In order to facilitate presentation of the detailed results, presented in the next chapter (Chapter V, Results and Interpretations), a summary of major findings, which corresponds to the research questions raised in Chapter I, is given here. The detailed results of these findings can be referred to the section in Chapter V listed in
parentheses after each research question.
1. What are the scientific epistemological beliefs held by tenth graders? (Section V.1).
After conducting both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, the validity and reliability of the Scientific Epistemological Beliefs (SEB) survey which was used to explore students’ scientific epistemological beliefs were proved.
According to students’ responses in SEB, 240 students attained high scores on the “development” (an average of 4.39 per item) and “justification” factor (an average of 4.36 per item). Their scores on the “source” factor, an average of 3.07 per item, were relatively lower when compared to those of other factors.
Moreover, the significant correlation observed between source and certainty factors (r = 0.38, p < 0.001), and between development and justification factors (r = 0.43, p < 0.001). Hofer and Pintrich (1997) proposed that the structure of personal epistemology consists of two major aspects: the nature of knowledge (including certainty and development of knowledge) and the nature of knowing (including source and justification of knowledge). Thus, based on their framework, there should be some correlations between the certainty and development factors and between source and justification factor. However, the present results indicate that the hierarchical
69
structure proposed by Hofer and Pintrich (1997) was not shown in this sample.
2. What are the tenth graders’ metacognitive awareness regarding science learning?
(Section V.2).
Similarly, after conducting both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, the validity and reliability of the Metacognitive Awareness regarding Science learning Inventor (MASI) which was newly developed in this study were proved.
As a result, 240 students’ responses were grouped into the following four
orthogonal factors, which were: Self-regulation, Critical judgment, Metastrategy, and Reflection. The descriptive results indicated that students attained the fairly awareness regarding each four factors of the MASI. This inventory not only provides a tool for detecting students’ metacognitive awareness regarding science learning, but also can be used to investigate with other variables which may influence students’ learning science.
3. What are the conceptions of learning science held by tenth graders? (Section V.3).
Again, through both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, the validity and reliability of the Conceptions Of Learning Science (COLS) questionnaire which was used to investigate students’ conceptions of learning science were proved. The participants’ responses were grouped into the following six orthogonal factors, which were: Memorizing, Testing, Calculate and Practice, Increase of Knowledge, Applying, and Understanding and Seeing in a new way. As a result, students attained high scores on the “increase of knowledge” factor (an average of 4.04 per item) and
“understanding and seeing in a new way” factor (an average of 4.04 per item). Such results may indicate that students tend to hold relatively sophisticated conceptions of learning science.
70
Moreover, two clusters of correlation results were also revealed. First, the positive interrelations were observed among “memorizing,” “testing,” and “calculate and practice” factors (r = 0.43 to 0.49, p < 0.001). Second, the positive relationships were also identified among “increase of knowledge,” “applying,” and “understanding and seeing in a new way” factors (r = 0.54 to 0.68, p < 0.001). Accordingly,
“memorizing,” “testing,” and “calculate and practice” conceptions could be
categorized as reproductive conceptions of learning science, and the conceptions as
“increase of knowledge,” “applying,” and “understanding and seeing in a new way”
could be categorized as constructivist conceptions. In particular, the “testing” factor was the most sensitive one which positively related to the reproductive conceptions of learning science and negatively related to the constructivist ones.
4. What are the interrelations among students’ scientific epistemological beliefs, metacognitive awareness regarding science learning, and their conceptions of learning science? (Section V.4).
For the relation between scientific epistemological beliefs and metacognitive awareness regarding science learning, the correlation results indicated that all factors of MASI (i.e., self-regulation, critical judgment, metastrategy, and reflection) were positively related to the “justification” factor of SEB (r = 0.18, 0.31, 0.25, 0.19 respectively). Such results seemed to indicate that students held more sophisticated beliefs about the role of experiments and scientists’ ideas on scientific knowledge tended to express more metacognitive awareness regarding science learning.
For the relation between scientific epistemological beliefs and conceptions of learning science, the correlation results indicated two tendencies that, on the one hand, students with more sophisticated beliefs about the source of scientific knowledge tended to hold constructivist conceptions of learning science (i.e., “understanding and
71
seeing in a new way” conception) and not to hold reproductive conceptions (i.e.,
“memorizing,” “testing,” and “calculate and practice” conceptions); on the other hand, students who held mature beliefs about the development and justification of scientific knowledge were oriented to embrace the constructivist conceptions.
Furthermore, the regression analyses indicated that beliefs about source of knowledge contribute negatively to the conceptions of learning science as
“memorizing,” “testing,” and “calculate and practice,” and positively to the
“understanding and seeing in a new way” conceptions. Moreover, the beliefs about justification of knowledge contribute positively to the conceptions of learning science as “increase of knowledge,” “applying,” and “understanding and seeing in a new way.” The beliefs about source of knowledge and justification of knowledge could be referred to the beliefs about the nature of knowing (Conley et al., 2004; Hofer &
Pintrich, 1997). Thus, these results reveal that beliefs about the nature of knowing contribute significantly to the conceptions of learning science.
