the questions
finished and those not finished?

c. If the student talks to friends or the teacher, who initiates the conversation?
What is the conversation about? (e.g., content-related, socialization)

d. A couple of specific content questions in the activity book will be decided in
advance and used to probe the student’s content understanding.

Intrr in fl rmTkR. 2-

1 99
1. Content Objectives

a. “What is new with these questions?"
”Did you learn anything new from the questions?”

b. ”What are these questions about?"
“What is the main idea in the questions?"
”What do these qustions help you Ieam about?"

c. “Why do you think these questions are here?
“What is their purpose?"

2. Perceived Difficulty
a. ”How difficult are these questions to you?"

b. ”Which questions are difficult for you? Why?"
”Which questions are easy for you? Why?”

lll HAND - N EXPERIM NT
Ii fT k n R 1
I. Behavioral Engagement
a. Student involvement, on-task behavior:
What is the student’s a arent target of attention? (e.g., talk to friends, walk
around the room, spen most time on experiment)
b. How does the student respond to distraction?
c. How enthusiastic does the student appear to be?
d. How many questions has the student finished in the activity book?
e. After the student finishes the experiment and the questions in the activity book,
what does the student do next? (e.g., talk to friends, read text, go to teacher to
talk)

f. After the student finishes the questions in the activity book, does the student
read over, check, or revise the answers?

2. Cognitive Engagement

a. What aspect of the experiment does the student appear to be most concerned
about? (e.g., set up equipment, measure or observe, interpret results?)

b. How well does the student follow the procedure of the experiment?

200

c. When the student seems to be confused about the experiment, how does the
student react? (e.g., simply complete it, check with friends, teacher or textbook)

d. Where does the student get information for questions in the activity book?

e. Which uestions has the student finished in the activity book? What is the
nature 0 the questions finished and those not finished?

f. If the student talks to friends or the teacher, who initiates the conversation?
What is the conversation about? (e.g., content-related, socialization)

g. One or two specific questions concerning the content of the experiment or

questions in the activity book will be decided in advance and used to probe the
student’s content understanding.

WW

1. Content Objectives

a. ”What is new to you in this experiment?"
”Did you learn anything new in this experiment?"

b. “What is this experiment about?"
”What is the main idea of this experiment?"
”What does this experiment help you learn about?"

c. ”Why do you think you do this experiment?"
”What is its purpose?"

2. Perceived Difficulty

a. “How difficult is this experiment to you?"
"How difficult are the questions in the activity book?"

b. ”What parts of the experiment are difficulty? Why?"

”Which questions in the activity book are difficult?"
”Which questions are easy? Why?"

IV. LA I l N
anlity 9f Task Engagamant (R.Q. 1)
I. Behavioral Engagement
a. Student involvement, on-task behavior: What is the student’s apparent target of

attention? (e.g., teacher, text, outside the window, look at neighbors, draw or
write on paper)

201

b. How frequentl does the student engage in class discussion?
—raise his/her hand
—ask questions
—give answers to questions
—make comments
—called on by the teacher

c. How enthusiastic or uninterested does the student appear to be? (e.g., volunteer
to express ideas, wait until other students give their answers first, hesitate giving
answers, tone of voice)

2. Cognitive Engagement

a. When called on by the teacher to give an answer, how does the student
respond? (e.g., wait until the teacher calls on another student, give key words, do
not respond)

b. Where or how do the student find the answer? (e.g., copy somebody’s answer;
copy from text)

c. What is the quality of the student’s questions, comments, or answers? (e.g., not
relevant to content being discussed, factual information; higher-order thinking)

In r i f l r mT R .2-
1. Content Objectives

a. “What is new during class dicussion?"
”Did you Ieam anything new during discussion?"

b. ”What is the dicussion about?"
”What is the main idea in the discussion?"
”What does the discussion help ou learn about?"
c. ”Why do you think you have c ass discussion today?"
”What is the purpose?"

2. Perceived Difficulty (during informal interview)
a. “How difficult was the discussion to fol low?"

b. “Which parts were difficult to follow? Why?"
”Which parts were easy to follow? Why?"

202

was» no Vascua
a mm mcmzuoaou nosuoga unmoua 33% on no: «em
assays“ .6 case.
6 mm memsuoHOo Hugues: unmouu no» on 30: «mm
«um. um uuuuaa mo «aqua ups: «cm
«noun: om nouuaa we sang. ans: «mm
«such ow uuuuaa we wanna ans: “um

 

 

sauna» and .oumavMA .aquau uo coco: uuuutl

uo>o so» o>a= Aaocx u.cnoov acousua ugu may sown no uuuoum
uuuuca uo nounuu conga any gas: 33:; so» on “um

wucououuwv mun awning conga among :0: as ~«ua no» sou no dId xoaa
xumucoaaoo haemuuoam

«mamzauv new human can amucom

nacqzu «o uuma I sum: nougw

awn me man uuuaadm .uuuaz .uouoa no soon
. «adamuouax

 

.ucovaua may we acouu cm uMa no was amused; can upon: .xuou a: new
“noduosumm

 

 

.uouuaa mo magnum uousu any humaamdu was aumauucou .onmuuaoa u. Mush

 

zpomse umaaumaoz owumcwm you HOUOuoum 3ow>ccucH Hmowcwau

m xHszmm<

203

 

"30:: on new: o3 uasz
.Aumav aoamm vac .mvmavwa .avm~on
ca xua> comuoa new momma aumao «no

gas» vcauauovcz aucovsua uesuona Acv

.uvm~oo can .uvm:v«~ .Auwov noun» «a
som> ammouaouoma a.u=oosuu Auv .uma mo
ncofiumoocou .aucuvauu A~V newshouov oa

“monomuam

can .A.ouu .axcsnu .ao>a3v uoaauoaoa
uo camuofl acauucou can nooama huaao
no aauou cm xcfisu oucovaua uosuona

 

huoucuaaoo

smcw>oa axaaun xmnu on. .0. an

~m:«>oa hosu ou<

~ausu cuoauon am ans: ~uaao osu duo

ausu and «A.ouo .uu>a3v uuov uuosu mum gas:
A.uuo .uo>¢3 .uuov manna ucovzua onu «HO
.ouu adaos so» ups: uo ousuowm a aqua

sue mews noun: am nag: .oouuagu

Imam ummoa cum: noun: com ado no» ouommam

mamaaouaoa ucuuuuuwv
we come umo 6H scams uasu noon ans: «ouauxma

a umc um Auoaauoaoa anamucoa acetone may
wmcfi>oa manage hung own .06 um ~wcm>oa aosu cud
saosu cooauoa am awn: ~uaca any age hung

ou< sa.uuu .uo>a3v auov ooonu ouo ans:

A.uuo .¢o>u: .auov «aqua ucovaun onu uuv

soon vane: sou ans: no «unadum a Dana

a~umo o5» am am

uuszv sue once uma am nan: .uounqamoao

omwaa sum: uma ova cu u~no one no» oooaaam

sum am awn:

papa uaoa mcmxwuua wcmsuaca.uu ~mcmnuaco

down so» on .uaa onu :« Bun u:o>.u>o3 Auwo

unu cm mausuo: ad ouunu axon uaovsua on» may
suwa om gun:

ocowunoam

Auouoav
assess
no ousuaz

 

«Ia xuaa

Auwav an»
«o ousuaz

 

nt~ some.

