以巢狀概念模式探究高中生之科學學習–科學認識觀、後設認知知覺、科學學習概念及其科學評量概念

全文

(1)CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION. I.1. Background of the Study. There is popularization of constructivism in science education over the past decades, following Staver’s (1998) suggestion that constructivism is a sound theory to help science educators to understand how students learn science, as well as to explicate the practice of science and science teaching. Promoting students’ meaningful learning instead of rote learning is an important objective for science educators (Duschl, 1990). To this end, in the last three decades, science educators have made great efforts to understand how students learn science and why they do that. [I]n our most mundane encounters with new information and in our most sophisticated pursuits of knowledge; we are influenced by the beliefs we hold about knowledge and knowing (Hofer, 2002, p.3). Learner’ beliefs about knowledge, knowing, learning, instruction, and intelligence have been acknowledged for understanding their learning, not only in the area of psychology, but also in the area of education. What students think scientific knowledge is and how they think they know and learn have become critical components of students’ science learning. Consequently, to discuss the contributory variables for the nature of students’ science learning, it is essential to understand students’ metalearning assumptions of learning science, such as their epistemological views of science and their views of science learning. In this decade, the studies emphasized on students’ epistemological views of science have gained significant 1.

(2) attention among science educators (Lee, Wu, & Tsai, in press). Moreover, the studies of students’ conceptions of learning science have also been conducted in recent years (e.g., Lee, Johanson, & Tsai, 2008; Tsai, 2004a; Tsai & Kuo, 2008). Such studies also provided science educators with potential insight to understand the nature of students’ science learning.. I.2. Need for the Study. Recently, a growing number of studies have addressed the role that learners’ socio-cultural backgrounds have on their learning. Among these, some researchers have sought to explain the stereotype that Asian learners achieve better in mathematics and science than Westerners, and concluded that: (a) Asian learners possess higher achievement motivation because they adhere to a more adaptive view of ability than their Western peers (Tweed & Lehman, 2002); (b) Asian parents have higher expectations and are more involved with their children’s learning (Stevenson & Stigler, 1992); (c) Asian countries may have adopted more effective mathematics and science pedagogical practices (Perkins, 1992); (d) the conception “memorization with understanding” held by Asian students (Dahlin & Watkins, 2000). Thus, socio-culture background may highly influence the philosophy of education, and, thereby, have potential impacts on the nature of students’ learning. In recent years, the teachers’ pedagogical practices have been profoundly influenced by the educational reforms in which the elements of Western philosophy and pedagogy (e.g., Constructivism) that have been introduced into the Taiwanese high school system. However, in tradition, high school students in Taiwan are educated in an Eastern culture that is shaped and developed by an Eastern philosophy (e.g., Confucianism). For example, recent educational reforms in Taiwan have 2.

(3) developed new curriculum guidelines for science and life technology education in high schools (MOE, 2004). The self-learning and the real understanding of concepts so as to enhance students’ interest in, enthusiasm for, and the autonomous learning of science have been highlighted by these guidelines (MOE, 2001, 2004). These changes may signal vast changes in the current pedagogical practices adopted in Taiwanese high schools, and may also influence the nature of students’ science learning. Following the socio-cultural perspectives, in past few years, research has been conducted to explore Taiwanese high school students’ perceptions regarding science learning, including their preferences and perceptions toward science learning environment (Lee & Chang, 2004), their perceived and preferred teacher authority in science classroom room (Lee, Chang, & Tsai, in press), and their conceptions of and approaches to learning science (Lee, Johanson, & Tsai, 2008). This series of studies have found that high school students have mixed perceptions concerning both meaningful and rote feature of science learning which were defined by science educators. For example, Lee and Chang (2004) and Chang, Hsiao, and Barufaldi (2006) examined Taiwanese high school students’ preferences and perceptions of classroom, and found the preferences of both teacher-centered and student-centered orientated learning environment. In tradition, science educators generally used dichotomous perspectives to understand students’ science learning, for example, the meaningful learning versus rote learning (Ausubel, 1968), the constructivist orientation versus objective orientation (Tsai, 2000), the deep learning versus surface learning (Marton & Saljo, 1976), learner-centered versus teacher-centered (Lee, Chang, & Tsai, in press). In recent years, several studies have found some specific perspectives held by Asian students. For example, Taiwanese high school students preferred both teacher-centered and learner-centered learning environment (Chang, Hsiao, & 3.

(4) Barufaldi, 2006; Lee & Chang, 2004); students preferred the teacher authority as sharing authority (Lee, Chang, & Tsai, in press); students used both deep and surface approaches to learning (Lee, Johanson, & Tsai, 2008); and the conception “memorization with understanding” was expressed by Asian students (Dahlin & Watkins, 2000). The above-mentioned studies have proposed the possible reason that students’ specific perspectives may be influenced by their epistemological beliefs. That is, students’ epistemological views of science may shape their metalearning beliefs and then influence their learning orientations (Roth & Roychoudhury, 1994; Songer & Linn, 1991; Tsai, 1998). These findings provide an opportunity to rethink what students think scientific knowledge is and how they think they know and learn. Thus, research may need to use a multidimensional view to understand the nature of student’s science learning which can enable us to interpret students’ specific perspectives regarding science learning. Recently, in research of science teaching, some studies have proposed a multidimensional belief system namely the “nested epistemologies” to interpret the interrelationship among teacher’s beliefs about science, teaching, and learning (Bryan, 2003; Tsai, 2002). Tsai (2002) found that teachers’ beliefs about teaching science, learning science, and the nature of science are closely aligned, and he called these closely aligned beliefs as “nested epistemologies.” However, the above studies merely conducted the epistemological issue of the nature of teachers’ teaching. And, there is still dearth of research using multidimensional view to investigate empirically the nature of students’ science learning. To use multidimensional view to investigate the nature of students’ science learning, the idea of “nested ecology” is appropriate and also avoids confusion with epistemology. In this study, the “nested ecology” is a multidimensional system which 4.

(5) is similar to the “nested epistemologies” used by Tsai (2002). What the critical components of the students’ nested ecology regarding science learning should be discussed? Students’ scientific epistemological beliefs may shape their metalearning beliefs and then influence their learning orientations (Roth & Roychoudhury, 1994; Songer & Linn, 1991; Tsai, 1998). Moreover, in this line of research, the phenomenographic method was highlighted in the studies of learners’ conceptions of educational processes, such as conceptions of learning (e.g., Marton, 1981; Tsai, 2004a). Students’ conceptions of educational processes are important because there is evidence that those conceptions have an impact on their educational experiences and learning (e.g., Chin & Brown, 2000; Dart et al., 2000; Lee, Johanson, & Tsai, 2008; Purdie et al., 1996; Schommer, 1998; Sinatra, 2001). Although some studies have suggested the relationship between students’ epistemological beliefs and their conceptions of learning (Buehl et al., 2002; Chan & Elliott, 2004; Duell & Schommer, 2001; Hofer, 2000), they did not directly address such issue on science learning. Moreover, assessment is a powerful and present force in students’ lives (Brown et al., in press). Several researchers also agreed that students’ views of assessment are of particular importance because assessment has a significant impact on the quality of learning (Entwistle & Entwistle, 1991; Marton & Saljo, 1997; Ramsden, 1997). However, in the area of science education research, students’ conceptions of assessment have not been investigated yet. Also, the interrelations between students’ views of learning science and science assessment are not well developed. Moreover, Flavell (1979) argued that epistemic understanding might best be understood in its relation to metacognition. Schommer-Aikins (2004) also proposed the relationships among epistemological beliefs, beliefs about learning and metacognition. Consequently, to comprehensively and multidimensional investigate students’ nested ecology regarding science learning, four components should be considered, that is 5.

