learning approach - motivational

8/9/2019 Learning Approach - Motivational

1/16

243

large body of research has examined how differ-ent variables of learning contribute to studentsachievement in science. Collectively, these stud-

ies used a wide range of cognitive and motivational variablessuch as prior knowledge, attitude, reasoning ability, approach-es to learning, self-efficacy, goal orientations, and epistemo-logical beliefs (Buehl, 2003; Cavallo, Potter, & Rozman,2004; Cavallo, Rozman, Blickenstaff, & Walker, 2003;Conley, Pintrich, Vekiri, & Harrison, 2004; Elder, 1999;Murphy, Buehl, Monoi, & Long, 2002; Paulsen & Feldman,1999, 2005; Schommer, 1998). However, the field of epis-temological beliefs has become one of the current research

areas that have drawn the interest of many researchers.Epistemological beliefs involve learners theories about

knowing, the nature of knowledge, and knowledge acquisi-tion (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Schommer, 1990). Schommerdefined epistemology as a belief system that is composed ofseveral more or less independent dimensions (p. 498). Toanalyze a system of epistemological belief, Schommer devel-oped a 63-item, 5-point Likert-type questionnaire to assesssuch beliefs in students. Factor analysis of the questionnaire

produced a 4-factor structure with factors reflecting beliefsin simple knowledge (i.e., knowledge is simple rather thancomplex), certain knowledge (i.e., knowledge is certain

rather than tentative), innate ability (i.e., the ability tolearn is innate rather than acquired), and quick learning(i.e., learning is quick or not at all). Schommer replicatedthis 4-factor structure in her other studies with differentsamples. She reported testretest reliability as .74.

Schommer (1990), studying with 117 junior collegestudents, demonstrated that some of these beliefs predictstudents academic performance, by using an epistemo-logical questionnaire. Multiple regression analysis revealedthat the more students believe in quick learning, the morepoorly they understand text and monitor their understand-ing; the more students believe in certain knowledge, themore likely they are to interpret tentative information asabsolute. In a later study, Schommer (1993)explored the

development of high school students (N= 1,000) episte-mological beliefs by using the same questionnaire. Regres-sion analysis showed that beliefs that knowledge is a set ofisolated facts and is certain were associated with an overalllower GPA for high school students. Results from thatstudy also pointed out that epistemological beliefs continueto develop during high school years (e.g., belief in simpleknowledge, certain knowledge, and quick learning changedfrom freshman to senior year).

Elder (1999) noticed that elementary grade students alsohold beliefs about the nature of scientific knowledge, andhe asserted that it is appropriate to ask elementary schoolstudents about their epistemological beliefs. In her study,Elder examined the fifth-grade students (N = 211) epis-

temological beliefs (i.e., authority, certainty, developing,and reasoning) in science and the relation of such beliefsto science learning by using a 30-item questionnaire andinterviews. She mentioned that elementary-aged students

Address correspondence to Semra Sungur, Middle East TechnicalUniversity, Faculty of Education, Department of Elementary Educa-tion, 06531 Ankara, Turkey. (E-mail: [email protected])

Copyright 2009 Heldref Publications

Modeling the Relations Among Students

Epistemological Beliefs, Motivation,Learning Approach, and AchievementBERNA KIZILGUNESCEREN TEKKAYASEMRA SUNGURMiddle East Technical University, Turkey

ABSTRACT. The authors proposed a model to explain howepistemological beliefs, achievement motivation, and learn-ing approach related to achievement. The authors assumedthat epistemological beliefs influence achievement indirectlythrough their effect on achievement motivation and learn-ing approach. Participants were 1,041 6th-grade students.Results of the path analysis suggested that students whobelieved knowledge to be evolving (i.e., development) andhanded down by authority (i.e., source) were more likely tobe self-efficacious in their learning and were found to havehigher levels of learning- and performance-goal orientations.In addition, although learning goal was positively related tomeaningful learning, performance goal and self-efficacy werenegatively related to the learning approaches. The directionof the relation between learning approaches and achievementwas positive.

Keywords: achievement, achievement motivation, epistemo-logical beliefs, learning approach

A


2/16

244 The Journal of Educational Research

appear to rely on specific constructs like the changingnature of knowledge and purpose of science when tryingto comprehend a larger field of epistemological beliefs andthat they may initially understand the nature of scientificknowledge in a very situated, topic-dependent manner.Her study also demonstrated that fifth-grade students

beliefs were modestly related to their science learning.In a recent study of epistemological beliefs, Conley et al.(2004) attempted to describe the changes in elementarystudents epistemological belief in science. A total of 187fifth-grade students were administered a 26-item episte-mological belief questionnaire, which measured studentsepistemological beliefs along four dimensions: source, cer-tainty, development, and justification. Findings indicatedthat over time students became more sophisticated in theirbeliefs about source and certainty of knowledge. However,no reliable changes were demonstrated in the justificationand development of knowledge.

The work by Smith, Maclin, Houghton, and Hennessey(2000) tested the hypothesis that elementary school stu-dents hold coherent epistemological commitments andcan make significant development in their epistemologicalbelief when instructed by constructivist pedagogy. A totalof 45 sixth-grade students18 from a constructivist class-room and 27 from a comparison classroomreceived theNature of Science Interview (Carey, 1991; Carey, Evans,Honda, Jay, & Unger, 1989) individually. Smith et al.reported that although students attending a constructivistclassroom improved their epistemological beliefs about sci-ence, those in the traditional classroom developed an epis-temology, either focusing on science as involving simpleactivities and procedures or acquiring factual knowledge.