204

uucolo>ol uaaoa ecu an; gums:

~ucoao>oa uaoa ecu an: nous:

Ac: oxen ucuvauo use «AV

paounuo -¢ am can: 028 usuao>oa any on
Amcm>oa «no 50:» unsu assemucua acuvaua as» may
sound. uuoaauaa «So on: sums:

pound. uaamuma can an: sums:

Ac: exam uneasy. onu uuv

~aouauo dun :« mama use ouamu uzu cu

Annamaauv 03‘ am ...:003qu

ooamn am ouosu gang pacemucua uaouaua on» way
Nancmaouv uaoa Ieam

uuucauanaa oaonu wcoaa oocuuouuuv msu am ads:
.xuou vac .uouaa .uma uo owcmsauv u>as so» so:

~sosu cuuauun manna ace uuuzu nu

~oaam «nu duo hos» ou< wmuov naugu who nus: Aauoc azauv acovaua may

.oum page: no» gas: «0

ousuumm u aqua .aomaa~Mu>o omwaa :w30unu xuou mum cau no» omommam
-dmum xoou a mo nudnuomoa

osu ou< Aao~auo~oa anamucoa uo\vcm muouwo ucovaum any

sunny we

xcmsu so» on gas: .squu was soon waddmwmm manage

uua gong noouma uo audowuuon ~68» auo> .auo>

xuu> «0 once um :00» a away 03 vaou ucuvnuo nunuoc<

 

 

auouculaoo accuuuoam

 

 

”Na
noun-I
no noun»-
«dm conga uo
aoumuomaou
no
oI— such
”mm
"um
u_m
wagon
uo ensue:
uo nI~ Junk

205

.avwssfifl ecu nous» age cu
augmaaxo swung aouu ouwaauocum ANV use
.uo: am Avmvadv Hugs: ecu adamanouaaoa

um Auouuwv was »:3 Acomusamuuamv
can momma uo «Esau cm ~u>o~ omaoua
IoHUMB a soy sasamxo Adv aucovsuu cs0

 

“Josx o» ass: a: gas:
.Auouaav

avmsvm~ ass Aumav nuns» cooauua nausea
»uaao no mama u>mua~ou as» ea sous»

mo »um~mnmuuousaoo mango» :so ANV can

.owcmu»u s cm as: a“ AusMsVM~v nous:
use udnmuuoumaoo um Aaoaamv was ussu
aosx Adv mucwusun segues: ocwauouov oa
”mmmmmmmm

 

»uuucosaoo

.owswu»a osu

:« new ausuocs was so» «a comma: dad: ans:

.uuw a mo mamasxo uuzuocs oasz
.vouuuunaou as: was seasons

Iaou um uws can can: amcmaaue usu ousnaoo
A.uoou usu souu uwsmssuv osu uo£\am: aozn .sOmu
Iausv amnu cu vsoaauu uocsso ucuvsua oz» unv

.uwsmu»a osu am vouooumaoo

nouns can ensues age may no ousuumm s aqua

.»u3 ozu uo ads as: asp Auv .»sa osu uo

uaoa cm assess up can nomssam osu »:3 smsaaxu

~uomcs~m
use so sass so» cos: oomuo: so» ow gas:
snowssaa use so

csov sass so» «a comma: dgmz xsmsu so» ow ass:

«semuaosm

as» no
no semanoumaoo

 

dIN sash

vouuuuaaou coax was cacao guano: cw uwsmu»a no uncanny:
awn use nous:

A~V «mascam
«casmuuuux

 

.uuusa sum: nuaamu uwsmu»n onu gums vacuum was nus gums cuddmu owsmu»a one sum:
umumu uowcs~m uzu co caoc sass was uuwcmu uosxmm; cum: owcmu»n «:9 no see osu uo>ou flaw: usuvsum

 

”sodassumm

 

newssmq was sumac mo camaaouqaoo uuuuucoo new sandman "N Mmda

206

wuouo3 so: as; has moousaou so» and »;3 u_m
.ufi :« nous: nuqa sosu can u« :H has
:ufia omswu»m ozu :« nomssaa ozu so vozosa so»

5

powsmu»o onu
am vmsowa ussu on: so» um comma; add: ass: «mm
.vmssmg mo oamaoxo uosuoso oaoz ”Na
~uouo3 uos usn um: aooumaoo so» sou »53
.u« =« nous: sum: song was um cm was
now: omsdu»o osu uo nowssam osu so sonosm so»
Axon .»u~sumuumv no: usovsuu may
Nuouos amounaou so».u.ssu »53 “Am
pomsmu»o onu
cm uouoa sums common dam: xsmsu so» on non: no

 

humusoaaoo anoduoosm

assess
.s> now no

somwumssou

 

MIN same

assess do
couscoumaoo

 

NIN some

207

suns: muodnnsa onu oummcm
wcwgu»:o ouonu an Aoofinasn ocomusoe usovsuo may “mm
~wcmow pogo: ocu am ouosz "mm
wuoaoa nous: mo ucsoao onu am »;3 “Na
wuoxooa osu cm noun: we assess
onu o» msosas: ass) .wsmgmon youos o>oo~ o: «H .dm
.ooo so»
non: onmuuooa wuouos onu cu newcomao: o.uo:3 no

~uusmu Hosanna »o:u ouo ououu nous: an «om
~»~oouu ouoa o>oi oomsoouofl on ououa nous: an .nm
w»:3 «uuoa ou souoo: on On o>o£ oum noon new
soousoonoa osu an mcwcomao: o.uo:3
smoamxo so» coo Auoasuoaoa vos0mucoa no: acousua wuv .nm
wuouoa cucm owcoso oum soon so: “am
wuousa om
Hogans uo ousuo ass: «oum um uouuos mo ououn non: .~m

 

woonso ood oz» cu newcomqs: -.u¢;3 no

a:0muoosm

»uou:oEEoo

noswsusou oasuuom mo uuo sou oxsh

manage:

 

«In saga

oum
«amuse:

 

.In saga

«olsuuom uo udolm

.oUMAa osu so dosouds no amour ousgm “ascends ”swusuoao>m
nous: mswdmon o>ono ouodm «coda as. sou mom «nous: usuasovsoo
.ouoda osu so uoxoon osu cm nous: amen «nous: msmumon

.sso uquooun oSu cw msmuaoa nonso oom o>soq “on“ «candor

 

"asmmussumm

 

nouns: no mououm uo nomcogo cmodmxm “n such

208

saunas uozuusu o>ol ooasooaoa on ousuu sums: an
~»~oouw ouoa o>oa ooasooaoa ov ouaua sums: an
pvusvwa us now

.moasooaoa soosuon oosmu ones as: ououu nods:
woodsooaoa mo oauou cm suodaxo so» coo
NsfiscM~ cu as» aouu owsonu aoouo noov 3o:
Asasoua: scamucoa usovsuo osu «my

spouoa cu omcszo umo woos so:

A:umo: «couscoa uaovsua onu uuv

saouu oaoo nouns osu boos ouoss

wouofim onu co usmsoman: um ass:

wounds uozuusu o>oa nodsuodsa ov ououo sums: cu
~»~oouu ouoa o>oa nodsoo~oe ov ououo nous: cu
was» no

smscma .aoasooaoa cooauon ooomo ouoa no: sums:
woodsuoaoa uo «Buou cw cmoasxo so» sou

whom cu vmsamu Souu owsozo nous: ozu woos so:
maooua ow uouuoa mo ououo awn:

«:asoum: »A :ooa so» on non:

A:aoouu: acoducoa usovsua osu «av

Naoou mwsu :« uwo osu no

oaoo onu mm moannsn ozu cm “do onu xsmzu so» on
Azumo: ocoducoe acovsua ozu may

 