(6) scientific epistemological beliefs, metacognition, conceptions of learning science, and conceptions of science assessment. By gathering data from both quantitative and qualitative analyses of a group of tenth graders, three primary questions (i.e., what is science? what is learning science? and what is science assessment?) with the awareness of metacognition were used to extend our understanding about the students’ nested ecology regarding science learning from multidimensional perspectives (i.e., the interrelations among scientific epistemological beliefs, metacognition, conceptions of learning science, and conceptions of science assessment).. I.3. An Overall View of the Study. The purpose of this study aimed to deeply investigate students’ nested ecology regarding science learning from multidimensional perspectives (i.e., the interrelations among scientific epistemological beliefs, metacognition, conceptions of learning science, and conceptions of science assessment). To this end, this study performed the quantitative method to initially explore the interrelations among scientific epistemological beliefs, metacognitive awareness, and conceptions of learning science. Then, the qualitative method was conducted to deeply investigative the interplays among scientific epistemological beliefs, conceptions of learning science, and conceptions of science assessment and to clarify the nested ecology model. In addition, the role of metacognitive awareness on scientific epistemological beliefs and conceptions of learning science and science assessment were discussed through both quantitative and qualitative results. The quantitative part of study conducted a sampling pool with 240 tenth graders. These students came from six different classes in the same senior high school in 6.

(7) Taipei County. For the quantitative part, the students’ responses from three questionnaires, two of them modified from previous study and one newly developed in this study, were used to yield some quantitative indicators to represent students’ scientific epistemological beliefs, metacognitive awareness, and their conceptions of learning science and to clarify the interplay between those variables. For qualitative part of study, 60 representative students selected from the sampling pool were deeply interviewed about their scientific epistemological beliefs, conceptions of learning science, and conceptions of science assessment. In particular, the phenomenographic method was performed to investigate selected students’ conceptions of learning science and science assessment. These in-depth interview data yielded the research foundation for this study. The qualitative data were not only used to further support the findings revealed in the quantitative part, but also empirically verified students’ nested ecology regarding science learning.. I.4. Research Questions. In sum, this study was intended to answer the following research questions:. I.4.1. General research question According to the data gained from a group of tenth graders, what are the interactions among scientific epistemological beliefs, metacognitive awareness, conceptions of learning science, and their conceptions of science assessment?. I.4.2.Specific research questions The following research questions are listed by the same order which corresponds to the result presentation in Chapter V. 7.

(8) 1. What are the scientific epistemological beliefs held by tenth graders? 2. What are the tenth graders’ metacognitive awareness regarding science learning? 3. What are the conceptions of learning science held by tenth graders? 4. What are the interrelations among students’ scientific epistemological beliefs, metacognitive awareness regarding science learning, and their conceptions of learning science? 5. What are the selected students’ scientific epistemological beliefs obtained from the interview? 6. What are the selected students’ conceptions of learning science gained from the phenomenographic method? 7. What are the selected students’ conceptions of science assessment obtained from the phenomenographic method? 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? 9. What types of selected students’ nested ecology can be detected in this study? 10. What is role of metacognitive awareness regarding science learning on the scientific epistemological beliefs, conceptions of learning science, and conceptions of science assessment?. 8.

(9) CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW. In this chapter, relevant literatures regarding this study were reviewed and discussed. This study used multidimensional views to investigate the nature of learning science. There are four major variables involved in this study: scientific epistemological beliefs, metacognitive awareness, conceptions of learning science, and conceptions of science assessment. In the first section of this chapter, relevant literatures regarding scientific epistemological beliefs were reviewed. Then, previous research about the learners’ metacognition was reviewed in the second section of this chapter. The third section of this chapter introduced the phenomenographic method. Then, relevant literatures about conceptions of learning were reviewed in the fourth section. And, literatures about conceptions of assessment were discussed in the fifth section. Finally, by summarizing relevant literatures, a theoretical model for this study was proposed.. II.1. The Scientific Epistemological Beliefs. II.1.1. The domain-specific personal epistemology [T]he territory of epistemology (the nature and justification of human knowledge) has long been of interest to philosophers, but the interest of psychologists is relatively new (Hofer, 2001, p. 355). The study of personal epistemology began with the work of Perry, whose research team interviewed Havard undergraduates over their four-year college 9.

(10) experience. In his study, he identified students’ personal epistemology with four perspectives on a development trend: dualistic, multiplism, relativism, and commitment within relativism. There were several studies focused on students’ epistemological beliefs and pursued varying definitions and conceptual frameworks (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997). In general, the development model (e.g., the Perry scheme) and the independent-beliefs system model (e.g., Shommer, 1994) were widely embraced in this line of research. Hofer and Pintrich (1997) have reviewed the research which emphasized epistemology and integrated the development model and independent-beliefs model. They held the idea of epistemological thinking as theory-like and further proposed the “epistemological theories” to conceptualize personal epistemology. From this perspective, they concluded two core aspects and four dimensions of personal epistemology: the nature of knowing (consisting of certainty of knowledge and simplicity of knowledge) and the nature of knowledge (consisting of source of knowledge and justification for knowing). The descriptions of this two core aspects with dimensions are presented in Table 2.1. Nowadays, studies concerning personal epistemology often utilize the epistemological theories model proposed by Hofer and Pintrich (1997).. 10.

(11) Table 2.1. The descriptions of the dimensions of epistemological theories Core aspect. Dimension. The nature of knowledge. Certainty of knowledge. Absolute truth exists with certainty versus knowledge is tentative and evolving. Simplicity of knowledge. Knowledge as discrete, concrete, knowable facts versus knowledge as relative, contingent, and contextual. Source of knowledge. Knowledge originates outside the self and resides in external authority versus Knowledge derived from reasoning. Justification of knowing. Reliance on authority, acceptance of facts, received or mastery versus Evaluate knowledge claims, including the use of evidence, the use they make of authority and expertise, and their evaluation of experts. The nature of knowing. The description. Whether the personal epistemology domain-specific or not is still an important question today. Hofer and Pintrich (1997) have attempted to respond to this issue: [U]sing the idea of epistemological thinking as theory-like, it is possible that both generalized beliefs about knowledge and those specific to domain exist in an interconnected network of ideas. However, much more research is needed to explore the nature of this network and to determine which of the dimensions of epistemological theories are domain-specific and which are domain-general (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997, p. 126). Accordingly, some dimensions of personal epistemology may be domain specific. In other words, when discussing the domain-specific personal epistemology by the 11.

