According to the research questions suggested in chapter one, the results could be referred to the section in chapter V listed in parentheses after each research question.

CHAPTER IV

MAJOR FINDINGS

In order to facilitate presentation of the detailed results, presented in the following chapter (Chapter Five, Results and Interpretations), a summary of major findings is provided in this chapter.

According to the research questions suggested in chapter one, the results could be referred to the section in chapter V listed in parentheses after each research question.

This study contained two main research questions, general research question and specific research questions. The general research questions tried to explore the following questions. The parenthesis indicated the referred section in chapter.

1. According to the data gathered from a group of 6

graders, what are their learning outcomes across three learning units? (referred to section V.1)

This question discussed the development of these twelve subscales which derived from the flow map outcomes. By means of presentation of the relevant descriptive outcomes and graphic presentation, it might give a big picture about how these indicators develop after the formal instruction (referred to section V.1). This study revealed that students’ recalled concepts changed over different knowledge domains.

Besides, the richness was varied with instructional units (referred to section V.6).

As to the metacognitive regulation strategies, the subjects used the selecting strategy and long-term maintaining strategy in learning. As to the higher-rank strategies, updating and rerouting, they might change over instructional units. The further discussion about the effect of knowledge domain was presented in section V6.

2. According to the data gathered from a group of 6

graders, what is the relationship between interviews? (referred to section V.2)

This question investigated the relationships between these twelve indicators in

every interview. This indicated the relationships within the cognitive structures,

metacognitive regulation strategies, information processing strategies, and pupil metacogntion scale (PMCS). By means of the correlation analysis, this section revealed that the relationships between the flow map method and metacognition regulation strategies were significant. (referred to section V.2).

The finding, in general, revealed that the relationships between cognitive structure and metacognitive regulation strategies as well as information processing strategies were significant. It indicated that the flow map could provide more alternative functions, for example, the exploration of metacognition. Besides, the relationship between PMCS and metacognitive regulation strategies was significant;

therefore, it provided a strong underpinning for construction of the PMCS questionnaire. The PMCS could be a convenient tool in understanding the students’

metacognition, including metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation.

3. According to the data gathered from two different instructional modes, what are their learning outcomes from three learning units? (referred to section V.3)

As to this study, there are three variables were discussed. This study explored the effect of instructional modes, including the inquiry instructional mode and the traditional instructional mode (referred to section V.3). It revealed that the inquiry instructional mode could enhance the performance of cognitive structure, metacognitive regulation strategies and information processing strategies. The experimental group outperformed in the indicator richness. Besides, the experimental group could use the higher-rank strategies in learning, for example, updating, rerouting, conditional inferring and explaining. The finding also revealed that the higher-rank strategies might be changed over different knowledge domains.

Additionally, the experimental group showed a stable relationship between cognitive structure and metacognitive regulation strategies as well as the relationship between cognitive structure and information processing strategies. It also revealed a significant relationship between the higher-rank metacognitive regulation strategies (updating and rerouting) and the higher-rank information processing strategies (conditional inferring and explaining)

The comparison of different three instructional units revealed that the

experimental group performed better in the energy and eco-conservation unit. This unit was an integrated unit, including the biology and earth science. This unit introduced more abstract concept than the bicycle unit and rust-proof and decay-proof unit. In order to enhance the learning outcomes, the students had to rely on the higher-rank strategies including updating, rerouting, conditional inferring as well as explaining. According to this finding, it suggested that the inquiry instructional mode could enhance the application of such higher-rank strategies.

4. According to the data gathered from three different achiever groups, what are their learning outcomes? (referred to section V.4)

This study also explored the role of achievement in the development of scientific knowledge. According to students’ previous academic achievement, all sample students were categorized into three groups, including high achievers, middle achievers and low achievers. The one-way analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA) was conducted to answer this question (referred to section V.4)

It revealed that the high achievers could outperform in the indicators of richness, updating, rerouting, conditional inferring and explaining. The middle achievers mainly depended on the basic metacognitive regulation strategies, including selecting strategy and long-term maintaining strategy. The exploration of information processing strategies revealed that the middle achievers used the describing strategy and comparing strategy most frequently.

It also revealed that the high achievers showed a stable relationship within the indicators of metacognitive regulation strategies. Moreover, it also indicated that the higher achievers showed a stable relationship between higher-rank metacognitive regulation strategies and higher-rank information processing strategies.