»usucoaaoo scamusosm

HO

ouoam
need» so
memosov:0o

 

nIn sash

209

~uo: »53 no »53 sum afloao cu odns on

adage so» v~s03 .oasuuom o:u so ecu o use us «a
waouw oaou »o:u was onus: muss: no modsooao:
woodsuodoa mo nauou cm smoamxo so» coo

womoc use» cu

macaw ozu aouu uom oasuuom uo “dose ozu adv so:
~uo ovoa ddoam ozu mm uosz

~oasuuom ozu daoao so» coo

. waozoodo sea «and» one
vouoo; o: «M »~usououumv common wsmzu»:o v~s03
woodsoogoa dozoodo onu cu wsmcoqmoz o.uo:3
wucdx unzz wmogsuodoa mo osoa aozooao an
~ououoms>o gosouao on» soon so:

~uauxo gamuo aw noon

~uo>ouou ocow um um .ec «a sumomaoumv am can
wow dosouao osu was ouosz

mono: msmsommon oom so» ov.uo53

Adela

 

win some

:oMuouoss>m

\Ii‘

«In saga

210

~»:3 omogoxo so» coo "cm
woucouonsm ouso

o no ousuxma o nous: coo magma aomom onu «H “mm
waoasooaoa no uauou om omoaoxo so» coo
~»:3 ~uouoou o>~ommqo o~s03 sums:
.uouos oaou no use o use nous: no: mo aso

o om ou~oo 306mm uo won oou o ass o3 um u¢m
moodsooaoa mo
oauou om awoaoxo so» coo suoo »:3 Ho »:3
~aouuon onu on some
wagon aooom dam: pouoaa ooo o« no uo>o duo on
wagon aooom Adm: wsoomo: dam: gas: .»ov ooo

you wcmuumo nous: coo ouaoo aooom o>oo~ o3 mm «mm
wooasuogoa mo oauou om omoamxo so» coo

wmon oou onu mo uso you um soon 30: “Na
~=oo>~ooomvs »n sooa so» on nos:

Asoo>~ooomvs unamuooa uoovsuo onu «av «am ouaoo 306mm

NAuomso novuuaoo aooou onu ou mswoomoos om yon: «o mow>H0uoma

Auowso uov

 

 

»uou:oeaoo osomuoosm ~Ic sass

nous: caou .omso .omon soy .ouaoo conga
«aaowuouox

 

.uouoa :« Amos oou.omV ouaoo aoaom o>~oooma
. «anamuosumm

 

 

usm>~ooomn uo ouom coo amououm coo ousuxmz .o> oooouonsm ousm omoamwm “e xmda

211

”nozu smoamxo ouoovsuo coo

soooomo »umao coo
somuoa nousuoaoa mo uauou om somooooxo

 

"ammouaouufix
svouoo:
con: ooomuooumv ago om womvsom

Ixo uo wsmomu was so: mo oauou om
xofinu ouoovsuo ov Auv coo .couoos cos:
somuzo no voooxo soon» was osmuoo uosu
xswzu ouoovsuo on A~V «ammouoouoox
«zoos ou use: o3 yon:

.mom~oo coo aooow uo oomocomxo doauozu
smoaoxo auoovsuo so: oomauouov oh

"MMMMNMNM

 

 

 

auousoaaoo

«vouoon no vdou om oduuoa

osu :o:3 .uuooo nosuuou o>oa nousuodol on ”am
svouoo: uo vdoo om

oauuon oz» sons .uouoou o>oa oodsoouoa on «mm
souuuon one auos ou vouuouo o3 ououon wcm>ol

oduuon osu cm was no oodsuodoi osu ouoz «mm
~voauo3 om oduuoa osu no coasoouol

:oosuon ooooa osu om owoosu o ouogu on «on
~ooluo3 om ouuuoa

ozu no ouoono nogsoouoa mo noses: ogu coon ”no
~»oa nos: om .oo um
«coauos om oduuoa ozu

cog: owoono onus uo somuoa ousoouol ogu soon “on
. «oodsuouol no oauou om smoumxo so» one
woaoo on» o»ouo ooouuoa onu »:3 smoumxo so» one
A.o3ov osmoos oguuoa osu susu ooze :.ooomu

umo uoz: ovsomuou uoovsuo osu uuv an»

~uowmma you on soouuon onu voosou ass: «Nu

~»:3 ssooudon osu ou oooomo: ass: “an
«ouuuon osu so coco: uso as;

o: nouns ooouaoa ofiu on songs: Ada: non: no

mama

now uo
sodooomxo

doauosh

 

aim Josh

ouasm so: .mcma .ssun

.oauuom .ooo-on

 

«odomuouo:

.momu.o:u :msousu Juno ado: ozu -sm cu »uu usovsum
on“ o>oz coo .fiaon onu goo: .msmu osu susousu uuna osu usn uoovsuo on“ o>o=
.onmo saw so ouuquV soon:
so“: um Bus: oonu coo .oauuoa odou on» no lmu osu so soo-on o:» as»

 

«ooomuosumm

 

vm~om was now uo oomosoqxu ~oBuo:H smogmwm um gosh

212

Nodou uo oouoo: mm

ago; on» son: uuooo uosuuou o>oa uoasooaoa on
mvdou uo vouoo:

om dawn ozu son: nouoou o>oa ooasuouoa on
~um noon on vouuouo o3

ouOuon wom>oa damn ozu mo ooasuoaoa onu ouo:
wvouoo: om dawn on» no oodsooaoa

sooauon ooomo onu om owoosu o ouonu om
.wsouoon om ado:

ozu oo owoono oodsuoaoa mo noses: onu noon
svouoo: om duos onu

son: owoosu oumo uo somuoa ogsuoaoa o5» noon

wuoasooaoa no nauou :M smouoxo so» coo
smomuoon uouuo

memo onu :msounu damn oSu Adso o3 u.:oo »:3
asses on» use: a: as amass; ssss sag:
.Aoouoosssv so: mom» onu nwsounu ooow Adan o:H

 

%HGUGQEGU QGOquQ—aflw

a.usoov

 

m saqa

wagon mo
somosomxo
doauona

 

«In sash

APPENDIX C

INTERVIEW PROTQQQL: STUDENT COAL ORIENTATIONS IN SCIENCE CLASS AND
AFFECT IVE ORIENTATIONS
TOWARD SCIENCE

Nata; This is the instruction for the interviewer. Five short sets of questions will be
presented to the student on separate sheets during the interview.

Inr u ir in d

I: "Today we will talk about why you and other people do work
in science class. First, we will talk about how you like
science."

nin i W

I: "Suppose you had a choice between science class and free
time. Which would you choose? Why?"

PART I: AFFE IV RIENTATI N T WARD IEN E
1. Using the sample question, the interviewer explains to the
student about how to answer the questions on Question Set I.
2. The student completes Question Set I by him/herself.
3. The interviewer asks the student about his/her reasons for
the responses.

I: "Would you explain to me about each of your responses?"

213

214
TIN TI:H WI IKE IEN

 

 

Sample Quastign
really sort of sort of really
true for true for true for true for
m e m e m e m e
I I Some kids would BUT Other kids would - I
rather play outdoor rather watch TV.

in spare time

 

1.
I I Some kids like BUT Other kids don't like - I
science. science.
2.
I I Some kids think BUT Other kids think I I
science is boring science is fun and

interesting.

3.
- I Some kids are BUT Other kids don't I I
curious to learn care to learn about

about science science

 

215

PART II: STUDENT QQAL§ IN §QIEN§E ELA§§

1. The interviewer asks the student to explain what he/she
think about science and science learning.

"What does science mean to you?"

"What does learning science mean to you?"
"Why do you study science?"

“Is science important? Why?"

2. The interviewer asks the student to generate his/her own
list of goals in science class.

I: ”What are some reasons you do work in science class?"

I: "What might other people give as reasons for doing work
in science class? (e.g., classmates, science teachers,
parents, or scientists)

3. The interviewer presents the following list of goals
(in a random order arran ed on a sheet of paper) to the
student and briefly talks a ut the goals on the list.