(12) four dimensions of epistemological theories, some dimensions may be undetectable. That is, the domain-specific epistemological beliefs may be partially correct with domain-general beliefs as shown in Figure 2.1. This suggestion may be evidenced by the following example.. Domain-general epistemological beliefs Domain-specific epistemological beliefs. Figure 2.1. The relation between domain-general and domain-specific epistemological beliefs. Elder (2002) has reviewed the various studies which focused on students’ beliefs about the nature of knowledge in science, and concluded four central constructs to investigate students’ epistemological beliefs in science: (a) the changing nature of science, (b) role of experiments in science, (c) coherence of scientific knowledge, (d) sources of scientific knowledge. Initially, Elder’s four constructs could be referred to the four dimensions of Hofer and Pintrich (1997), shown in Table 2.2. As shown in Table 2.2, the changing nature of science, which investigates the understanding the tentativeness of scientific knowledge, could be responded to certainty dimension. The role of experiments in science, which investigates the understanding of the interplay 12.

(13) between theory and evidence, could be referred to justification dimension and/or source dimension. The coherence of scientific knowledge, which investigates the beliefs about whether the science knowledge is a coherent system of concepts that is derived from thinking and reasoning, seem to be similar to the source dimension and/or simplicity dimension. And the source of scientific knowledge could be related to the source dimension.. Table 2.2. The descriptions of Elder’s (2002) constructs Elder’s (2002) four constructs. Descriptions. Corresponding dimension(s) by Hofer and Pintrich (1997). The changing nature of science. The understanding of the changeability of scientific knowledge. Certainty of knowledge. The role of experiments The understanding of the in science interplay between theory and evidence. Source of knowledge and/ or Justification of knowing. The coherence of scientific knowledge. The beliefs about whether the science knowledge is a coherent system of concepts that is derived from thinking and reasoning. Source of knowledge and/or Simplicity dimension. The sources of scientific knowledge. The beliefs about whether science knowledge is hand down by authority. Source of knowledge. However, when developing an instrument based on above four constructs, Elder (2002) found that three factors retained in the study (i.e., changing nature of science knowledge, the role of experiment in science and source of science knowledge, and the sources of science knowledge). The retaining items of first factor measured 13.

(14) whether knowledge in science changes and develops over time and should be related the certainty dimension of Hofer and Pintrich (1997). The retaining items of second factor investigated whether science knowledge derives from reasoning and should be referred to source dimension. The retaining items of final factor measured whether science knowledge comes from authority and also could be related to source dimension. At first, Elder’s four constructs are assumed to respond to Hofer and Pintrich’s (1997) four dimensions. However, Elder’s empirical study focused on students’ scientific epistemological belief, only two dimensions of epistemological theories were detected. Additional evidence of the relationship between domain-specific and domain-general epistemology (shown in Figure 2.1) comes from Muis, Bendixon, and Haerle’s (2006) review. In their review of 19 empirical studies investigating the question of whether domain-specific exists in epistemological beliefs, they also argued that the domain-specific epistemological beliefs may loosely correlate with an overall set of domain-general beliefs. In conclusion, the domain-specific epistemological beliefs (e.g., scientific epistemological beliefs) may be a part of domain-general beliefs (i.e., personal epistemology), as shown in Figure 2.1.. 14.

(15) II.1.2. The views of the nature of science and the scientific epistemological beliefs How do students view science? Students’ understanding about nature of science (NOS) is one of the main goals in science education (American Association for the Advancement of science, 1990; Millar & Osborne, 1998; National Research Council, 1996). Numerous studies refer to NOS as the way of knowing, the development of scientific knowledge, or the epistemology of science. In general, the NOS research deals with the issue about the assumptions, values, and conceptual inventions in science, consensus making in scientific communities, and characteristics of scientific knowledge (Ryan & Aikenhead, 1992). There are numerous studies have attempted to find the characteristics of the nature of science. McComas, Clough, and Almazroa (1998) have summarized the consensus views of NOS as: scientific knowledge has a tentative character; scientific knowledge relies heavily, but not entirely, on observation, experimental evidence, rational arguments, and skepticism; there is no one way to do science; science is an attempt to explain natural phenomena; laws and theories serve different roles in science; people from all cultures contribute to science; new knowledge must be reported clearly and openly; scientists require accurate record-keeping, peer review, and replicability; observations are theory-laden; scientists are creative; the history of science reveals both an evolutionary and a revolutionary character; science is part of social and cultural traditions; science and technology impact each other; and scientific ideas are affected by their social and historical background. Lederman et al. (2002) used the philosophical, historical, and sociological perspectives to advance a set of seven aspects of the NOS, including science knowledge is tentative; science knowledge is partially subjective and theory-laden; science knowledge relies on an empirical basis; science knowledge is creative; science knowledge is socially and culturally embedded; science knowledge is based 15.

(16) observations and inferences; and theories and laws are different forms of science knowledge. Tsai and Liu (2005) suggested five characteristics of scientific knowledge and its development, including the role of social negotiation in science community, the invented and creative nature of science, the theory-laden quality of scientific exploration, the cultural impacts on science, and the changing and tentative feature of scientific knowledge. Moreover, above characteristics of NOS found in different studies can be integrated into the five dimensions of the nature of science proposed in Ziman (1984) (as shown in Table 2.3). The five dimensions consist of the following (c.f. Ibanez-Orcajo & Martinez-Aznar, 2007): (a) Philosophical dimension: Science knowledge appears in the context of a certain idea of what nature is. (b) Epistemological dimension: Science derives its knowledge by following a methodology based on rational thought, in the validation of hypothesis by designing experiments that corroborate or disprove predictions. (c) Historical dimension: Science discoveries are published and compiled. The science and history of the human race are interrelated. Scientific discoveries have impacted on the development of societies and, at the same time, many religious, economic, political, and social perspectives have had their impact on scientific development in history. (d) Sociological dimension: Science is not an activity that is isolated from society and its governing institutions. Scientists form part of a scientific community with specific norms and rules. These are norms that refer to questions such as what constitutes correct forms of investigation, how scientists working in the same field should communicate among themselves, how discoveries should be published, how to cite other scientists and their 16.

(17) discoveries. (e) Psychological dimension: A researcher is a person with certain interests, abilities, resources. A researcher’s work is enriched by the innovation, the curiosity, the creativity, and the serendipity of scientific discovery, but the process of drawing conclusions about some new fact or date can be impaired by confusion, a narrow outlook, or current prejudices.. 17.

(18) Table 2.3. The varied characteristics of NOS in Ziman’s (1984) dimension Ziman (1984) dimension Philosophical dimension. The characteristics of NOS proposed by studies McComas et al. (1998). Lederman et al. (2002). Tsai and Liu (2005). Scientific knowledge has a tentative character. Science knowledge is tentative. The changing and tentative feature of scientific knowledge. Science is an attempt to explain natural phenomena Epistemological dimension. Laws and theories serve different roles in science. Theories and laws are different forms of science knowledge Science knowledge relies on an empirical basis. Scientific knowledge relies heavily, but not entirely, on observation, experimental evidence, rational arguments, and skepticism There is no one way to do science. Science knowledge is based observations and inferences Science knowledge is partially subjective and theory-laden. Observations are theory-laden. 18. The theory-laden quality of scientific exploration.

(19) (Continued) Historical dimension. Science is part of social and cultural traditions Scientific ideas are affected by their social and historical background The history of science reveals both an evolutionary and a revolutionary. Science knowledge is socially and culturally embedded. Sociological dimension. People from all cultures contribute to science Science and technology impact each other New knowledge must be reported clearly and openly Scientists require accurate record-keeping, peer review, and replicability. Psychological dimension. Scientists are creative. The role of social negotiation in science community. Science knowledge is creative. 19. The cultural impacts on science. The invented and creative nature.