Overall, the studies exploring the epistemological beliefs

revealed that epistemological beliefs develop over time andare associated with academic performance.

Epistemological Beliefs and Learning Approach

Educational research indicates that students epistemo-logical beliefs influence learning approaches and subse-quent learning outcomes (Schommer, 1990). Supportingthis proposition, Tsai (1998) claimed that learners scien-tific epistemological beliefs may shape their metalearningand hence affect their learning approaches. Past researchhas identified two approaches to learning: meaning-ful approaches (deep approaches to learning) and roteapproaches (surface approaches to learning). Learners

choice of using rote memorization as a mode of learningis called surface- or rote-learning orientation (Cavallo &Schaffer, 1994). However, when students choose to dealwith a learning task and attempt to relate newly learnedand previously learned concepts, students learning orien-tation is known as deep or meaningful.

In an empirical study, Chan (2003) investigated therelation between approaches to learning and epistemo-logical beliefs by using the Biggs 40-Item Study Process

Questionnaire and Epistemological Belief Questionnaire(Biggs, 1987b) adapted from the Schmommer Epistemo-logical Questionnaire (Schommer, 1993). With a samplecomprising 299 teacher education students, Chan found apositive correlation between innatefixed ability and sur-face approach. No relation was reported between innate

fixed ability and deep approach. Authority knowledge,although negatively associated with deep approach, waspositively associated with surface approach. However,certainty knowledge was found to be associated positivelyonly with surface approach. Chan concluded that (a)students who thought that learning required effort anda process of understanding tended to use deep approach,(b) students with a naiveunsophisticated epistemologi-cal belief that ability is fixed and innate adopted a surfaceapproach, (c) students who believed in authority knowl-edge seemed to try a surface approach instead of a deepapproach in their studies, and (d) students who believedthat knowledge is certain and unchanged were likely touse surface approach. In short, surface approach is con-tingent on the beliefs that ability to learn is fixed, knowl-edge is dispensed by authority, and knowledge is certainand unchanging. However, deep approach is determinedby the belief that learning involves effort and a processof understanding and integration and that knowledge isacquired through ones reasoning rather than dispensedby authorities.

Holschuh (1998) addressed the issue of the relationbetween epistemological beliefs and strategy use by usingcollege students and reported a weak relation betweenepistemological beliefs and strategy use. In the study,518 students from an introductory biology course wereadministered the Schommer Epistemological Question-

naire (Schommer, 1993) and Self-Regulated LearningInventory (Lindner & Harris, 1992). Holschuh statedthat although students with more mature epistemologi-cal beliefs reported the use of more deep approaches, stu-dents with more naive epistemological beliefs reportedmore surface strategy use. Also, epistemological beliefsand strategy use were found to affect academic perfor-mance and contributed to college GPA and biologycourse grade.

Holschuh (1998) concluded that students holding matureepistemological beliefs and those who used deep strategiesfor learning were likely to perform better than were thosewith naive beliefs or those adopting surface strategiesfor learning. In an attempt to investigate the relation

between epistemological beliefs and learning approaches,Tsai (1998) showed that eighth-grade Taiwanese studentsholding constructivist-oriented scientific epistemologicalbeliefs tended to use more meaningful-learning strategies,whereas students with empiricist-aligned scientific episte-mological beliefs tended to use rote learning when acquir-ing scientific knowledge.

In a recent article, Cano (2005) explored the effects ofsecondary school students (N = 1,600) epistemological


3/16

March/April 2009 [Vol. 102(No. 4)] 245

beliefs on their learning approaches by using the Schom-mer Epistemological Questionnaire (Schommer, 1993) andthe Learning Process Questionnaire(Biggs, 1987a). Canosstudy showed that epistemological beliefs affected academicachievement directly and indirectly through studentslearning approaches. Cano concluded that the relation

between epistemological beliefs and academic achieve-ment is mediated by approaches to learning.His study alsoindicated that throughout the secondary education years,epistemological beliefs and learning approaches change.Although students epistemological beliefs become morerealistic and complex, their learning approaches becomeless meaningful.

Collectively, the aforementioned studies show that stu-dents with sophisticated epistemological beliefs and thosewho adopted meaningful-learning orientation for learningwere likely to perform better than were those holding naivebeliefs or using rote-learning orientation. Indeed, studiesfocusing on learning approaches have suggested that thereis a statistically significant association between studentslearning approaches and their science achievement (e.g.,BouJaoude, 1992; BouJaoude & Giuliano, 1994; Bou-Jaoude, Salloum, & Khalick, 2004; Cavallo, 1996; Cavallo& Schaffer, 1994). For example, in one of the earlier stud-ies investigating the relation between high school studentslearning orientations, BouJaoude reported that studentsmisunderstanding of the pretest about chemistry conceptsand their learning approaches accounted for a statisticallysignificant proportion of the variance on their performanceon the posttest. Similarly, the work of Cavallo and Schaf-fer with 163 10th-grade students indicated that studentsusing meaningful-learning approaches, as measured by theLearning Approach Questionnaire, achieved more mean-

ingful understanding of genetics than did those using rote-learning approaches.