I: “Here are some reasons that people sometimes give for
doing work in science class.”

The interviewer makes sure that the student understands
the conversation.

216

HR nfrDinerin in Ias
am

to use science to understand the world
to make sure my ideas are scientifically correct

b. Fag Agggisigign
to Ieam vocabulary and definitions
to memorize facts and information

c. P rman in l
to et work done on time
to o well in class activities
to get ood grades
to do getter than other students

d. W
to please my parents
to please my teacher
to show that I am a smart person

em

to receive rewards from parents (e.g., extra money)

f. Wfl Avoidance

to do as little work as possible

217

1. AB T MY E F
1. The interviewer asks the student to complete Question Set I I.
I: "After reading each cluestion, mark the number that you
think applies to youse f most closely."
2. The student completes Question Set II by him/herself.

3. The interviewer asks the student to report three primary
reasons (goals) in order.
4. The interviewer asks the student to explain the responses.

I: "Would you explain to me about each of your responses?"

2 VERY D IEN T DENT

1. This time, the interviewer asks the same set of questions
with reference to a very good science student.

I: ”Now, let's ima ine a student who is really good in

science. How 0 you think this student would respond
to the following questions?"

2. The student completes Question Set III by him/herself.

3. The interviewer asks the student to report three primary
reasons (goals) in order.

4. The interviewer asks the student to explain the responses.

I: "Would you explain to me about your responses?"

3, SCIENQE TEAQHER

1. The interviewer asks the student about why his/her science
teacher would like him/her to do work in science class.

I: "Think"about our science teacher. Why do you think he
wants you to 0 work in science class?"

218

2. The student completes Question Set IV by him/herself.

3. The interviewer asks the student to report three primary
reasons (goals) in order.
4. The interviewer asks the student to explain the responses.

I: "Would you explain to me about your responses?"

4. IENTl T

1. The interviewer asks the student about why a scientist
would like him/her to do work in science class.

I: "Think about a scientist. Why do you think he wants
you to do work in science class?“

2. The student completes Question Set V by him/herself.

3. The interviewer asks the student to report three primary
reasons (goals) in order.

4. The interviewer asks the student to explain the responses.

1: "Would you explain to me about your responses?"

Tl N ET ll: AB TMYSELF

"I do work in gimge glass ...."

a. to get work done on time
b. to memorize facts and information
c. to learn vocabulary and definitions

d. to receive rewards (e.g., extra
money) from parents

e. to do better than other students

f. to use science to understand the
world

g. to please my parents
h. to get good grades

i. to make sure my ideas are
scientifically correct

j. to do as little work as possible
k. to show that I am a smart person
I. to do well in class activities

m. to please my teacher

219

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

not at all a lot
like me like me
1 J 5
1 2 5
1 2 5
1 2 5
1 2 5
1 2 5
1 g 5
1 2 5
1 2 5
l 2 5
1 2 5
1 g s
1 2 5

 

220
E Tl N lll: VERY D IEN E T DENT

"A very good science student would do work in science class ...."

 

 

 

not likely very likely
a. to get work done on time 1 2 3 4 5
b. to memorize facts and information 1 2r 3 4 5
c. to learn vocabulary and definitions 1 fiz 3 4 5
d. to receive rewards (e.g., extra 1 g 3 4 j

 

money) from parents

 

 

 

 

 

e. to do better than other students 1 2 3 4 5

f. to use science to understand the 1 2 3 4 5
world

3. to please parents 1 2 3 4 5

h. to get good grades 1 1 2 3 4 S

i. to do as little work as possible 1 2 3 4 j

j. to make sure his/her ideas are 1 2 3 4 5

 

scientifically correct

 

k. to show that he/she is a smart 1 2 3 4 5
person
I. to do well in class activities 1 2 3 4 5

 

m. to please teacher 1 2 3 4 j

221
E Tl N ETIV: IEN ETEA HER

"My science teacher wants me to do work in science class...."

 

 

 

 

 

not likely very likely
a. to showthat I amasmart person 1 2r 3 4 5
b. to make sure my ideas are 1 2 3 4 S
scientifically correct
c. to do well in class activities 1 L 3 4 5
d. to get work done on time 1 2 3 4 5
e. to memorize facts and information 1 2 3 4 5
f. to Ieam vocabulary and definitions 1 ' 2 3 4 5

 

g. to do better than other students 1 g 3 4 5

h. to use science to understand the 1 2 3 4 5
. world

i. to get good grades 1 2 3 4 5

222

ETl NSETV' INTI T
"Scientists want me to do work in science class...."

not likely

very likely
5

 

 

 

 

a. to show that I am a smart person 1 2

b. to make sure my ideas are 1 2
scientifically correct

c. to memorize facts and information 1 2

d. to learn vocabulary and definitions 1 2

e. to use science to understand the 1 2

 

world

223

.uouuwa zaaaou

.ouo .moaaoo~oa mo opus

 

 

uo: .HmumEmnao uouovmmcoo nHHoEm .uouuma oHOMoumsu .aommw mum a-oEw nAAoEm mo ousuaz .Q
.umm
mo acoso>oa uo uEumu cm vocmaaa
rxo moamw wo acmmcwaxo “vogue:
con: :m: ~o>mu£m: awe moucmumnam .coumm: can: vcmmxm mooCMumnzm acmmcmaxo auauona .n
:.uwomammmv: u0u mazcocxm
on com: mmsmuoEOm :ouwuoam>o:
was :o>~ommmv: oxma «who: .mommw
wcm>fio>cm newsman am magmmomamo .mmwcm:o Auummzzm mounds mo
vm>ummcoo mzmzfin no: nouumz Haw am vo>ummcou mm umuuwz acmuu>uomcou .N
.Adoou no mom coo so» wcmcu
tmEOm mm nouums ..w.ov ammuuomoua .uoc moov
nonuo no woman cemquMHMmmmflo .n umuumatco: .moaam a: moxmu nouum: .n
.uoc mum Auswma
.nomummmmao hauoouuoocm .umo: ..m.ov mwcmnu nozuo .uouuwa nouuna
:muwo wouumsicoc van momma .u mum noun» was .mvm:v«~ .mchom .n. no acmumcmuoo .~
mcoaocozm can ouocuuuaao o~no>uompo uaopu unamuqoucoo ufio>oa ammooaouuqx
acmumwocoo o>mmz Hwommxy acmuqoocoo Haoo usuaH

 

moaauoaoz van youuaz mo «acmumoucoo ucovaum

Q xHszmm<

224

.Amuconnao conuoo>
icou ..w.ov macaqumnsm mo muco5m>os

.ucmao>oa o~nm>nomno no xaucou

conuoa nmasooaoe

 