5. According to the data gathered from three different knowledge domains, what are the students’ outcomes? (referred to section V.6)

In order to investigate the role of knowledge domain, this study interviewed

students from three different learning units, including the bicycle unit, the rust-proof

and decay-proof unit as well as the energy and eco-conservation unit. These three

units came from different knowledge domains. This question discussed whether the students’ learning strategies might change over different knowledge domains or not.

(referred to section V.6).

The finding showed that the effect of knowledge domain was significant in the outcomes of cognitive structures, application of metacognitive regulation strategies and the usage of information processing strategies. In other words, the performance of indicator was changed over different knowledge domains. Besides, this finding also highlighted the importance of prior knowledge (Ausubel et al., 1978; Bischoff &

Anderson, 1998; Hewson & Hewson, 1983).

As to specific research questions, it proposed an insight about the general research questions. The specific research questions contained nineteen questions. The

following will give a brief introduction about these questions. The parenthesis indicated the referred section in chapter.

1. What are the cognitive structures held by these two groups of students? What is the difference between experimental group and control group in exploration of the indicators of cognitive structure? (referred to section V.3)

2. What are the information processing strategies held by these two groups of students? What is the difference between experimental group and control group in exploration of the indicators of information processing strategies?

(referred to section V.3)

3. What are the metacognitive regulation strategies held by these two groups of students? What is the difference between experimental group and control group in exploration of the indicators of metacognitive regulation strategies?

(referred to section V.3)

These three questions presented the development of knowledge from two different instructional modes, including the inquiry instructional mode and the traditional instructional mode (referred to section V.3). Besides, the results of comparison revealed the difference between the inquiry instructional mode and the traditional instructional mode.

The finding revealed that the experimental group performed better than the

control group in the outcomes of cognitive structures across three different units. It showed that students received the inquiry instruction could retrieve more concepts (extent); moreover, these retrieved concepts were more relevant to each other. In other words, this finding implied that inquiry instruction could elaborate the complexity of concepts.

As to the metacognitive regulation strategies, it showed that the experimental group performed better than control group in these five indicators. Moreover, the experimental group outperformed in higher-rank metacognitive regulation strategies, including updating and rerouting.

As to the information processing strategies, the indicator describing showed the comparison was not significant. The finding also revealed that the control group performed better than the experimental group in the indicator defining. This finding indicated that the control group could exert this strategy more frequently in learning.

On the other hand, this finding showed that the experimental group performed better than control group in the indicator comparing, conditional inferring and explaining.

4. To what extent, and in what way, are there relationships between two groups of students’ metacognitive regulation strategies and their cognitive structure outcomes? (referred to section V.3)

5. To what extent, and in what way, are there relationships between two groups of students’ information processing strategies and their cognitive structure outcomes? (referred to section V.3)

6. To what extent, and in what way, are there relationships between two groups of students’ information processing strategies and their metacognitive regulation strategies? (referred to section V.3)

These three aforementioned questions explored the relationships from different instructional modes, including the inquiry instructional mode and the traditional mode (referred to section V.3).

It revealed that the experimental group showed more stable relationship within

these indicators. As to the relationship between higher-rank metacognitive strategies

and higher-rank information processing strategies, the experimental group showed a stable condition. As to the control group, the relationship might change over interviews and different knowledge domains.

7. What are the cognitive structures held by three different achiever groups?

What is the difference within these three achiever groups in exploration of the indicators of cognitive structure? (referred to section V.4)

8. What are the metacognitive regulation strategies held by three different achiever groups? What is the difference within these three achiever groups in exploration of the indicators of metacognitive regulation strategies? (referred to section V.4)

9. What are the information processing strategies held by three different achiever groups? What is the difference within these three achiever groups in exploration of the indicators of information processing strategies? (referred to section V.4)

These three questions explored the effect of achievement in the development of knowledge. The data were derived from three different achiever groups, including the high achievers, the middle achievers and the low achievers. The results of comparison highlighted the difference in the performance of cognitive structure, metacognitive regulation strategies and the information processing strategies (referred to section V.4).

The finding indicated that the high achievers and the middle achievers could retrieve more information than low achievers. As to the richness, it showed that the difference between the high achievers and low achievers was observed Moreover, the high achievers’ complexity of cognitive structure (richness) was better than the other achievers.