Epistemological Beliefs, Motivation, and Learning Approach

Considerable research in education and educational psy-chology has revealed that motivational variables includinggoal orientations and self-efficacy are highly related to stu-dents learning (Dembo & Eaton, 2000; Neber & Schommer-Aikins, 2002; Pajares, 1996; Pintrich, 2000; Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Pintrich, Smith,garcia, & McKeachie, 1993; Shu-Shen, 2002; Tung-Hsien,2004; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Goal orientation refers toreasons why students engage in a task (DeBacker & Crow-

son, 2006; Pintrich; Pintrich & Schunk). There are twotypes of goal orientations that have been commonly inves-tigated: performance-goal orientation and mastery-goalorientation. Performance-goal orientation is defined in termsof a focus on demonstrating normatively high competenceor ability, seeking recognition of accomplishments, avoid-ing looking dumb, and avoiding performing poorly. In con-trast, mastery-goal orientationrepresents a focus on learning,understanding, mastering tasks, and personal improvement

(Ames, 1992; Dweck, 1986; Nichols, 1984; Pintrich &Schunk). Students with mastery-goal orientation appearto show more effort and persistence in their academicwork and use a variety of learning strategies that encour-age deeper processing of the information (Ablard & Lip-schultz, 1998; Ames & Archer, 1988; Meece, Blumenfeld,

& Hoyle, 1988; Neber & Schommer-Aikins, 2002; Pintich& DeGroot; Tung-Hsien; Valle et al., 2003; Wolters, Yu,& Pintrich, 1996). In contrast, although early researchhas shown that students with performance-goal orienta-tion tend to adopt surface approaches to learning (Ames;Meece et al., 1988), recent research distinguishing betweenperformance-approach and performance-avoidance goalorientations produced mix results (Elliot, 1999; Pintrich &Schunk). For example, Wolters, Yu, and Pintrich (1996)found a positive relation between performance-approachgoal orientation and the use of deeper cognitive strategies.In contrast, Kaplan and Midgley (1997) found a positiverelation between performance-approach goal orientationand surface approaches to learning.

Similar to outcomes of mastery-goal orientation, self-efficacy, which refers to beliefs about capability to learn orperform effectively, has also been found to be positivelyrelated to deep approaches to learning and to more per-sistence and effort (Bandura, 1993; Bandura, Barbaranelli,Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996; Hoy, 2004). Students withhigher levels of self-efficacy consider difficult tasks as chal-lenges to be mastered. They establish challenging goals, puttheir effort forth to accomplish them, and use a variety ofstrategies. On the other hand, students with lower levelsof self-efficacy tend to give up easily in the face of diffi-culty and avoid being involved in the task (Pajares, 1996).Bandura suggested that students motivation, including

their self-efficacy, is related to the use of learning strate-gies that influence academic achievement. Supporting thisidea, Walker, Greene, and Mansell (2006) found a positiverelation between students self-efficacy and meaningfulcognitive engagement. In a separate study, Sungur (2007)showed that self-efficacy and intrinsic (mastery) goal orien-tation were positively related to metacognitive strategy use.In addition, in a study by Greene, Miller, Crowson, Duke,and Akey (2004), self-efficacy and mastery-goal orienta-tion significantly predicted strategy use.

In addition to the aforementioned researchers linkingmotivation and learning approach, Paulsen and Feldman(1999) found statistically significant relations betweendimensions of epistemological beliefs (i.e., simple knowl-

edge, quick learning, and fixed ability) and motivation-al constructs (i.e., task value, self-efficacy, intrinsic-goalorientation, extrinsic-goal orientation, test anxiety, andcontrol of learning). They collected data through the admin-istration of the Schommer Epistemological Questionnaire(Schommer, 1993) and Motivated Strategies Learning Ques-tionnaire (Pintrich et al., 1993) to 246 college studentsand analyzed results by using Pearson correlation analysis.Paulsen and Feldman reported that learners who had a


4/16


naive belief that knowledge is simple were less likely to (a)appreciate the value of learning tasks, (b) feel efficaciousabout their capacity to learn, (c) perceive an internal controlover learning, and (d) hold an intrinsic-goal orientation,compared with students having the sophisticated belief thatknowledge is complex. It was also reported that learners with

a naive belief in simple knowledge tended to experiencehigher levels of test anxiety and to have a more extrinsic-goal orientation than did learners having more sophisticatedbeliefs. When compared with learners holding the moresophisticated belief that learning occurs gradually, learnershaving the naive belief that learning occurs quickly werefound to appreciate the value of learning tasks, perceive aninternal control over learning, and have less intrinsic-goalorientation. Learners who had a more sophisticated beliefthat the ability to learn can be improved tended more tohave an intrinsic-goal orientation, appreciate the value oflearning tasks, perceive an internal control over learning,and feel efficacious about their capacity to learn than didlearners holding a naive belief that the ability to learn isfixed. However, results from Paulsen and Feldmans studyfailed to show a statistically significant relation betweenmotivational constructs and certaintentative knowledge.