 

m~nm>nmmno an onmsm anasmm monsoonoz Iconovcm moscmucoo :omuos omnsomnoz wo humamnmom> .Nn
.vaAOm cm manomooamo
.nanum on mosmuoEOm has mmaauoaoz .w:n>oe >~ucwumcoo onm mm_:omHoE H~< conuoe ucmumcoo .-
.ouo .mxooam umsv .maaoo cu .wmoomonome a can:
mama cm onpmnmano on Awe noasomfioz co>o .oom cu Hausa oou one monsoonoz monsoonos «0 «saw .o~
.moocmumpam mm one monsoonoa
A:mo~:uonoe umoz: ..w.mv moasooaoa mm nouuwa wo
wonmnumov nouumsrcoc unwasomfioe mm .uo: an nouqutco: comuaumuacou
vonmnumov uo: moocmumnam fimnnoum: .monsoonoa mo meme an nmuuae An< nudaoofioz .m
onzumc nmonu van amaaoonos ozone ncomumoucou "Ho>wH nmnaooaoz
.vfiou van you:
cookuon acmuomon w x2 vanOu mm mm .uuoomno unoo
u:zumonn: no :wow: mm ouwmcovcoo :o momcovcoU nnn cm nomm> nouwz samuMmcoucoo .m
oA..Ewmum: oAhumfimE—JSV HMG
.mou ..w.ov unpmmn> mm nnn cm noun: noaw> noun: manmmn>cn acnmucoo nn< cm noma> noun: .5
.vovcnaxo no commonano cuss noun»
noguocm ou acmwmn oco Eonw o>oe momwo .vmmnonaaou on :mo momao mo acmununqaoo .o
.commmonmsou no conmcmaxo .amsooo xonu mouwam woman an noun»
- on» swaonsu xnco>u wmonam nomao mo :omusnmnunmn .n

nouum cm>oca on mean» no cemuanmnumna

225

.nmmmmmmmnv no :oumnoam>m: moasooaoz

.ouu .:oumnomm>o: .:u~os:
monsomnoa oxme memaoou can wcmuuo:

.A.uuo .mmonu cm onm
monsoofios vmscm~ .vnma mnm mmfisumfioa
vn~0m ..w.ov monsoonoe Hmsvm>nncn ou

vmusbnnuua oumuw osu mo nonunomona
MN monunoaonm o~nm>nomno uo mEnou
cm zflco vmnmnomov nouuma mo mmumum

.Eonu cmosuon

mm:m:u nwsuo no :nmm: m>m£ monsooaoz

.vcmaxo mm>~mmEonu mmfiaumfioz

.vaoo
no box on cue mo>~omEonu moaaoonoz

.:o>~ommmv: mo>meEocu monsoonoe
no moocmumnsa o~nw>nomno co mauom

.eflnann
Eonw manomm «masuvaoE wcm>ofiruamm

.nwzoam no noummm
m>oe moasomnoe wcmxme as wumum
uo nowcanu ounce wom~ooo can wsnumm:

numemn o: .comuoa Eovcun ”nomawi
enaann
:nzumz scuuos Eovcwn "avmsanni
xmnnm nmwmn cm oumnnm> umvnnomi
“monsuvnoe
mo acomuoa new mandamwcmnnm uco
inouumv 0» map one nwuums mo mvunum

.Eosu cmozumn

moommm mouse o>a£ momma uo nmasounoz

.unmmu nonunnu
monsooaoe mm>os acmuoe vmmwwnocu

.noummu
m>oE mmucuumnam no: mo mmasownoz

.u:o>~om mo monsoonoe sun: xne
vcm amzn sauna cannon mo monsooaoz

comuanomu>o
mo :oMumcm~axm
nnnaounoz

woman no
mowcmzo mo acmum
icmamxu nudsuomo:

nouuaa no
mouaum wo camum
lacunaxo nwasoonoz

monsoonoa
couauon nouunm

acmmcumxo
Amanosu mo canon
rcmnaxu naaaoofio:

acmuoa
nanauoaos so
you: «0 muoowum

wcm>~on
Imnv uo cemua
inwaaxo nuaaouuox

.o~

.m~

.sfi

.oH

.n~

.¢~

.na

226

 

   

m\H\n mo

 

.0 nopums mo

uuuwun
unnonucou
\onmnfioo

     

H

    

 

conun

 

  

    

nuansmxo nouuma
1:0:

.n>

onnnunoo .a nouum:

 

   

  

o

  
 

ma vH MH NH OH m o h m n v m N H

   

ncofinnonnt

 

dfimdwmwwflmu mduMH
no a o
o>uu=nucoocu\ulosunnfifl u <
.o>nm: + doom. cox“: u z
canuaoocoo o>nmz u z
:oqumoucoo ”moo n o "No3 unom\onm Illlll. acouaum

 

ruck numaa<z< 3Mu>mflazn ACUHZHQO

H XHQZHmm<

227

 

ucn>
lacunae
:nmflnxm
.m

cenncanxo
Hmlnonu
:«uuuxu
.v

nonuu no
cannnonn
rlou a
canncmnxo
:«mman
.m

 

nma=UOHoz _

 

228

 

 

 

 

an ma

 

 

ha oH ma

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ovum“ numHu .n :o«uan
:0 1:00:00

noun: mun .m :«wmaxu
.a

Hosanna . madcap
ossuno .m :annxm
.o

«ozouHm .u o:nanon
wanna: a :Onu

a sauna . runoau>o
:anon .n :nounxm

.5

ocnuoonu u:nuoonu
noun: .2 ucw
:33: 9:38.
mu“ .m :«m~nxm

.u

 

 

vH ma NH HA OH m,m b m n v m N H

nuaauoaox

:0

:oo

.
.
-
4

onaoumonumz

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Anderson, C. W. (1987). lngggpgreting reemtr regereh en learning intgth e p rmege Qf
W. Commissioned paper for the Biological Sciences

Curriculum Study. East Lansing, MI: College of Education, Michigan State University.

Anderson, C. W., & Roth, K. J. (in press). Teaching for meaningful and self-r ulated
learning of science. In]. Brophy (Ed), Teaching fer meaningful understanfiing and

MW. .Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.

Anderson, C. W. & Smith, E. L. (1983). Children's emeeptiene 9f light and eglgr;
W Paper presented at the annual meeting of

the American Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

Anderson, C. W. & Smith, E. L. (1984) Children's preconceptions and content-area
textbooks. lnG. Duffy, L. Roehler, &J. Mason (Eds)

W New York: Lonsmen

Anderson, C. W., 8: Smith, E. L. (1987). Teachin science. In V. Koehler (Ed.), Edugamfi
hendbmk; A reseereh persmive. New Yor : Longman.

Anderson, L. M. (1981).Short-term student responses to classroom instruction. Lh_e
El h l m l 52(2), 97-108.

Anderson, L. M. (1984). The environment of instruction. The function of seatwork in a
commercially developed curriculum. In 0. Duffy, L. Roehler, & J. Mason (Eds.),

WW New York: Lonsmen

Anderson, L. M., Brubaker, N., Alleman-Brooks, 1., 8: Duffy, (3. (1985). Aquallitative

study of seatwork In first-grade classrooms. The Elementggy Sgh ml legm al , fig (2),
1 23-139

Appelman, M. (1984). Critical barriers to the understanding of elementary science:

Learning about color. In C. W. Anderson (Ed.), Qbserving sgienge elegrmms;

WW 1984 Yearbook of the Association for the
Education of Teachers in Science.Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC.

Berger, C. F. Berkheimer, G. D, Neuberger, H. T, & Lewis, L. E. Jr. (1979). _ng_tm_

Mifflin xienge; Teggher' 5 Editim, Level 9, Boston. Houghton Mifflin Company.
Berkheimer, G. D. Anderson, C. W., 8. Blakeslee, T. D. (1988a). uginga nmm mlede 9f
eurricglgm development to write a mang end meleggl es tegghing gn it. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science
Teaching, Lake Ozark, Missouri.

229

230

Berkheimer, G. D., Anderson, C. W. 8: Blakeslee, T. D. (1988b). W
W. (Occasional Paper No. 122). East Lansing, MI: Institute
for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University.

Berkheimer, G. D., Anderson, C. W., Lee, 0., 8: Blakeslee, T. D. (1988). Mage; en nd
mgleeu Ies teaeher' 5 gm ige; Seienee Mk. (Occasional Paper No. 121). East Lansing,
MI: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University.

Berlyne, D. E. (1966). Curiosity and exploration. m 1_5_3_, 25-33.

Bish0p, B. A., 8: Anderson, C. W. (forthcoming). Student conceptions of natural
selection and its role In evolution. lgurnal ef Resegrgh in Sei Iegee Tegehing.