(20) As shown in Table 2.3, all characters of NOS proposed by McComas et al. (1998) and Tsai and Liu (2005) can be allocated into Ziman’s (1984) five dimensions. And, the characters of NOS suggested by Lederman et al. (2002) can be assigned to four Ziman’s dimensions except sociological dimension. In sum, according to Table 2.3, the issues of NOS may be related to the philosophy of science, epistemology of science knowledge, history of science, sociology of science community, and the psychology of scientists. In general, people’s personal epistemology, to some extent, may represent their philosophical views or psychological perspectives. As aforementioned, the scientific epistemological beliefs can be seen as one part of personal epistemology (as shown in Figure 2.1). Thus, the scientific epistemological beliefs may also concern about the philosophical, epistemological, and psychological issues. According to Table 2.3, three dimensions of the beliefs about NOS (i.e., philosophical, epistemological, and psychological dimension) seem to consider the personal epistemology in a specific domain (i.e., science). That is, some parts of NOS can be conceptualized as scientific epistemological beliefs. The major differences between NOS and scientific epistemological beliefs may be the fact that the NOS additionally reflect people’s historical views and sociological perspectives. In addition, as shown in Figure 2.1, the scientific epistemological beliefs can be seen as one part of personal epistemological beliefs. As the result, the relations among personal epistemological beliefs, scientific epistemological beliefs, and NOS seem to be clarified, shown in Figure 2.2.. 20.

(21) The views of the nature of science. Scientific epistemological beliefs. Personal epistemological beliefs. Figure 2.2. The interrelations among personal epistemological beliefs, scientific epistemological beliefs, and NOS. II.1.3. The role of scientific epistemological beliefs on the nature of students’ science learning Educators have highlighted that epistemological beliefs affect the degree to which individuals are involved in and in control of their learning and their persistence in difficult situations. Hofer (2001) has linked the personal epistemological beliefs to learning through reviewing related literature and suggested three roles of personal epistemological beliefs on learning process. Firstly, personal epistemological beliefs is the outcome variable, often seen as an indicative of broadly intellectual development. Second, personal epistemological beliefs seem to affect or mediate academic performance. Third, personal epistemological beliefs, which have been activated in the process at a metacognitive or meta-knowing level, may influence learning and knowledge construction. The epistemological beliefs could also be viewed as an important factor influencing a higher-order process that guides learning, 21.

(22) conceptual change and cognitive operations (Hofer & Pintrich 1997). Thus, three roles of personal epistemological belief on students’ learning seem to be highlighted. That is, personal epistemology could act as the outcome, mediator, and predictor on learning process. Recently, the possible influences of students’ scientific epistemological beliefs on science learning have received much attention among science education researchers in particular. Researchers have evidenced that students’ scientific epistemological beliefs may shape their metalearning beliefs and then influence their learning orientations (e.g., Roth & Roychoudhury, 1994; Songer & Linn, 1991; Tsai, 1998). Moreover, several studies also revealed that the views of NOS have influence on students’ science learning (e.g., Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Lederman, 1998; Duschl, 1990). Why does the present study use the scientific epistemological beliefs to investigate the nature of students’ science learning, but not to use NOS? In last two decades, science education researchers have done much research about students’ views toward the nature of science (Lederman, 1992, 2007). In recent years, increasing researchers have investigated the students’ scientific epistemological beliefs and epistemological beliefs in the domain of science (Conley et al., 2004; Tsai & Liu, 2005). The studies about NOS and scientific epistemological beliefs, clearly, share some commonalities. For example, both of them concern about the certainty and developmental process of scientific knowledge. However, scientific epistemological beliefs focus more on the justification (such as the social role in science) and the process of knowing science. The investigation of students’ scientific epistemological beliefs may get a better understanding toward students’ views about school science and their views about the ways of acquiring and validating scientific knowledge. Moreover, the difference between the study of NOS and of (scientific) epistemological beliefs may stem from the original purpose. The understanding of 22.

(23) NOS is often defended as a critical component of scientific literacy and as an important instructional outcome for science educators (Lederman, 2007, p. 832.). However, the understanding (scientific) epistemological belief is essential to the educational and developmental psychologists; the beliefs about knowledge and knowing have a powerful influence on learning, and deepening our understanding of this process can further realize students’ learning (Hofer, 2001, p. 13). The purpose of this study is to understand students’ nature of science learning which may consists of various psychological constructs. In sum, the scientific epistemological beliefs seem more appropriate than the NOS in present study. Thus, to understand the nature of students’ learning, the students’ scientific epistemological beliefs were seen as a critical variable in this study.. II.2. The Metacognitive Awareness. II.2.1. The definition of metacognitive awareness Researchers have been studying metacognition for over thirty years. Flavell (1979) has defined the metacognition as “knowledge and cognition about cognitive phenomenon” (p. 906). Metacognition involves higher-order thinking to actively control the cognitive process engaged in thinking and acquiring knowledge. It is usually related to learners’ knowledge, awareness, and control processes by which they learn (Garner & Alexander, 1989). The terms “metalearning,” “deuteron-learning,” and “mindfulness” are terms also used in the literature referring to metacognition (Georghiades, 2004). Recently, several studies have used the term “metacognitive awareness” to measure students’ metacognition (e.g., Bendixen & Hartley, 2003; Guterman, 2003; Schraw, 1998; Vandergrift et al., 2006). As Schraw (1998) stated that, the promotion of metacognition begins with building learners’ 23.

(24) awareness that metacognition exists. This is done to assist in exploring to what extent students’ awareness of metacognition influence or mediate their learning. Thus, in this study, it is proper to use the term “metacognitive awareness” to represent students’ awareness regarding metacognition for the process of science learning. In general, researchers have agreed that the metacognition includes two main components referred to as knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition (Schraw & Moshman, 1995). The detailed descriptions of those two components of metacognition are summarized in Table 2.4. Moreover, Kuhn (1999) suggested the critical thinking is related to metacognition. The definition of critical thinking involves reflection on what is known and how that knowledge is justified (Kuhn, 1999, p. 23). Lee and Tsai (2005) suggested that the critical judgment is necessary for students to evaluate varied information and can be viewed as one component of metacognition. Moreover, Georghiades (2004) asserted that the reflective thinking is one important feature of metacognition. The definition of reflective thinking is similar to the knowledge of cognition described in Table 2.4. Nevertheless, this study prefers to label the reflective thinking as a metacognitive skill. Hacker (1998) has divided metacognition into three types, including metacognitive knowledge (i.e., what one knows about knowledge); metacognitive experience (i.e., one’s current cognitive or affective state); and metacognitive skill. The first two types of metacognition can refer to knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition, respectively. And, the metacognitive skill is another component of metacognition which refers to thinking what one is doing (Hacker, 1998).. 24.