Cavallo et al. (2003) examined a relation among stu-dents learning approaches, achievement motivation,epistemological belief, science concept understanding,and course achievement. The Learning Approach Ques-tionnaire (Cavallo, 1996), the Achievement MotivationQuestionnaire (Cavallo, Miller, & Blackburn, 1996),and the Science Knowledge Questionnaire and Achieve-ment Test (Saunders, 1998) were administered to 291college students to collect relevant information. Datawere analyzed using correlation and stepwise regression

analyses. In their study, Cavallo et al. (2003) found thatmeaningful learning and a tentative view of science werepositively associated with learning goals only for biologystudents. However, epistemological beliefs were found tobe a nonsignificant predictor of course grade. For physicsmajors, none of the variables was found to be a significantpredictor of course achievement. In another investigationin a college physics course, Cavallo et al. (2004) inves-tigated the predictive influences of learning approaches,epistemological beliefs, self-efficacy, and motivationalgoals on students (N= 290) physics concept understand-ing and course achievement by using the aforementionedinstruments. Correlation and stepwise regression analy-sis demonstrated positive correlations between learning

goals and meaningful learning and between rote learn-ing and performance goals. In their study, self-efficacysignificantly predicted physics understanding and courseachievement. On the other hand, performance goals androte learning were negatively correlated with tentativescience beliefs.

Ravindran, Greene, and DeBacker (2005) investigatedthe associations among epistemological beliefs, achieve-ment goal, application learning, and cognitive engagement

of 101 prospective teachers by using the EpistemologicalBelief Inventory and Motivation and Strategy Use Survey.Ravindran et al. conducted multiple regression analysesand found that goals and beliefs were vital for predictingmeaningful and shallow cognitive engagement. Their resultsindicated that learners completing academic tasks with an

intention to enhance their understanding may have had arange of epistemological beliefs from naive beliefs to sophis-ticated ones. Performance goals were found to be associatedwith innate ability and simple knowledge. A positive cor-relation between shallow processing and each naive type ofepistemological knowledge showed that students with shal-low processing tended to believe that knowledge is simple,certain, and obtainable quickly from authorities.

Buehl (2003) constructed a model of possible associa-tions between students beliefs, achievement motivation,and learning outcomes. Buehl hypothesized that epistemo-logical beliefs directly contribute to students achievementmotivation and cognitive processing (strategy use). Buehlsmodel proposed that learners epistemological beliefs areindirectly associated with their achievement and academicperformance through students motivation, cognitive pro-cessing, and tactics that they use in the learning situation(e.g., effort and persistence). Murphy et al. (2002) statedthat some aspects of students epistemological beliefs (quicklearning and innate ability) may be related to their goal ori-entations. Murphy et al. examined the relations betweeneighth- (n = 255) and ninth-grade (n = 195) studentsbeliefs about knowledge, goal orientation, and academicperformance by using the Domain Specific Belief Question-naire (Buehl, Alexander, & Murphy 2002) and the adaptedversion of the Patterns of Adapted Learning Survey (Midg-ley et al., 2000). Path analysis indicated that although

students beliefs about integration of knowledge werepositively correlated with their learning goals, they werenegatively correlated with their performance-avoidanceand work-avoidant goals. Murphy et al. concluded that dif-ferent dimensions of epistemological beliefs were likely tobe differentially related to students motivation.

In general, a review of related literature has revealedthat student epistemological belief has been linked to avariety of learning outcomes, including academic achieve-ment. Research on epistemological beliefs also documentedthat students epistemological beliefs relate to their learningapproaches and motivation. However, most of the existingresearch has concentrated on older students (college andhigh school), and few researchers have attempted to inves-

tigate such interrelations by using young learners. Althoughepistemological beliefs have been the subject of extensiveresearch for many years in Western countries, less has beendone in non-Western countries. Turkey, in this respect, hasa special position. Turkey spans the continents of Europeand Asia and, therefore, has a sociocultural background thatdiffers from other nations. Thus, the main purpose of thepresent study was to address these gaps and present a workingmodel explaining the relations among epistemological beliefs,


5/16


learning approaches, achievement motivation, and achieve-ment. The present study extends research in this area byidentifying the relations among younger elementary schoolstudents epistemological beliefs, learning approaches, moti-vation, and achievement in a different cultural context.

In the present study, we determined students achieve-

ment in a science unit on classification. We chose clas-sification as the topic because of its curricular significance.It is one of the fundamental parts of science and biologycurricula and is taught at all levels of education. Classifica-tion plays important roles in the understanding of biologicaldiversity, evolution, ecology, anatomy, and physiology (Yen,Yao, & Mintzes, 2007). Moreover, it is one of the topics thatstudents of varying ages misconceived and had difficulty inunderstanding (e.g., Bell, 1981; Bell & Baker, 1982; Braund,1998; Trowbridge & Mintzes, 1988; Yen et al.).

Method

We sought to investigate the following main researchquestion: In what ways are epistemological beliefs, achieve-ment motivation, and learning approach related to achieve-ment? To address this research question, we proposed apath model considering the relations that had already beenestablished by earlier research. Therefore, it was on thebasis of the null assumption that relations among thesevariables were the same in different school cultures.

Participants

Participants were 1,041 sixth-grade elementary schoolstudents (507 girls, 534 boys) with a mean age of 11.5 years(SD= 0.37 years), attending 11 public elementary schools

from one large district of Ankara, Turkey. We used clusterrandom sampling integrated with convenience samplingto obtain the sample. The district from which the sampleof the study was chosen was selected by a convenience-sampling method because of constraints regarding travel,time, and cost. Schools that we considered to be clusterswere randomly selected from the district.