Blakeslee,T. 0., Anderson, c. W., &Smith, E. L. (1987). WEE—35.85.1115!
with gen genteel ghangel earning ig sei gee. Paper present at the annual meeting
of the the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D. C.

Blumenfeld, P. C, 8: Meece,]. L. (1988). Task factors, teacher behavior, and students'

involvement and use of Ieaming strategies in science. W
ML QB) 235-250.

Blumenfeld, P. C, Mergendoller, R. R. 8: Swarthout, D. W. (1987). Task asa heuristic for

understanding student Ieaming and motivation. WM L9 (2),
1 35- 148.

Blumenfeld, P.C., 8: Pintrich, P. R. (1982). Children's perceptions of school mm

wfl; Age, sex , meiel elegg, indivigeel and claggrmm di fferengeg, Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

 

 

 

Borg, W. (1980). Time and school learning. In C. Denham 8: A. Lieberman (Eds),1_e
te leem. Washington, D. C. National Institute of Education.

Brook, A., Driver, R., 8: Johnston, K. (1988). Learning processes in science: Aclassroom

perspective. InI I. Wellington (Ed) W
W Methuen

Brophy, J. (1983). Conceptualizing student motivation. Edgegtiengl nghelogigt,1§(3),
200-21 5.

BrOth:l (1986). On metivgting gm. (Occasional Paper No. 101 ). East Lansing, MI:
Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University.

 

Brophy, J. (19v87). Socializing student motIvatIon to Ieam InM. L. Maehr8: D. A. Kleiber
(Eds), in m vai n n hi v m n (Vol. 5). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Brophy,J., 8:Merrick, M. (1987). M iv in m: An x rim nt In ni

W. East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching,
Michigan State University.

Brophy,J., 8: Rohrkemper, M. (1982). Motivatignal fagere in tea; heg’ handling Qf
W. (Research Series No. 115). East Lansing, MI: The Institute for

Research on Teaching, Michigan State University.

231

Brophy, J. 8: Rohrkemper, M. (1987). T h i f in wi h h il
W (Research Series No. 185). East Lansing, MI: The Institute for
Research on Teaching, Michigan State University.

Brophy, J., Rohrkemper, M., Rashid, H., 8: Goldberger, M. (1983). Relationships
between teachers' presentations of classroom tasks and students' engagement in

thosetasks. ml fE i I I 13544-552.

Cannon, R. K. Jr. 8: Simpson, R. D. (1985). Relationships among attitude, motivation,
and achievement of ability grouped, seventh-grade life science students. Sgienge
mm {22 (2), 121-138.

Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education. Wis, 51
(10), 1123-1130.

Carr, T. H., Evans, M. A. (1981). Classroom organization and reading ability: Are
motivation and skill antagonistic goals? In J. R. Edwards (Ed) “I11 II h l f
regding (Vel,1). Silver Spring, MD. Institute of Modern Languages.

Champagne,A. B. Klopfer, L. E., 8: Gunstone, R. F. (1982). CognItIve research and the
design of scienceinstruction. Ma 17 13- 53.

Children's Learning in Science Project. (1987). AW
fm . Leeds, En land: Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics

Education, University of L

Codd, J. A. (1981). The clinical interview: An holistic approach to the evaluation of
learning. W993; 1:1. 145-150.

Collins,A., Brown, J. S, 8: Newman, 5. E.(in press). Cognitive apprenticeship. Teaching
the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed. ), Leeming\ and

WW Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Corno, L., 8: Mandinach, E. B. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom

Ieaming and motivation. W3, 18(2), 88-108.

Diener, C. I., 8: Dweck, C. S. (1978). An analysis of Ieamed helplessness. Continuous
changes in performance, strategy, and achievement cognitions following failure.

m l f? Ii h Io 3&(5), 451-462.

Doyle, W. (1979). Classroom tasks and students’ abilities. In P. L. Peterson 8: H. J.

Walberg (Eds) Reseereh enteaehing; gen neemg, findings, and impliegtiens. Berkeley,
CA: McCutchan Publishing.

Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. WM 53 (2), 159-199.

Doyle, W. (1986). Content representation in teachers’ definitions of academic work.

WM 1.8 (4). 365-379.

Doyle, W. (1988). Work In mathematics classes: The context of students' thinking during

instruction Wane) 167-180

232

Driver, R. (1987). W. Paper prepared at the International Seminar,
Adolescent Development and School Science, King's College, London.

Driver, R. (in press). Theory into practice I: A constructivist approach to curriculum
development. In P. Fensham (Ed.), ' '

Mien. Falmer Press.

Dweck, C. S. (1985). Intrinsic motivation, perceived control, and self-evaluation
maintenance: An achievement goal ana ysis. In C. Ames 8: R. Ames (Eds.), 13:81:11
”New

n iv i hi I ili . Orlando, FL: Academic
Press.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting Ieaming. Wat,

a (10), 1040-1048.

Dweck, C. S., 8: Elliot, E. S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In E. M. Hetherington

(Ed.), ilizi nli n ii I m NewYork:Wiley.

Eaton, J. F., Anderson, C. W., 8: Smith, E. L. (1983). When students don't know they
don't know. W 7-9.

Eaton, J. F., Anderson, C. W., 8: Smith, E. L. (1984). Students’ misconceptions interfere
with science learning: Case studies of fifth-grade students. Th El h l

MAL fl (4), 365-379.

Eccles, J. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.),
A hi--v ‘ ..nI .. 111 -m- mI IV° P) l'IlIIm I no .I: iIIl i «_l - I I I- h-r
San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Eccles, J., Midgley, C., 8: Adler, T. F. (1984). Grade-related chan es in the school
environment: Effects on achievement motivation. In J. Nichol 5 (Ed.), Advanees in

mgtivgtim and aghielemmt (V91, 3). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Eccles, J., 8: Wigfield, A. (1985). Teacher expectations and student motivation. In J. B.

Dusek, v. c. Hall, a: w. 1. Meyer (Eds.). W. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Education Commission of States.(1983). NAEE Newsleng, Vol. XVI (No. 2).
Eichinger, D., 8: Lee, 0. (1988). Studmt eeneeptigng Qf the kingic melgglgr than.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research In
Science Teaching, Lake Ozark, MO.

Elliot, E. S., 8: Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement.
ml fP nli n il hl 51(1),5-12.

Ericsson, K. A., 8: Simon, H.A. (1984). Pr l n l i ' V r lr .
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Feather, N.(Ed.). (1982). W. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

233

Fensham, P. J. (1985). Science for all: A reflective essay. lggmal 9f Currieelgm Studies,
11 (4), 415-435.

Finley, F. N. (1985). Variations in prior knowledge. mm 69 (5), 697-705.

Finley, F. N. (1986). Evaluating instruction: The complementary use of clinical interviews.

lmrnel Qf Rfieareh In Seimee Teeehing, _23 (7), 635-650.

Floden, R. E., 8: Buchmann, M. (1984). The treghle with meaningtulness, (Occasional
Paper No. 82). East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State
University.

Gabel, D. L., 8: Samuel, K. V., 8: Hunn, M. (1987). Understanding the particulate nature
of matter. m I f h i IE i n 55 (8), 695-697.

Gallagher. I. I. (1986). W East Lansing.

MI: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University.

Gardner, P. L. (1975). Attitudes to science: A review. WW 2,
1-41.

Halydyna, T., 8: Shaughnessy, J. (1982). Attitudes toward science: A quantitative
synthesis. ngceidyeatm §_§_, 547-563.

Harms, N.C., 8: Yager, R. E. (1981). What reseereh $335 t9 the teggher (ngl: 3),

Washington, D.C.: National Science Teacher Association.