In addition, the regression analysis also found that students who endorsing less sophisticated beliefs about certainty of knowledge but more sophisticated knowledge about the development of knowledge tend to view learning science as “increase of knowledge.” That is, on the one hand, students holding “increase of knowledge”
conception believe knowledge as certainty, and on the other hand, they recognize science as an evolving subject and theory as changeable through the basis of new data and evidence.
For the relation between metacognitive awareness regarding science learning and conceptions of learning science, the correlation results revealed a clear tendency that students with much more metacognitive awareness regarding learning science tend to embrace more mature conceptions of learning science.
In sum, students who held more sophisticated beliefs about the role of
72
experiments and scientists’ ideas on scientific knowledge (i.e., the justification factor of SEB) tended to show more metacognitive awareness regarding science learning and to express more constructivist-oriented conceptions of learning science.
5. What are the selected students’ scientific epistemological beliefs obtained from interview? (Section V.5).
Based on the interview framework developed in this study, students’ scientific epistemological beliefs were divided into beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing, and were characterized either as “constructivist” or “empiricist.” As a result, 72% (n = 43) students held “empiricist” beliefs about the nature of knowledge. On the other hand, constructivist beliefs about the nature of knowledge were rarely expressed by students (n = 17). With respect to the beliefs about the nature of knowing, 65% (n
= 39) students held the constructivist beliefs in this study.
Moreover, three patterns of selected students’ scientific epistemological beliefs (i.e., beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing) were found. Seventeen students held the constructivist beliefs about the nature of knowledge and
constructivist beliefs about the nature of knowing. On the other hand, twenty-one students embraced the empiricist beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing.
Twenty-two students held constructivist beliefs about the nature of knowledge but empiricist beliefs about the nature of knowing.
Furthermore, the associations between selected students’ beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing were identified through the Pearson Chi-square test. As a result, beliefs about the nature of knowledge and beliefs about the nature of knowing were associated. (Chi-square = 12.78, phi = 0.46, p < 0.001). The correlation result empirically supported the suggestion of Hofer and Pintrich (1997) that individuals’
beliefs about knowledge and how they think about knowledge are interconnected in
73
complex and coherent way (p. 178).
6. What are the selected students’ conceptions of learning science gained from phenomenographic method? (Section V.6).
Through a phenomenographic analysis of selected students’ interview responses, seven qualitatively different categories of conceptions of learning science were identified in this study. That is, learning science as memorizing, preparing for tests, practicing the experiments, the increase of knowledge, applying, understanding, and seeing in a new way.
Accordingly, 27% of students viewed learning science as the increase of
knowledge. And, approximately 17% of students held conceptions of learning science as understanding. These results also respond to the findings of section V.3.1 in which students scored high on the “increase of knowledge” factor and the “understanding and seeing in a new way” factor of the COLS questionnaire.
Moreover, to further understand students’ conceptions of learning science and for advanced analysis, this study performed the fragmented/cohesive dichotomy to
characterize students’ conceptions of learning science. That is, the conceptions as memorizing, preparing for tests, practicing the experiments, and the increase of knowledge were characterized as fragmented conception. And, the conceptions as applying, understanding, and seeing in a new way identified in present subjects were characterized as cohesive conception. As a result, more than half students held the fragmented conceptions of learning science.
7. What are the selected students’ conceptions of science assessment obtained from phenomenographic method? (Section V.7).
Through a phenomenographic analysis of selected students’ interview responses,
74
six qualitatively different categories of conceptions of science assessment were
initially identified in this study. That is, science assessment as reproducing knowledge, rehearsing, revealing the learning status, improving learning, applying, and the
justification of knowledge. In addition, the “rehearsing” conception may have been shaped by the educational climate in Taiwan which has stressed the high-stakes examinations and widely used “supplementary trade books.” Accordingly, 47% of students viewed science assessment as revealing the learning status. And,
approximately 17% of students held conceptions of science assessment as improving learning.
Similar to the cohesive/fragmented dichotomy used in distinguishing students’
conceptions of learning science, the variation of conceptions of science assessment could also be distinguished into the fragmented/cohesive dichotomy for advanced analysis. The conceptions as “improving,” “applying,” and “justification” were characterized as cohesive conception of science assessment, while the “reproducing,”
“rehearsing,” and “revealing” conceptions could be seen as fragmented views of science assessment. As a result, there were approximately 62% students who held fragmented conception of science assessment. And, about 38% students’ conceptions of science assessment were identified as cohesive conception. The results suggested that many students still valued the science assessment as recalling and revealing the accumulation of scientific knowledge.