(25) Table 2.4. The description of components and subcomponents for metacognition Component. Subcomponents. Knowledge Declarative knowledge of cognition Procedural knowledge Conditional knowledge. Regulation Planning of cognition Monitoring Evaluation. Description Knowledge about ourselves as learners and what factors influence our performance Knowledge about strategies and other procedures Knowledge of why and when to use a particular strategy Selection of appropriate strategies and the allocation of resources The self-testing skills necessary to control learning Appraising the products and regulatory process of one’s learning. II.2.2. The methods to investigate the metacognitive awareness Metacognition can be assessed in a number of ways. Garner and Alexander (1989) proposed three qualitatively ways of finding out what children know about their cognitions, including asking them, having them think aloud while performing a task, and ask them to teach a younger child a good solution for a problem. However, those methods need to be conducted in a specific task. Downing et al. (2007) suggested that one of the most popular methods to assess metacognition currently in widespread use in school, colleges and universities worldwide is through the use of questionnaires which require students to report their perceptions about their thinking and problem-solving skills and strategies. Through the use of questionnaires, the researchers can further explore the relations between metacognition and other variables in learning. In recent decade, several questionnaires were developed to measure students’ metacognition. For example, the instrument developed by Sperling et al. (2002) 25.

(26) measured children’s knowledge and regulation of cognition; the Reflections on Learning Inventory (RoLI) developed by Meyer (2000) measured learners’ metalearning; the Learning And Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI) used in Downing et al. (2007) study with undergraduate sample; the Metacognitive Orientation Learning Environment Scale – Science (MOLES-S) developed by (Thomas, 2003, 2004, 2006) measured high school students’ metacognitive orientation; The metacognitive awareness listing questionnaire developed by Vandergrift et al. (2006) investigated language learners’ metacognitive awareness. However, the Sperling et al. (2002) questionnaire was designed for elementary students. The Vandergrift et al. (2006) questionnaire was measured in language learning. The LASSI (Downing et al., 2007) have a total of 80 items with ten scales, and the RoLI (Meyer, 2000) consists of 75 items with 15 subscales; they are too demanding for tenth graders to complete. Since the MOLES-S aims to evaluate students’ perceptions in relation to a psychological dimension of the science classroom learning environment reflecting their metacognition, its scales are mainly emphasizing on what happen in the classroom environment but not on students’ self-awareness regarding their own learning. Therefore, this study based on the above questionnaires to develop a new questionnaire for measuring students’ metacognitive awareness which constitutes of four components: self-regulation, critical judgment, metastrategy, and reflection.. II.2.3. The role of metacognitive awareness on the nature of students’ science learning Georghiades (2004) asserted that, in the case of science education, research in metacognition is practically at its infancy (p. 378). In a special issue of Research in Science Education (2006, vol. 36, no. 1-2), two kinds of studies were discussed: one is the studies focusing on the development of metacognition, and the other is the 26.

(27) research emphasizing on the teacher’ metacognition. Moreover, the special issue of Innovations in Education and Teaching International (2004, vol. 41, no. 4) discussed the concept of metalearning and its importance in helping students to be effective and successful of higher education learning. Thus, the important role of metacognition on students’ performance of (science) learning has been highlighted in recent years. However, the goals of science education not only stress on students’ learning performance (e.g., conceptual understanding), but also more important on their understanding on the nature of science and to be a lifelong learner. In the past, the epistemological understanding has been considered as meta-metacognition (Kitchener, 1983). Hofer (2004) also referred epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process. To this end, to promote students’ thinking about the epistemological issues in science learning, their awareness of metacognition can be considered as a mediator in the process of thinking. For example, when asking a student “what is science,” he/she may firstly recall the information from his own science-related experience and then think about what it is. Thus, students with higher-level metacognitive awareness may possibly process meta-meta-thinking. For example, if student constantly monitor his/her own knowing (e.g., do I understand this?), then he/she may be further aware the question about the nature of knowing (e.g., how do I know this?). In this situation, student with higher-level metacognitive awareness may more easily develop sophisticated epistemological beliefs.. 27.

(28) II.3. The Phenomenographic Study. II.3.1. The phenomenography Phenomenography is best known as an empirical research approach for investigating variation in conceptions of different educational phenomena, including learning, teaching, and particular conceptions such as price in economics and motion in physics. Phenomenography as a research approach originated at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden. Marton (1981) has conducted phenomenographic research to investigate students’ conceptions of learning. Phenomenographic research, like phenomenological research, is interested in studying how reality appears to people, rather than the objective nature of reality. Richardson (1999) also stated that phenomenography involves the study of individuals’ conceptualizations of reality and phenomenology stresses the reality as it appears individuals. The difference between the two research traditions is that phenomenography is a specialized method for describing the different ways in which people conceptual the world around them (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003, p. 483). According to Marton (1981), phenomenology was a philosophical method that was “directed towards the prereflective level of consciousness.” In other words, its aim “is to describe either what the world would look like without having learned to see it or how the taken-for granted world of our everyday existence is ‘lived’” (p. 181). Elsewhere, he commented that phenomenological investigation was concerned with “immediate experience,” rather than with conceptual thought (Marton, 1986). Marton (1981) emphasized that, in contrast, phenomenographic research dealt with “both the conceptual and the experiential, as well with what is thought of as that which is lived” (p. 181). In sum, phenomenographic research is primarily based upon a second-order perspective to study and describe variation in ways of seeing, experiencing, 28.

(29) conceptualizing and understanding some phenomenon (Linder, & Marshall, 2003). And, the method combines interview, protocol, and discourse analysis (Richardson, 1999).. II.3.2. The conception identified through phenomenographic study During the last 25 years research on student learning in higher education has benefited immensely from a distinctive qualitative approach known as “phenomenography” mentioned above. This line of research has found several “conceptions,” through phenomenographic method, to represent the particular educational context, including conceptions of learning (e.g., Marton, 1981, 1986; Tsai, 2004a), conceptions of teaching (e.g., Marton, 1981; Pratt, 1992), approaches to learning (e.g., Marton & Saljo, 1976). The “conception” can be further defined as the fundamental way a person understands a phenomenon or an object in the surrounding world (Eklund-Myrskog, 1998). It is not visible but can be seen as a qualitative relationship between an individual and some phenomena (Johansson, Marton & Svensson, 1985, p. 235). Richardson (1999) had reviewed this line of research and summarized the key findings of phenomenographic research as follows (p. 57): (a) When different students engage with an academic text, their attempts to recall the general idea of the text define a hierarchy of different learning outcomes. (b) Students reveal qualitatively different approaches to learning that depend upon their perceptions of the learning task and their conceptions of themselves as learners. (c) Different students represent a number of different conceptions of learning that appear to reveal a developmental hierarchy partially mediated by participation in higher education. 29.

(30) As a result, the conceptions identified through phenomenographic method are qualitatively different and in developmental hierarchy. Moreover, students’ conceptions of educational processes are important because there is evidence that those conceptions have an impact on their educational experiences and learning (e.g., Chin & Brown, 2000; Lee, Johanson, & Tsai, 2008; Dart et al., 2000; Purdie et al., 1996; Schommer, 1998; Sinatra, 2001). And, these conceptions of educational process may provide further insight for us to investigate the students’ learning.. 30.