In total, there were 101 elementary schools in thedistrict with 10,079 students enrolled. Accordingly, thedesired sample size was determined to be 1,007 students,10% of the whole population. Approximately 95 students,corresponding to approximately two classes per school, par-ticipated in the study. All these schools were comparable interms of SES and science achievement. Socioeconomically,

these students were from middle- to upper-class families.On the basis of their school assessment, participants aca-demic performance in science during the regular schoolyear was quite high, with a mean of 4 on a scale of 15.

Science lessons are compulsory for all students in ele-mentary school in Turkey. Science curricula covered manyaspects of biology, chemistry, physics, and geology andwere spiraled so that learners were able to build progres-sively on their understanding of concepts. The students

received the regular science instruction, as specified in theNational Curriculum (Ministry of National Education ofTurkey, 2005), by using the science textbooks approved bythe Ministry of Education. Thus, the nature of the sciencecurricula and the number of school hours devoted to sci-ence were identical in all elementary schools. The science

lessons extended over four 40-min periods.

Measures

We collected four kinds of data from students: responsesto the Classification Concept Things Test (CCT), responsesto the Epistemological Beliefs Questionnaire (EBQ; Con-ley et al., 2004), responses to the Learning ApproachQuestionnaire (LAQ; Cavallo, 1996), and responses to theAchievement Motivation Questionnaire (AMQ; Cavalloet al., 2004). All instruments were administered to thestudents after getting permission from the administration.Students responded to the instruments during regular sci-ence class hours under the supervision of their scienceteacher. Science teachers were given brief oral instructionson how to administer the instruments. Students were toldabout the purpose of the instruments and assured that therewere neither correct nor wrong answers. After this shortexplanation, students were asked to complete the questionson their own. They were instructed to think about eachquestion and answer it as it applied to them.

Classification Concept Test (CCT).A 15-item multiple-choice test, the CCT was developed to assess studentsachievement in the classification concept. Each questionhad one correct answer and four distracters. During thedevelopmental stage of the achievement test, instructionalobjectives related to units were determined after taking the

national curriculum into consideration. The content valid-ity and clarity of each item in the test were determined bya panel of four science teachers and two science educators.The science teachers also analyzed the relatedness of thetest items to the instructional objectives and confirmedthat the content validity of the instrument was appropri-ate for the participants and that the CCT was valid withrespect to the constructs measured. Prior to the administra-tion, the CCT was pilot tested with a sample of sixth-gradestudents from one of the selected schools. According to theresults of the pilot study, some of the items in the tests werereworded, and an attempt was made to minimize negativestatements to avoid ambiguity. The reliability coefficientcomputed by Cronbachs alpha estimates of internal consis-

tency of this test was found to be .60.Epistemological Beliefs Questionnaire (EBQ). A 26-item

Likert-type EBQ was used to assess students epistemologi-cal beliefs about the nature of science along four dimen-sions: source, certainty, development, and justification.All questions were worded to have students focus on thedomain of science. Sourceincluded five items and assessedstudents beliefs about knowledge residing in externalauthorities (e.g., Whatever the teacher says in science


6/16


class is true). Certainty, consisting of six items, referred to abelief in a right answer (e.g., All questions in science haveone right answer). Developmenthad six items and assessedbeliefs about science as an evolving and changing subject(e.g., Sometimes scientists change their minds about whatis true in science).Justification, with nine items, measured

the role of experiments and how individuals justify knowl-edge (e.g., Good answers are based on evidence from manydifferent experiments). The questionnaire was adapted byConley et al. (2004) from Elders (1999) work with elemen-tary students. After studying fifth-grade students, Conleyet al. reported the coefficient alphas for the instrument as.81, .78, .57, and .65 for the source, certainty, development,and justification dimensions, respectively. For this study,Cronbachs alpha reliabilities were calculated as .71, .57,.61, and .79 for the source, certainty, development, andjustification dimensions, respectively.

Learning Approach Questionnaire (LAQ). We used theLAQ, a Likert-type instrument designed to assess studentstendency toward meaningful or rote learning (Entwistle& Ramsden, 1983). In the present study, a version of thequestionnaire adapted by Cavallo (1996) was utilized. Thequestionnaire included 22 items. Students responded toeach statement by indicating their agreement on a 4-pointLikert-type scale ranging from A (always true) to D (nevertrue). The LAQ scale comprised two subscales: learningapproach questionnairemeaningful (LAQ-M), measuringthe degree of meaningful-learning orientation; and thelearning approach questionnairerote (LAQ-R), measuringthe degree of rote learning. The LAQ-M and the LAQ-Rcomprised 11 items each. Rote scores were reverse scoredso that a high score showed a more meaningful-learningorientation and a low score showed a more rote-learning

orientation. The reported Cronbachs alpha coefficient forthe whole questionnaire (LAQ) ranged from .54 (Cavallo& Schaffer, 1994) to .80 (Cavallo, 1996) for high schoolstudents. For elementary students, researchers used modi-fied versions of the LAQ. The reported reliabilities for themodified versions were .80 (Kang, Scharmann, Noh, &Koh, 2005) and .86 (Chin & Brown, 2006). For the pres-ent study, the Cronbachs alpha coefficient for the LAQwas .71.