Based on the cohesive/fragmented dichotomy, the relations between students’
conceptions of science assessment and their scores on the MASI were revealed. As a result, the students who held cohesive conceptions of science assessment tended to have higher awareness of critical judgment (p < 0.05) and better metastrategy (p <
0.05) than those with fragmented conceptions. The results seem to imply that students’
views of science assessment might be affected by their metacognitive awareness
75
regarding science learning. In particular, students, who frequently evaluated the reliability and validity of information (i.e., critical judgment) and knew how to perform learning well (i.e., metastrategy), tended to view science assessment as cohesive. Furthermore, the present result may support the hypothetical framework built on Figure 2.3 which indicated a relation between metacognitive awareness (in particular, critical judgment and metastrategy) and science assessment conceptions.
8. What are the interrelations among selected students’ scientific epistemological beliefs, conceptions of learning science, and their conceptions of science assessment obtained from qualitative study? (Section V.8).
For the relation between selected students’ scientific epistemological beliefs (i.e., belief about the nature of knowledge and belief about the nature of knowledge) and their conceptions of learning science, the Pearson Chi-square analysis indicated that the associations among beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing and conceptions of learning science are significant (for nature of knowledge: Chi-square = 6.23, phi = 0.32, p < 0.05; for nature of knowing: Chi-square = 12.31, phi = 0.45, p <
0.001). That is, students holding constructivist scientific epistemological beliefs tended to have cohesive conceptions of learning science. In addition, although the significant relations among both students’ beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing and their conceptions of leaning science were verified, this study further suggest that beliefs about the nature of knowing seem to have more power to explain students’ conceptions of learning science (Cohen’s w = 0.45, approximately large effect size) than their beliefs about the nature of knowledge (Cohen’s w = 0.32, medium effect size). This result also paralleled with the findings in section V.4.2 that, according to regression results, beliefs about the nature of knowing contribute
significantly to the conceptions of learning science.
76
For the relation between selected students’ scientific epistemological beliefs (i.e., belief about the nature of knowledge and belief about the nature of knowledge) and their conceptions of science assessment, the Pearson Chi-square analysis indicated that the associations among beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing and conceptions of science assessment are significant (for nature of knowledge:
Chi-square = 19.45, phi = 0.57, p < 0.001; for nature of knowing: Chi-square = 11.34, phi = 0.44, p < 0.001). Moreover, the Cohen’s w index indicated that beliefs about the nature of knowledge seem to have greater power to explain students’ conceptions of science assessment (Cohen’s w = 0.57, a large effect size) than their beliefs about the nature of knowing (Cohen’s w = 0.44).
For the relation between selected students’ conceptions of learning science and their conceptions of science assessment, the Pearson Chi-square analysis indicated that the associations among conceptions of learning science and conceptions of science assessment are significant (Chi-square = 16.67, phi = 0.53, Cohen’s w = 0.53, p < 0.001). The result seems to imply that students expressing the cohesive conception of learning science tended to hold cohesive conception of science assessment.
9. What types of selected students’ nested ecology can be detected in this study?
(Section V.9).
Based on the nested ecology framework proposed in this study, eight types of students’ nested ecology are summarized. And those types of nested ecology can be differentiated into three major forms based on the relations within and across belief system and conception system, such as the complete nested ecology, the partial nested ecology, and the divergent nested ecology.
As a result, twenty-eight among 60 students were identified as the complete nested ecology regarding learning science. For these students, their beliefs about
77
knowledge, knowing, learning, and assessment could be viewed as a whole, which the consistency could be found both within and across systems (i.e., belief system and conception system). Moreover, twenty-two among 60 students expressed three
consistent views characterized as partial nested ecology regarding science learning. In other words, for those students, the consistency within system can be found either in belief system or conception system, and the consistency is partial across systems. In addition, ten students were characterized as the divergent nested ecology. For those students, six students’ views of learning science and science assessment are divergent.
Three students’ belief system and conception system are inconsistent in the nested ecology. In particular, one student expressed totally divergent either within systems or across systems.
10. What is role of metacognitive awareness regarding science learning on the scientific epistemological beliefs, conceptions of learning science, and conceptions of science assessment? (Section V.10).
With respect to the question 4, the correlations among the students’ scores on SEB, MASI, and COLS were revealed. In addition, the results revealed in Section V.7.4 further indicated a relation between students’ scores on MASI and their
conceptions of science assessment. Accordingly, based on the results gained from both quantitative data and qualitative data, this study revealed that students’ metacognition tended to be associated with their scientific epistemological beliefs, conceptions of learning science, and conceptions of science assessment. That is, as long as students expressed high metacognitive awareness in learning science, they tended to hold sophisticated scientific epistemological beliefs and mature conceptions of learning science and science assessment.
78