(31) II.4. The Conceptions of Learning Science. II.4.1. The conceptions of learning A conception of learning is a coherent system of knowledge and beliefs about learning and related phenomena (Vermunt & Vermetten, 2004). Saljo (1979) is widely acknowledged as the pioneering work in the research on conceptions of learning. Based on a complete and detailed analysis of students’ responses to their views about learning, Saljo (1979) distinguished five qualitatively different conceptions of learning. He described these conceptions as (a) increase of knowledge, (b) memorizing, (c) acquisitions of facts or procedures that can be retained and/or utilized in practice, (d) abstraction of meaning, and (e) an interpretative process aimed at the understanding of reality. The method Saljo adopted in this line of research, later referred to as “the phenomenographic method” (Marton, 1981, 1986), combines interviews and protocol and discourse analysis to identify students’ qualitatively different and hierarchically related conceptions of learning (Richardson, 1999). Following Saljo’s study, many researchers have investigated the conceptions of learning held by different groups of students in a variety of educational contexts. Table 2.5 presents a brief review of the categorizations of students’ conceptions of learning. As shown in Table 2.5, over two decades of research has led to the generally accepted belief in the existence of hierarchical trends of conceptions of learning in the sense that conceptions at the upper levels reflect a constructivist view of learning as opposed to ones in which learning is reproduced (e.g., memorization) (Burnett et al, 2004; Marton et al, 1993; Purdie et al, 1996; Puride & Hattie, 2002; Saljo, 1979; Tsai, 2004a). Marton et al. (1993) proposed that the constructivist-reproductive distinction was largely related to the role of meaning in learning. In addition, Tsai (2004) implied that 31.

(32) the constructivist view proposed by contemporary educators is consistent with the qualitative conception of learning. Accordingly, the constructivist views of learning as applied in this paper are similar to the qualitative perspectives proposed by Biggs (1994), who suggested that learning is concerned with understanding and meaning by relating or connecting new materials to prior knowledge. Tsai (2004) also maintained that this view of learning involves qualitative re-organizations of existing knowledge structures and reflects a desire to understand, explain and relate separate phenomena and procedures. The reproductive view can also be said to be related to the quantitative outlook employed by researchers (e.g., Biggs, 1994; Tsai, 2004a) who have implied that learning concerns acquisition and accumulation of knowledge. Marton et al. (1993) characterized six qualitatively different conceptions of learning (as shown in Table 2.5) to propose that the first three conceptions have been described as constituting a constructivist conception of learning, whereas the latter three have been seen to represent a reproductive view. Tsai (2004) further identified seven conceptions of learning in different domains and countries, as shown in table 2.5. Tsai (2004) suggested that the first three conceptions can be related to constructivist views of learning and the latter four conceptions can be related to the reproductive view. Moreover, researchers have proposed that students who hold conceptions of learning at the upper end of the trend achieve ‘better’ learning outcomes (e.g., Marton et al., 1993; Purdie et al., 1996; Puride & Hattie, 2002; van Rossum & Schenk, 1984).. 32.

(33) Table 2.5. Conceptions of learning proposed by educators Saljo, 1979. Range of conceptions Constructivist. Marton et al., 1993. Marshall et al., Tsai, 2004a 1999 (particularly toward the subject of science). An interpretative Changing as a A change as a Seeing in a new way process aimed at person person the understanding of reality Abstraction of meaning. Seeing Seeing in a something in a new way different way. Understanding. Acquisitions of Understanding Making sense Applying facts, procedures of physical which can be concepts and retained and/or procedures utilized in practice. Reproductive. Memorizing. Applying. Applying Increases of equations and knowledge procedures. Increase of knowledge. Memorizing. Memorizing. Increasing one’s knowledge. Calculating and practicing tutorial problems Preparing for test. Memorizing (Cited from Lee, Johanson, & Tsai, 2008, p. 193). 33.

(34) II.4.2. The conceptions of learning science Some researchers have proposed that conceptions of learning are domain dependent in the sense that students may have idiosyncratically differing concepts of learning regarding different domains (e.g., science versus history) (Buehl & Alexander, 2001; Hofer, 2000; Lonka et al., 1996; Tsai, 2006). Buehl and Alexander (2001) referred to these conceptions as domain-specific epistemological beliefs. Tsai (2004) further differentiated the domain-specific epistemological beliefs as academic domain-specific epistemological beliefs. Tsai (2004) suggested that the conceptions of learning should be viewed as academic (school) epistemological beliefs that represented student beliefs about school knowledge and learning. However, he contends that these conceptions or beliefs are probably related to domain-specific epistemologies. In other words, students may have quite different views about the nature of science and the nature of history; and these perspectives guide them to different conceptions about learning science and learning history. For example, on the one hand, students may view scientific knowledge as tentative so they may view learning science as “seeing in a new way.” However, on the other hand, students may view historical knowledge as absolutely certain and, thereby, view learning history as “memorizing.” Hence, students’ views about the nature of knowledge domain still play an important role in their conceptions of learning toward the specific domain of knowledge. Tsai (2004) further revealed that some new elements concerning differing conceptions of learning might be found when a particular domain such as science is chosen for deeper exploration. In his examination of Taiwanese high school students’ conceptions of the learning of the subject of science, Tsai (2004) categorized seven conceptions (e.g., memorization, testing, calculate and practice, increase one’s knowledge, applying, understanding, and seeing in new way) (as shown in Table 2.5) 34.

(35) and found that at least one category of conceptions of learning (i.e., calculating and practicing tutorial problems) was unique to science, as opposed to domain general learning. The category of “calculating and practicing tutorial problems” reveals much about students’ specific views about the nature of science (Tsai, 2004a). In other words, students holding this conception may perceive of science as “quantitative” and involving many calculations and problem-solving practices. In sum, students’ conceptions of learning science should be viewed as academic domain-specific epistemology that might be influenced by their views of the nature of science (Tsai, 2004a). Accordingly, the studies in conceptions of learning science may offer important insights into students’ science learning.. II.4.3. The socio-cultural perspective of the conceptions of learning As mentioned above, the conceptions of learning represent students’ learning experience and their beliefs about learning. Accordingly, the socio-cultural background may have influence on their learning experience. Research on conceptions of learning has also stressed the influence of culture. Purdie et al. (1996) showed that Australian and Japanese learners had quite different conceptions of learning. Li (2001, 2003) also revealed qualitatively different conceptions of learning between U.S and Chinese among college students. She employed the prototype method to find that Chinese conceptions of learning emphasized achievement standards of breadth and depth of knowledge, the unity of knowing and morality, and contributions to society. Marton et al. (1997) also highlighted the importance of studying Asian (particularly Chinese-related) students’ conceptions of learning, as there were seemingly paradoxical results between two stereotypes of ‘the brainy Asian’ and ‘the Asian learner as a rote learner’. In other words, referring to Table 2.5, ‘the brainy Asian’ may tend to hold a 35.

(36) constructivist view of learning (e.g., understanding) and ‘the Asian learner as a rote learner’ seems to employ a reproductive conception of learning (e.g., memorizing). Tsai (2004) used the phenomenographic method to explore Taiwanese high school students’ conceptions of learning (particularly toward the subject of science) and revealed that students’ conceptions of learning were influenced by culture, such as “preparing for test.” Tsai (2004) implied that this category may be caused by culture, shaping some special educational environments in Taiwan.. II.4.4. The multiple conceptions of learning Several studies in this line of research have suggested that students might have mixed views across different conceptions of learning (e.g., Lee, Johanson, & Tsai, 2008; Lin & Tsai, 2008; Marton, Dall’Alba, & Beaty, 1993). Tsai (2004) also suggested that some students may express mixed conceptions of learning science at the same time. For example, students may view learning science as both “preparing for test” and “calculate and practice.” Moreover, Dahlin and Watkins (2000) suggested that Asian learners frequently combine the processes of memorizing and understanding. Thus, those students’ may simultaneously have conceptions of learning as “memorizing” and “understanding.” Through quantitative methods for investigating students’ conceptions of learning science, students holding both constructivist and reproductive conceptions of learning science were also found (Lee, Johanson, & Tsai, 2008). Lin and Tsai (2008) also found that Taiwanese undergraduate students majoring in management held mixed conceptions of learning management (e.g., students viewed learning management both as applying and as gaining higher status). In tradition, the phenomenographic researchers have identified each student with the most significant conception of learning. That is, they usually use the dominant or 36.