Achievement Motivation Questionnaire (AMQ). We usedthe AMQ, a 14-item Likert-type instrument comprisingthree subscales concerning motivation to learn in thescience course: performance-goal orientation (5 items),learning-goal orientation (5 items), and self-efficacy (4

items). A high score on performance-goal orientationindicates a high desire to achieve high grades (e.g., Oneof my primary goals in this class is to get a good grade,even if I dont learn anything new); a high learning-goalorientation score indicates high desire to learn for the sakeof learning (e.g., One of my primary goals in this class isto understand the science activities that we do); and ahigh self-efficacy score indicates the individuals high self-efficacy or confidence in his or her ability to learn science

(e.g., I am confident I can do well on the science problemswe are given in this class).

In the present study, we used a version of the AMQadapted by Cavallo et al. (2004) from the work of Ames andArcher (1988) with students from Grades 811. Cavallo etal. reported Cronbachs alpha reliability for performance-

goal orientation as .82, learning-goal orientation as .94,and self-efficacy as .89. For the present study, Cronbachsalpha reliability was .76 for performance-goal orientation,.82 for learning-goal orientation, and .54 for self-efficacy.

Overall, the reliabilities of the data were acceptable.However, it is necessary to note that the reliability coef-ficients for the achievement test (self-efficacy,source, andcertainty) were somewhat low, but acceptable for educa-tional studies (Diakidoy, Kendeou, & Ioannides, 2003;Hatcher & Stepanski, 1994; Pinarbasi, Canpolat, Bayrak-ceken, & Geban, 2006; Pomeroy, 1993). Still, when inter-preting the results of current findings, researchers shouldconsider these low reliabilities.

Results

Means, standard deviations, and Cronbachs alpha coeffi-cients for students epistemological beliefs (source, certainty,development, and justification), achievement motivation(learning-goal orientation, performance-goal orientation,and self-efficacy), approaches to learning, and achievementare presented in Table 1. As shown in the table, the meanscores for epistemological beliefs, achievement motivation,and learning approaches were all above the midpoint ofthe 4-point Likert-type scale. Repeated measures analysesof variance (ANOVAs) showed a statistically significantdifference in means among four epistemological beliefs,

Wilkss = .41, F(3, 1,038) = 497.71,p= .000. The multi-variate 2= .59 indicated that magnitude of the differencein means was large. To determine which means differedfrom which others significantly, pair-wise comparisons were

TABLE 1. Descriptive Statistics and Alpha Coefficientsof Epistemological Beliefs, Achievement Motivation,Learning Approaches, and Achievement

CronbachsSubscale M SD

Epistemological belief Source 2.72 0.61 .71 Certainty 2.44 0.52 .57 Development 2.98 0.46 .61 Justification 3.30 0.48 .79Achievement motivation Performance goal orientation 2.79 0.68 .63 Learning goal orientation 3.43 0.56 .75 Self-efficacy 2.73 0.41 .54Learning approaches 2.80 0.34 .71Achievement 7.94 2.64 .60


7/16


conducted using Holms sequential Bonferroni procedure.All six pair-wise comparisons were found to be statisticallysignificant, with medium to large effect sizes (see Table 2).The descriptive statistics and effect sizes presented inTables 1 and 2, respectively, suggested that sixth-grade stu-dents strongly supported sophisticated statements regarding

justification of scientific knowledge. The magnitude of thedifference between justification and the other three epis-temological beliefs was found to be medium to large. Thelargest difference was between justification and certaintybeliefs, with an average difference of .85 .046 (see Table 2).This finding implied that young students in our sampleendorsed the notion that scientific knowledge developsfrom careful thought and analysis of ideas. In addition, amedium difference was found between source and devel-opment beliefs with an average difference of .26 .047.Moreover, examination of Table 1 revealed that the lowestmean score was obtained for certainty dimension, followedby the source dimension. The differences between theseand the other two dimensions (justification and develop-ment) with medium effect sizes implied that sixth-gradestudents were less likely to support beliefs that knowledgeis absolute and resides in external authority.

Additionally, the paired-sample t test betweenperformance- and learning-goal orientations showed thatstudents were more learning-goal oriented than performance-goal oriented, t(993) = 25.90,p< .05. The magnitude of thedifference was found to be large (d= .82), with an averagedifference of .64 .047.Therefore, the students appearedto study for the reasons of learning and understanding morethan for showing their abilities to others and getting goodgrades. Moreover, the relatively high mean score on the LAQsuggested that the students tended to adopt meaningful-

learning approaches when studying science. However, themean scores on the achievement test reflect that partici-pants of the present study had a moderate level of achieve-ment in the target concept.

Interrelations Among Epistemological Beliefs, AchievementMotivation, Learning Approach, and Achievement

To study the relations of epistemological beliefs (source,certainty, development, and justification), learning goal,performance goal, self-efficacy, and learning approachesand achievement, we applied a path analysis using LISREL8.30 (Jreskog & Srbom, 1993) program in the SIMPLIS(Jreskog & Srbom, 1996) programming language (see

Figure 1). Because fairly low alphas can have a biasing effect(either positive or negative) on the path coefficients and abiasing effect can even lead to relations that switch signsof path coefficients (Bollen, 1989; Cohen, Cohen, Teresi,Marchi, & Valez, 1990),sensitivity analysis was conductedto examine the effect of nonperfect reliability. In sensitiv-ity analysis, we used each subscale score as an indicator ofits latent variable-fixing factor loading to 1, and for eachlatent variable measurement, we adjusted error on the basis

of the desired alpha coefficient (i.e., = .80). Then, the fitof the model was compared with that of the original modelin which measurement error was not adjusted (see Table 3).The fit indexes of the adjusted model were slightly better(comparative fit index = .98; standardized root mean squareresidual = .03; root mean square error of approximation =.07; confidence interval = .07, .10).Moreover, direct effectof learning approach on achievement was stronger, andthe R2value for achievement was higher, for the adjustedmodel. However, because the results for the original andadjusted models were basically the same, we interpret theoriginal model in the following sections.