This study revealed that the high achievers outperformed in the performance of

cognitive structures. Moreover, the high achievers could use the higher-rank strategies

in construction of knowledge, including updating, rerouting, conditional inferring and

explaining. The middle achievers mainly depended on the long-term maintaining and

describing strategies in learning. The low achievers could be unable retrieve more

information during interviews.

10. To what extent, and in what way, are there relationships between metacognitive regulation strategies and cognitive structure outcomes?

(referred to section V.4)

11. To what extent, and in what way, are there relationships between information processing strategies and cognitive structure outcomes? (referred to section V.4)

12. To what extent, and in what way, are there relationships between information processing strategies and metacognitive regulation strategies? (referred to section V.4)

These three questions about the role of achievement explored the relationships existed in different achiever groups. This study indicated that the high achievers’

performance of richness was related to higher-rank metacognitive regulation strategies, for example updating and explaining. Besides, the relationship was also significant between richness and higher-rank information processing strategies, including conditional inferring and explaining. As to the middle achievers, it showed that the relationship between richness and the aforementioned higher-rank strategies was varied with interviews. As to the low achievers, their richness was seldom related to the higher-rank strategies.

The exploration of relationship within metacognitive regulation strategies, it revealed that the high achievers showed a significant, stable relationship among short-term maintaining strategy, updating strategy and rerouting strategy. Both of the middle achievers and the low achievers revealed that the relations within these higher-rank strategies likely changed over different knowledge domains.

As to the information processing strategies, it did not reveal a consistently

obvious relationship across three achiever groups. It suggested that the application of

information processing strategies could change over different knowledge domains.

13. To what extent, and in what way, are there interaction between instructional modes and achievement in exploration of the indicators of cognitive structures? (referred to section V.5)

14. To what extent, and in what way, are there interaction between instructional modes and achievement in exploration of the indicators of metacognitive regulation strategies? (referred to section V.5)

15. To what extent, and in what way, are there interaction between instructional modes and achievement in exploration of the indicators of information processing strategies? (referred to section V.5)

Previous questions tried to explore the role of instructional strategies or the role of achievement individually. The interaction between achievement and instructional modes were discussed in section V.5. By means of analysis of two-way ANOVA, it highlighted the results of interaction in cognitive structures, metacognitive regulation strategies, information processing strategies. Moreover the result of PMCS (referred to section V.5) was presented in this section.

The exploration of cognitive structures, it showed that the interaction effect between achievement and instruction was significant in the indicator of richness.

Moreover the interaction effect was significant in the indicators of metacognitive regulation strategies, including short-term maintaining and rerouting. As to the information processing strategies, it revealed that the conditional inferring strategy and explaining strategy changed over different knowledge domains.

16. To what extent, and in what way, are there interaction between achievement and knowledge domain in exploration of the indicators of cognitive structures?

(referred to section V.6)

17. To what extent, and in what way, are there interaction between achievement and knowledge domain in exploration of the indicators of metacognitive regulation strategies? (referred to section V.6)

18. To what extent, and in what way, are there interaction between achievement

and knowledge domain in exploration of the indicators of information processing strategies? (referred to section V.6)

19. To what extent, and in what way, are there interaction between instructional modes and knowledge domain in exploration of the indicators of cognitive structures? (referred to section V.6)

20. To what extent, and in what way, are there interaction between instructional modes and knowledge domain in exploration of the indicators of metacognitive regulation strategies? (referred to section V.6)

21. To what extent, and in what way, are there interaction between instructional modes and knowledge domain in exploration of the indicators of information processing strategies? (referred to section V.6)

Question 15 to 18 tried to explore the interaction between achievement and knowledge domain. Question 19 to 21 explored the interaction between instructional modes and knowledge domain. By means of analysis of repeated measures, it will highlight the effect of knowledge domain. Besides, it also provided further discussion about the interaction between knowledge domain and instructional modes as well as the interaction between knowledge domain and achievement (referred to section V.6).

The findings showed that the effect of knowledge domain was significant.

Moreover, it revealed that the students performed better in the rust-proof and decay-proof unit. Besides, the interaction between knowledge domain and

achievement was also significant, especially in the higher-rank strategies, including

richness, updating, rerouting, conditional inferring and explaining.