(37) fundamental conception to show each student’s interview data, but omit the other minor conceptions (Koballa et al., 2000; Marton et al., 1993; Tsai, 2004a). In contrast, Lin and Tsai (2008) have suggested that dominant and minor conceptions that coexist simultaneously may provide potential indications toward the conceptions of learning.. II.4.5. The features of conceptions of learning science Researchers have attempted to define the features of conceptions of learning. For example, Reid et al. (2005) maintained that students’ conceptions of learning can be viewed from the following three aspects: intention, approach, and outcome. That is, students’ conceptions of learning may represent their intention to learning (e.g., the conception of learning as testing implies that student’s learning is to prepare for test), their approach to learning (e.g., the conception as memorizing implies that student views learning as frequently memorize the school knowledge), and their learning outcome (e.g., the conception as applying implies that student views learning as applying knowledge to outside school). Vermunt (1996) has used phenomenographic methods to investigate students’ learning through metacognitive, cognitive, and affective perspectives. The affective perspective, like the intention aspect proposed by Reid et al. (2005), concerned students motivational orientations. Tsai (2004) has proposed the internal-external motivational feature to explain the students’ conceptions of learning science. However, those above perspectives could not well explain the hierarchical feature of conception of learning. Moreover, referring to the self-regulated learning theory, learning consists of three main components: cognition, metacognition, and motivation (Schraw, Crippen, & Hartley, 2006). Schraw, Crippen and Hartley (2006) further suggested one subcomponent of motivation is epistemological beliefs. As aforementioned, students’ conceptions of educational processes such as learning, to a certain extent, represent 37.

(38) their beliefs about what constitutes learning and what is knowing. The conceptions of learning may reflect themselves as the lifelong learners. Thus, such conceptions may identify as the epistemological perspective. Moreover, on one hand, the conceptions may represent students meta-processing when learning. Researchers also suggested that beliefs about learning are important components of metacognitive processing; they may underlie students’ use of self-regulated strategies (e.g., Purdie et al., 1996). On the other hand, the conceptions may symbolize their cognitive activity. Hence, in sum, students’ conceptions of educational processes may hierarchically reflect the epistemological, metacognitive, or cognitive perspectives. Accordingly, this study use the seven conceptions of learning science (i.e., memorizing, testing, calculate and practice, increase of knowledge, applying, understanding, and seeing in new way) identified by Tsai (2004) to discuss with the epistemological, metacognitive, or cognitive perspectives. Tsai (2004) has suggested that the conceptions as “memorizing,” “testing,” “calculate and practice,” “increase of knowledge” probably emphasize more on how much is learned and imply the process of accumulation of information in memory. These four conceptions can be categorized as the cognitive perspective which emphasizes the acquisition of knowledge. And, the conceptions as “memorizing” and “calculate and practice” may also reveal students’ learning approaches. While the “testing” and “increase of knowledge” may imply students’ intentions to learning science and belong to the affective perspective, these two conceptions may also be classified as the learning outcome. The Table 2.6 summarizes the above suggestions with the taxonomies proposed by Vermunt (1996), Reid et al. (2005), and this study, respectively. Moreover, the conceptions “applying,” “understanding,” and “seeing in new way” reveal students’ intentions to integrate and refine scientific knowledge and then extend it to other situations (Tsai, 2004a, p. 1744), and also represent their outcomes 38.

(39) of learning science. Accordingly, the above three conceptions focusing on how to apply knowledge can be referred to the Vermunt’s (1996) metacognitive perspective. Furthermore, the conception “seeing in new way” may also imply the learning outcome, shaping new philosophy and worldviews. That is, this conception seems to reveal the epistemological perspective. It should be noted that although the relations between students’ conceptions of learning and their epistemological beliefs have been examined by some studies (Buehl et al., 2002; Chan & Elliott, 2004; Duell & Schommer, 2001; Hofer, 2000), the relations between learners’ conceptions of learning and their metacognition, except for Martinez-Fernandez (2007), are still dearth in this line of research. In sum, based on the discussion in this section, the investigations about the relations among students’ scientific epistemological beliefs, metacognitive awareness and their conceptions of learning science may be necessary.. Table 2.6. The possible features of conceptions of learning science Conceptions of learning science (Tsai, 2004a). Vermunt (1996) three perspectives. Reid et al. (2005): three aspects of learning. This study: three-level perspective. Memorizing Testing Calculate and practice Increase of knowledge Apply Understanding Seeing in a new way. Cognitive Cognitive/Affective Cognitive Cognitive/Affective Metacognitive/Affective Metacognitive/Affective Metacognitive/Affective. Approach Outcome/Intention Approach Outcome/Intention Outcome/Intention Outcome/Intention Outcome/Intention. Cognitive Cognitive Cognitive Cognitive Metacognitive Metacognitive Epistemological. 39.

(40) II.5. The Conceptions of Science Assessment. II.5.1. The classroom assessment of science learning Assessment is an umbrella term. In general, assessment is defined as “any act of interpreting information about student performance, collected through any of a multitude of means (Brown, 2004).” The traditional assessment is heavily influenced by old paradigms, such as the behaviourist learning theory, the objective epistemology and standardized testing (Shepard, 2000). In the last two decades, shifts toward a constructivist learning paradigm have changed the nature of assessment in education. As Dochy and McDowell (1997) suggested, the most fundamental change in the view of assessment is represented by the notion of “assessment as a tool for learning.” Classroom assessment of science learning is taken as the assessment done by the science teacher in the classroom, for formative and summative purpose, for use by the teacher and student. Bell (2007) has done an integrated review of the literature in classroom assessment of learning and that in science education. He suggested the two main trends in assessment of science learning (and also assessment of learning in general) which can also echo with above suggestions. Firstly, assessment in education is moving from being viewed as using only traditional psychometric testing and psychological measurement, based on a single feature perspective of intelligence and true score theory, to educational assessment (Black, 2001). That is, from assessment to prove learning to assessment to improve learning. Secondly, educational assessment is being “perceived less as a technical matter of measurement and more a human act of judgment, albeit based on sound evidence” (Broadfoot, 2002). Hence, assessment in classrooms is viewed as a teacher and student practice embedded in political, historical, social, and cultural contexts (Broadfoot, 2002). 40.