Hamischfeger, A., 8: Wiley, D. (1977). Achievement test scores drop. So what?
Edggetienel Regegreheg, z, 5-12.

Harter, S. (1980). A seale 9f intrinsie veggie; eminsie grientatign In the elessreem
(Manuel), Denver, CO: University of Colorado.

Hatter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the
classroom: Motivational and informational components. D l m l h I
1_7_ (3), 300-312.

Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. thlg Develgpment,
53, 87-97.

Harter, S., 8: Connell, J. P. (1984). A model of children’s achievement and related self-
perceptions of competence, control, and motivational orientation. In J. Nicholls

(Ed.), Advanges in motivgtign and aghievement V91, 3; The develggmmt Qf
eehiggnent metivetign. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Harty, H., Beall, D., Scharmann, L. (1985). Relationship between elementary school
students’ science achievement and their attitudes toward science, interest in science,
reactive curiosity, and scholastic aptitude. Sghggl Sgienee and Math, Q5 (6), 472-479.

Harty, H., Samuel, K. V., 8: Beall, D. (1986). Exploring relationships amon four science
teaching-learning affective attributes of sixth grade students. |Qgrnal Q Rgegreh in

W23 (1). 51-60.

234

Hesse, J. J., 8: Anderson, C. W. (1988). ' n i n f h i l h n .
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, LA.

Hollon, R. E., 8: Anderson, C. W. (1987). Teachers’ beliefs about students’ learning
processes in science: Self-reinforcing belief systems. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D. C.

Hueftle, S. J., Rakow, S. J., 8: Welch, W. W. (1983). Imeges Qf seigtee: A ggmmeg 9f
regglts frem the 1251-82 Netiegel Aesgsmgt Qf xienge. Minneapolis, MN:

Minnesota Research and Evaluation Center, University of Minnesota.

Hurd. P. D. (1982). MW Paper
presented to the National Convention on Precollege Education in Mathematics and
Science, National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering,
Washington, D. C.

James, R. K., 8: Smith, S. (1985). Alienation of students from science in grades 4-12.

mm 52(1). 39-45.

Jones, B., 8: Butts, B. (1983). Development of a set of scales to measure selected

scientific attitudes. Reeeergh in xienge Edgegtign, L}, 133-140.

Koballa, T. R. Jr. (1988). Attitude and related concepts in science education. We
M13231. 12 (2), 115-126.

Laforgia, J. (1988). The affective domain related to science education and its evaluation.

W 2.2. (4). 407-421.

Lee, 0., Eichinger, D. C., Anderson, C. W., Berkheimer, G. D. 8: Blakeslee, T. D. (1989).
Changing middle gehml gtgdents’ cgneeptiens 9f matter and melegglee. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association,
San Francisco, CA.

Lee, 0., Gallagher, J. J. (1986). Mi l h l i h ' i n f ir
instrggtimal reles. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in
Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.

Maddock, M. N. (1982). Evaluation of achievement and attitudes iscience: A three year

study. Aggtrialien gienee Tegehgg legrngl, 28 (3), 49-56.

Maehr, M. L. (1983). On doin well in science: Why Johnny no longer excels; why Sarah

never did. In 5. Paris, G. O sen, 8: H. Stevenson (Eds.), Learning gng motivatign ithe
elessreem. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Maehr, M. L. (1984). Meaning and motivation: Toward a theory of personal investment.

In R. Ames and C. Ames (Eds.), Reseerem en mmivgtieg in edggetien (Vgl. 1);
Student metivgtign, Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Marshall,H.H. (1987a). Twr m iv ti t l rn: x lor in fl r m wih
W. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Washington, D. C.

235

Marshall, H. H. (1987b). Motivational strategies of three fifth-grade teachers I_he
Wane) 135- 150

Marshall, H. H. (1987c). Building a Ieaming orientation. 111mg; intg Prestige, 28 (1), 8-
14.

McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives, skills, and values determine what people do.
Momma. 19. 812-825.

Meece, J. L.,8:Bl.umenfeld, P. C. (1987). I h l hil r ’ m iv i n I
W Paper presented at

the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington,
D. C.

endoller, J. R., Marchman, V. A., Mitman, A. L., 8: Packer, M. J. (1988). Task
emands and accountability in middle-grade science classes. WM
1mm), 88 (3), 251 -265.

Minstrell, J. (1984). Teaching for the development of understanding of Ideas Forces on
moving obiects In C W Anderson (Ed) We:
MW 1984 Yearbook of the Association for the Education of
Teachers iScience.Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC.

National Assessment of Educational Pr ress. (1978). gienee\ Aehigemmt in the
hII.I °A mm Ifr I frm -1° .-7 n._ II: I ._ 232-.m' If 'n .
Denver: EducationalCommission of the States.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1979). W
5emm§§y 9f re5tglt5 frem the 127§-1277 ngtjgnel e55e55meet Qf 5eigtge. Denver:

Educational Commission of the States.

National Science Foundation—Department of Education. (1980). mm
W Washington. D. C.

Needham, R., 8: Hill, P. (1987). T hin i f I in n n in in
m. Leeds, England: Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education,
University of Leeds.

Nickerson, R. S. (1985). Understanding understanding. Ametieen [eernel Qf Edgeetien,
201-239.

Nisbett, R. E., 8:Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know. Verbal reports on
mental processes. P5x¢9l le igel Review, QB), 231-259.

Novak, J. D., 8: Gowin, D. B. (1986). Learning th tQ learn. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge
University Press.

Novick, S. 8: Nussbaum, J. (1978). Junior high school pupils’ understanding of the
particulate nature of matter: An interview study. Wm 92 (3), 273- 281.

Nussbaum, J., 8: Novak, J. D. (1976). An assessment of children’s concepts of the earth
using structured interviews. W 952 (4), 535-550.

236

Nussbaum, J., 8: Novick, S. (1982). Alternative frameworks, conceptual conflict and
accommodation: Toward a principled teaching strategy. 11mm J__1_,
1 83-200.

Oliver, J. S., 8: Sim , R. D. (1988). Influence of attitude toward science, achievement
motivation, an science self-concept on achievement iscience: A longitudinal study.

W 2.2 (2). 143-155.

Olson, J. (1983). Mr wi 11 l k-T h infl in h I r . Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Montreal, Canada.

Ormerod, M. B., 8: Duckworth, D. (1975). MW. Windsor, Berks:
NFER Publishing.

Parsons, J. E., 8: Goff, S. B. (1980). Achievement motivation and values: An alternative
perspective. In L. J. Fyans, Jr. (Ed.), A hi m iv i w R in h
W. New York: Plenum Press.

Pervin, L. A. (1982). The status and flow of behavior: Toward a theory of goals. In M. M.
Pa e (Ed.), P n Ii ' rr h n r r h. Lincoln, NB: University of

Ne aska Press.

Peterson, P. L., 8: Swin , S. R. (1982). Beyond time on task: Students’ reports of their

thought processes uring classroom instruction. The Elmmteg fighml lggrngl, 8;
(5), 481-491.

Peterson, P. L., Swing, S. R., Braverman, M. T., 8: Bus, R. (1982). Students’ aptitudes
and their reports of cognitive processes during direct instruction. lmrngl 9f

Weber. 14.. 535-547.
Peterson, P. L., Swing, S. R., Stark, K. D., 8: Was, G. A. (1984). Students’ cognitions and

time on task during mathematics instruction. Ametiean 5515;559:151 R_e5eareh
1mm g_1_, 487-515.

Petrie, H. G. (1981). The gilmme 9f mguit! and Ieaming. Chicago, IL: The University

of Chicago Press.

Pines, A. L., 8: West, L. H. T. (1986). Conceptual understanding and science learning: An
interpretation of research within a source-of-knowledge framework. meet:

mm 19(5), 583-604.