Overall, the fit indexes for the original model wereindicative of a theoretically sound model that explainedthe data well, and we analyzed the standardized path coef-ficients for direct, indirect, and total effects (Table 4).

Figure 1 depicts the proposed path model. The modelassumes that epistemological beliefs influence achieve-ment motivation and learning approach directly and also

influence learning approach and achievement indirectlythrough their effect on achievement motivation. In addi-tion, we hypothesized that the relation between achieve-ment motivation and achievement was mediated bylearning approach.

All the path coefficients were statistically significantexcept the path from certainty to self-efficacy (= .06).The standardized path coefficients for direct effects aregraphically depicted in Figure 2.

In the model, learning and performance goals, self-efficacy, source, certainty, development, and justificationaccounted for 38% of the variance in learning approaches.Parameter estimates revealed that learning goal (= .27),beliefs about certainty of knowledge (= .08), beliefs about

development (= .44), and beliefs about justification (=.07) were positively associated with learning approaches.On the other hand, there was a negative associationbetween performance goal ( = .08), self-efficacy ( =.09), beliefs about source of knowledge (= .07), andlearning approaches. The strongest positive total effecton learning approaches was from the development beliefs.The indirect effect of the development beliefs on learningapproaches was .15, which could be attributed to the direct

TABLE 2. Pair-Wise Comparisons

Pair t Cohens d CI

SourceCertainty 17.21 1.53 .28 .031

SourceDevelopment 10.80 1.33 .26 .047SourceJustification 24.54 1.76 .58 .046CertaintyDevelopment 23.00 1.71 .53 .046CertaintyJustification 36.70 1.13 .85 .046DevelopmentJustification 21.60 1.67 .32 .029

Note. CI = 95% confidence interval. For all pairs,p= .000.


8/16


effect of this variable on the performance goal (= .12),learning goal (= .62), and self-efficacy (= .10). Certain-ty beliefs and source beliefs, which had negligible indirecteffects on learning approach, were negatively associatedwith the performance goal (= .20), learning goal (=.13), and self-efficacy (= .06). The association betweenbeliefs about certainty of knowledge and self-efficacywas nonsignificant. In addition, the indirect effects ofthe beliefs about source of knowledge and justification on

learning approaches were .00 and .05, respectively. Directeffects of these variables on performance goal, learninggoal, and self-efficacy were all statistically significant. Alldimensions of epistemological beliefs (source, certainty,development, and justification) were found to account for15% of variance in performance goal, 49% of variance inlearning goal, and 10% of variance in self-efficacy. Last,learning approaches had a direct positive effect (= .33)on achievement.

In summary, as can be seen from the aforementionedpath coefficients, the higher level of beliefs in source anddevelopment of knowledge were related to higher levels ofperformance goal, learning goal, and self-efficacy. Althoughthe relation between beliefs about source of knowledge andlearning approach was found to be negative, the relationbetween beliefs about developmental nature of knowledgeand learning approach was positive. Results also indicatedthat certainty beliefs were negatively associated with perfor-

mance goal and learning goal. Similarly, beliefs about justifi-cation of knowledge were found to be negatively related withall achievement motivation variables except learning goal.Certainty beliefs and justification beliefs were positively asso-ciated with learning approach. In addition, although learninggoal was positively related to meaningful learning, perfor-mance goal and self-efficacy were negatively related to thelearning approaches. The direction of the relation betweenlearning approaches and achievement was positive.

FIGURE 1. The proposed path model of epistemological beliefs (source, certainty, development,and justification), achievement motivation (learning-goal orientation, performance-goal orientation,and self-efficacy), learning approaches, and achievement.

Source

Certainty

Development

Justification

Self-efficacy

Learninggoal

Performancegoal

Learningapproach

Achievement

TABLE 3. Comparison of Original and Adjusted Models

CI for Learning approachModel CFI SRMR RMSEA RMSEA R2 to achievement path

Original .97 .04 .08 .07, .10 .11 .33Adjusted .98 .03 .07 .05, .08 .18 .43

Note. CFI = comparative fit index; SRMR= standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA= root meansquare error of approximation; CI = 95% confidence interval.


9/16


Discussion

Research has shown significant associations betweenstudents epistemological beliefs and a variety of learningoutcomes. In fact, early research studies have presentedevidence that learners epistemological beliefs may be

related to cognitive and motivational variables, whichmake up important aspects of learning.