(41) II.5.2. The related research on conceptions of assessment Assessment is a powerful and present force in students’ lives (Brown et al., in press). Several researchers also agreed that students’ views of assessment are of particular importance because assessment has a significant impact on the quality of learning (Entwistle & Entwistle, 1991; Marton & Saljo, 1997; Ramsden, 1997). Through the popularization of constructivism in science education over the past decades, as mentioned above, the role of assessment may also change. Given the diverse role of assessment, understanding what assessment means to teachers and students is likely to be of great importance. Research related to perspectives of assessment has focused on tertiary students and on how these perspectives affect study behaviors (e.g., Sambell & Mcdowell, 1998; Gijbels & Dochy, 2006), perceptions of assessment criteria, techniques or requirements (e.g., Brookhart & Bronowicz, 2003; Sambell, McDowell, & Brown, 1997), perceptions of the value and importance of assessment, or preferred mode of assessment (e.g., Brookhart & Bronowicz, 2003; Zeidner, 1992). In recent years, some studies have attempted to investigate the views of assessment held by teachers or students. The studies investigated the peoples’ views of assessment are listed in the Table 2.7. According to Table 2.7, this study summarizes five different aspects of conceptions of assessment through reviewing the results of the series of studies employed by Brown (Brown, 2004; Brown & Hirschfeld, 2007, 2008; Brown et al., in press): improvement, accountable, relevant, enjoyable, and certification. Thus, those conceptions seem to mainly represent the purpose of assessment. As aforementioned, phenomenography is best known as an empirical research approach for investigating variations in conceptions of different educational phenomena. Accordingly, it is necessary to conduct phenomenographic method to examine peoples’ conceptions of assessment. 41.

(42) However, only one study has employed phenomenographic method to explore teachers’ conceptions of assessment (Watkins, Dahlin, & Ekholm, 2005). For research in students’ conceptions of assessment, none of the studies have employed the phenomenographic method. Moreover, in the area of science education research, students’ conceptions of science assessment have not been investigated yet. Also, the interrelations between students’ conceptions of learning science and those of science assessment are not well developed. In a previous study, Lee, Johanson and Tsai (2008) have found that the conceptions of learning science as “testing” can significantly predict students’ approaches to learning science. Obviously, the students’ conceptions of science assessment may be interrelated to their conceptions of learning science, and to influence their learning approaches.. II.5.3. The socio-cultural impact on conceptions of assessment Several studies have suggested that socio-cultural backgrounds have significant influence on the assessment (e.g., Bell, 2007). Moreover, in Taiwan, the high-stakes examinations at both school and national level continue to place importance on evaluating students’ performance, especially in science-related fields. Lee, Johanson, and Tsai (2008) and Tsai (2004) suggested that Taiwanese high school students seem to view learning science as “testing.” That is, the major purpose to learn science for them is to get better scores in the high-stakes college entrance examinations. Consequently, exploring students’ conceptions of science assessment in this examination-oriented culture is meaningful.. 42.

(43) Table 2.7. The studies conducted the conceptions of assessment Studies. Subject. Research method. The conceptions of assessment proposed in study. Brown (2004). Teachers. Self-reported inventory developed through literature review. z z z z. Assessment is for the improvement of teaching and learning Assessment holds students accountable for their learning progress Assessment is irrelevant Assessment makes schools accountable. Brown and Hirschfeld (2007, 2008). Secondary school students. Self-reported inventory developed through literature review. z z z z. Assessment makes students accountable Assessment is irrelevant because it is bad or unfair Assessment improves the quality of learning Assessment in enjoyable. Brown, et al. (in press). Secondary school students. Self-reported inventory developed through literature review. z z z z. Assessment improves learning Assessment makes students accountable Assessment is negative and irrelevant Assessment is liked. Li and Hui (2007). College lecturers. Questionnaire developed through literature review. z z z z. Improvement of teaching and learning Certification of students’ learning Accountability of schools and teachers Treatment of assessment as irrelevant to the life and work of the teachers and students. 43.

(44) (Continued) Studies. Subject. Research method. The conceptions of assessment proposed in study. Watkins, Dahlin, and Ekholm (2005). University teachers. Phenomenographic method. z z z z. z. z. z z. 44. Teaching and assessment were seen externally related Teaching/assessment relation was seen as external, but awareness of backwash effect was focused on the content what is learnt. The awareness of backwash effects was focused on the higher order understandings. The awareness of backwash effect was focused on the content what is learnt, but teaching/assessment relation appeared to be simultaneously as external and internal. Teaching/assessment relation appeared to be simultaneously as external and internal, but awareness of the backwash effect included the abilities that students were expected to develop Students’ learning strategies were included in the backwash effect, and the grounds of partly external/partly internal categorization were of different kinds. Teaching/assessment relation was seen as completely internal. Teaching/assessment relation was seen as completely internal, and awareness of the backwash effect included specific references to students’ learning strategies, not only to the results of learning.

(45) (Continued) Studies. Subject. Research method. The conceptions of assessment proposed in study. Peterson and Irving (2008). Secondary school students. Interview. z z z z. 45. Assessment is for the improvement of student learning and may inform teaching Assessment does not make students accountable for their learning progress, but it does indicate their learning progress Assessment is irrelevant Assessment does not make school accountable, but it does hold teachers accountable for student learning.

(46) II.6. Theoretical Model. By summarizing of the literature review above, the nested ecology regarding science learning, involving the scientific epistemological beliefs, metacognitive awareness, conceptions of learning science, and conceptions of science assessment, was used to multidimensionally investigate the nature of students’ science learning. The theoretical model for nested ecology regarding science learning is presented in Figure 2.3. As shown in Figure 2.3, this study hypothesized the interrelationships among those four components as below: (1) The scientific epistemological beliefs are related to the conceptions of learning science. (2) The scientific epistemological beliefs are related to the conceptions of science assessment. (3) The conceptions of learning science are related to the conceptions of science assessment. (4) The metacognitive awareness plays as a mediator in the nested ecology; in which students with higher metacognitive awareness have mature scientific epistemological beliefs, conceptions of learning science, and conceptions of science assessment. Through answering the research questions raised in section I.4, the hypothetical nested ecology model will be verified. Thus, to realize the relation between the theoretical model and the research questions, this study placed each research question into Figure 2.3.. 46.

(47) Scientific Epistemological Beliefs Q1; Q5. Q4 Q4. Interrelate Q8. Metacognitive Awareness. Interrelate. Q8. Q2 Q4. Conceptions of Learning Science. Interrelate. Conceptions of Science Assessment. Q8 Q7. Q3; Q6. Q9: The solid line Q10: The dotted line. Note: Q#: research question number (quantitative part of study) Q#: research question number (qualitative part of study). Figure 2.3. The hypothetical nested ecology regarding science learning. 47.

(48) CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY. This chapter will first describe the general research design used in this study. And, the introduction about the subjects will be presented next. Finally, the data collection and data analysis will be presented.. III.1. General Research Design. Before verifying the nested ecology regarding science learning proposed in this study and examining the role of metacognitive awareness on scientific epistemological beliefs, conceptions of learning science, and conceptions of science assessment, the careful investigations about these variables were be conducted first. To this end, both quantitative and qualitative methods were utilized in this study. In general, this study consisted of four variables. Ideally, the usages of quantitative survey and interview for each variable were much better. However, as aforementioned, there is no suitable questionnaire for examining students’ metacognitive awareness. And, the issue about students’ conceptions of science assessment is initially examined in this study. Accordingly, this study developed a new questionnaire to examine students’ metacognitive awareness, and initially explored students’ conceptions of science assessment through qualitative method. In sum, Table 3.1 represents the data collection of each variable in this study. As shown in Table 3.1, both the scientific epistemological beliefs and conceptions of learning science were investigated through questionnaire and interview. The metacognitive awareness was examined by questionnaire. And, the conceptions of science 48.