Porter, A. C., 8: Broph , J. E. (1987). Synthesis of research on good teaching: Insi hts
from the work oft e Institute for Research on Teaching. Eggggtiengl Leader5 i915
(8), 74-86.

Posner, G. J. (1982). A cognitive science conception of curriculum and instruction.

MW 12 (4). 343-351.

 

 

 

237

Posner, G. J., 8: Gertzog, W. A. (1982). The clinical interview and the measurement of
conceptual change. W 96 (2). 195-209.

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., 8: Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of
a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. W
66 (2), 211-227.

Resnick, L. B. (1983a). Mathematics and science Ieaming: A new conception. Me,
229, 477-478.

Resnick, L. B. (1983b). Toward a cognitive theory of instruction. In S. G. Paris, G. M.
Olson, 8: W. H. Stevenson (Eds.), L min n m iv i in h l r (pp. 5-38).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Resnick, L. B. (in press). Cognition and instruction: Recent themes of human
competence and how it is acquired. In B. L. Hammonds (Ed.), mm!

learning; The me5ter legtt re\ 5&1 e5 (Vel, 4). Washington, D. C.: American
Psycho ogical Association.

Rohrkemper, M. M., 8: Bershon, B. L. (1984). Elementary school students’ reports of the

causes and effects of problem difficulty in mathematics. Th El h I
1321111131. 85 (1), 127-147.
Roth, K. J. (1985). n I h n I rnin n in f i

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL.

Roth, K. J. (1987). Helping 5eine eeteegh eI;5 ehgnge; Theeritieel rg km
W. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D. C.

 

Roth, K. R., Anderson, C. W., 8: Smith, E. L. (1987). Curriculum materials, teacher talk
and student learning: Case studies of fifth grade science teaching. lgurnal 9f

W 12 (6). 527-548.

Roth, K.J., Smith, E. L., 8:Anderson, C. W. (1983). W
W. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

Roth, K. J., 8: Smith, E. L., 8: Anderson, C. W. (1984). Verbal atterns of teachers:
Comprehension instruction in the content areas. In G. Du , L. Roehler, 8: J. Mason

(Eds.). MW New York:

Longman.

Sanford, J. P. (1987). Management of science classroom tasks and effects on students‘

Ieaming opportunities. lggrnal 9f Re5earch in figienge Teaghing, 21 (3), 249-265.

Schibeci, R. A. (1984). Attitudes to science: An update. §tgdie5 in §gienee Edgegtien,
u, 26-59.

Shuell, T. J. (1987). Cognitive psychology and conceptual change: Implications for
teaching science. W_ 71 (2), 239-250.

 

 

238

Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
WELL r15 (2). 4-14

Simpson, R. D., 8: Oliver, J. S. (1985). Attitude toward science and achievement
motivation profiles of male and female science students in grades six through ten.

MMQQW. 511-526

Smith, D. C. (1987). Prim 'mi i li h n h Paper
presented at the Second International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational
Strategies in Science and Mathematics. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University.

Smith, D. C., 8: Neale, D. C. (1987). The construction of expertise in primary science:
Beginnings.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Washington, D. C.

Smith, E. L. 8: Anderson, C. W. (1984). The planning an nd teaehing intfimfii Iate
WW (Research

Series No. 147). East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State
University.

Smith. E L. &Anderson. C W (1986) We
W. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National
Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.

Stake, R. E., 8: Easley,]. (19781W. Urbana-Chamaign,

IL: Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation, University of III Inois.

Steinkamp, M. W., 8: Maehr, M. L. (1983). Affect, ability, and science achievement: A

quantative synthesis of correlational research. R i f ' IR r h 51(3),
369-396.

Stepans,]. I, Beiswenger, R. E, 8: Dyche, S. (1986). Misconceptions die hard. _T_h_e
W 65- 69

Stipek, D. H. (1984). The development of achievement motivation. In R. Ames 8: C.
Ames (Eds.), Re5eareh pp mptivatipn in fipeatipn thl, 1); §tpdmt mptivatipn.

Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Stipelt D H. (1988) MW. Englewood Cliffs. NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Strike, K. A., 8: Posner, G. l. (1985). Aconceptual change view of learnIng and
understandin. InL. H. T. West8:A. L. PInes (Eds) W

w. Orlando, FL. Academic Press.

Tobin, K. (1986). Student task involvement and achievement in process-oriented

science activities. Sniengejdpganpn, 19(1), 61-72.

Tobin, K, 8: Gallagher, I l (1987). What happens In high school science classrooms?
lppmal pf Cprrigplpm §tpdi Ie5, 12 (6), 549- 560.

Toulmin, S. (1972). Hpman pnder5tandipg. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

 

 

 

239

Vallacher, R. R., 8: Wegner, D. M. (1987). What do people think they're doing?: Action
identification and human behavior. mm 9_4_ (1), 3-15.

Vosniadou, S., 8: Brewer, W. F. (1987). Theories of knowledge restructuring in
development. Revien pf Edpeatipnal Rgeargh, 51(1), 51-67.

Wegner, D. M., 8: Vallacher, R. B. (1986). Action identification. In R. M. Sorrentino 8: E.

T. Higgins (Eds.), Hande pf mntivatim and epgnitipn; Fppndatipnng axial
M. New York: Gilford.

Welch, W. W. (1979). Twenty years of science curriculum development: A look

backward. In D. Berliner (Ed.), Regim pf regareh in gpeatipn (Mel 2). Washington,

D.C.: American Educational Research Association.

Welch, W. W. (1985). Secondary anal is and national assessment in science in the U. S.
A. In 8.1. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds. . WW
Perth, Australia: Western Australian Institute of Technology.

Welch, W. W., Walberg, H. J., 8: Fraser, 8. J. (1986). Predicting elementary science

learning using national assessment data. leprnal pf Re5eareh in §gienge Teaehing, 23
(8), 699-706.

Wentzel, K. R. (1987). The relatipn5hip between ela55rmm gpal5 and aeademie
aghievement; Qpntent, epntext, and effon-related fagpr5, Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.
C.

White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence.
h | i IR vi 6n(5), 297-333.

White, R. T. (1987). Th r fr r h n ni iv
ehange. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Washington, D. C.

Wilson, V. L. (1983). A meta-analysis of the relationship between science achievement

and science attitude: Kindergarten through college. lppmal pf Re5eareh in §eienge
Teaehing, _2_Q (9). 839-850.

Winne, P. H., 8: Marx, R. W. (1982). Students’ and teachers’ views of thinking processes
for classroom learning. The Elmgtag Sehppl [ppmaL 82 (S), 493-518.

Wittrock, M. C. (1985). Learning science by generating new conceptions from old ideas.

In L. H. T. West & A L. PineIIEds.I.§ogn_ItI_\/es3n1§t111e_ar1d_eomeon1aLLhange

Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Wittrock, M. C. (1987). Students’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), flandank
pf re5eargh pn teaehing (3rd ed.). New York: MacMilIan Publishing.

Yager, R. E., 8: Hofstein, A. (1986). Features of a quality curriculum for school science.

leprnal pf Cprrigplpm §tpdie5, 18 (2), 133-146.

Yager, R. E., & Penick, J. E. (1986). Perceptions of four age groups toward science classes,
teachers, and the value of science. W m (4), 355-363.

240

Yager, R. E., 8: Yager, S. O. (1985). Changes in perceptions of science for third, seventh,

and eleventh grade students. leprnal of Researgh in §eimge Teaehing, 22, (4), 347-
358.

 

 

 

 

 

[I‘I' l: .{(l ‘5

Ill llllll‘rl’

I 'lili I1 (lIl: I