In line with these findings, we proposed a model thatassumed that epistemological beliefs influence learningapproach directly and also influence learning approachand achievement indirectly through their direct effect onachievement motivation. One of the findings indicatedby path analysis is that epistemological beliefs influencelearning approach directly and also indirectly throughachievement motivation, as proposed. More specifical-ly, this suggests that students who believe that knowl-edge is evolving (i.e., development) and handed downby authority (i.e., source) were more likely to be self-efficacious in their learning and found to have higher levelsof learning- and performance-goal orientations. Therefore,these students appeared to believe that they have necessaryability to learn and perform effectively in school settingsand tend to study for reasons of showing their abilities toothers and getting higher grades, as well as learning andunderstanding.

The present study also showed that students who hada strong belief in the role of evidence and supported theidea that knowledge comes from reasoning, thinking, andexperimenting (i.e., justification) were less self-efficaciousin their learning and less performance-goal oriented. Thesestudents were more likely to study for the reason of master-ing course content. In addition, students who expressed a

belief that knowledge is factual and true (i.e., certainty)tended to have lower levels of learning- and performance-goal orientations. These findings point out that learning-goal orientation was positively associated with all dimen-sions of epistemological beliefs except certainty. In a similarstudy with fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade gifted students,Neber and Schommer-Aikins (2002) demonstrated that anaive belief in fixed ability was associated with lower levelsof task (learning) goals. Likewise, students who believedthat success does not entail hard work also tended toendorse task goals less than did students who believed inthe need for hard work and effort to succeed. In addition,they showed that judging success as unrelated to hard workand holding beliefs about the simplicity of knowledge were

negatively associated with self-efficacy.Students who believe that ability is malleable and can be

improved by effort tend to have more adaptive motivationalbeliefs. These students appear to attribute their successesand failures to effort, which is under their own control. Asproposed by self-determination theory (Deci, Vallerand,Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991), students having a sense of controlover their learning tend to be more intrinsically moti-vated. Moreover, they are more likely to have learning-goal

TABLE4.

PathCoeffici

ents

Performancegoals

Learninggoals

Self-efficacy

Learningapproach

Achievement

Variable

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Direct

Indirect

Total

Source

.16

.16

.10

.10

.17

.17

.07

.00

.07

.0

3

.03

Certainty

.20

.20

.13

.13

.06

.06

.08

.01

.07

.0

2

.02

Development

.12

.12

.62

.62

.10

.10

.44

.15

.59

.2

0

.20

Justification

.11

-.11

.08

.08

.16

.16

.07

.05

.12

.0

4

.04

Performancegoal

.08

.08

.0

3

.03

Learninggoal

.27

.27

.0

9

.09

Self-efficacy

.09

.09

.0

3

.03

Learningapproach

.33

.33


10/16


orientation and higher levels of self-efficacy. Similarly, weexpected students who think that knowledge is not dis-pensed by an authority and that knowledge can be gainedthrough personal effort, thinking, and reasoning to holdmore adaptive motivational beliefs. Supporting this propo-sition, in their study with college students, Paulsen and

Feldman (1999) reported a significant association betweenthe students epistemological belief and their motivation tolearn. More specifically, Paulsen and Feldman found thatstudents who had the naive belief that knowledge is simplewere less likely to (a) have an intrinsic (learning) goalorientation, (b) perceive an internal control over learning,(c) feel efficacious about their capacity to learn, and (d)appreciate the value of learning tasks.

Moreover, in their later study, Paulsen and Feldman(2005) reported that learners with the belief that ability tolearn can change over time through effort and experiencewere more likely to (a) adopt extrinsic (performance) andintrinsic (learning) goal orientations, (b) feel confidentabout their ability to learn, (c) appreciate the value of

learning tasks, and (d) perceive an internal locus of con-trol over their learning compared with learners having thebelief that ability to learn is fixed.

Another result of the present study was that learningapproachalthough positively related to beliefs in cer-tainty, development, and justification of knowledgewasnegatively associated with beliefs about the source ofknowledge. Students who believed that knowledge is cer-tain and evolving and comes from experimenting appeared

to use a meaningful-learning strategy, whereas students whobelieved that knowledge resides in authorities adopted rotelearning in their studying. The finding that belief in cer-tainty is related to students use of meaningful approachesis somewhat surprising. Chan (2003) reported that thesurface approach is related to the beliefs that ability to

learn is fixed, knowledge is handed down by authority, andknowledge is unchanging. The belief in certain knowledgesometimes may be linked with a surface or deep approach,depending on context. Students who believed that knowl-edge is certain, unchanged, and handed down by authoritywere likely to utilize a surface approach instead of a deepapproach in their study. Studying college chemistry majors,Saunders (1998) reported that students who thought thatscience is fixed also tended to use rote learning.

Findings of the present study concerning positive associ-ations between certainty, development and justification ofknowledge, learning approaches, and science achievementmay be attributed to the nature of science instructionsused in most of the science courses in Turkey: expository

instruction. In regular classroom instruction, the teachergenerally provided instruction through lecture and discus-sion to teach concepts. The main idea behind this teacher-centered instruction was to provide students with clear anddetailed information. Therefore, it is reasonable to assumethat such instruction may bring about no doubts aboutcertainty of scientific knowledge. However, in the presentstudy, among the epistemological beliefs, the strongest totaleffect on achievement was from development beliefs. The

FIGURE 2. Path coefficients of epistemological beliefs (source, certainty, development, andjustification), achievement motivation (learning-goal orientation, performance-goal orientation,and self-efficacy), learning approaches, and achievement.

Perfromancegoal (R2= 8)

Learning goal(R2= 49)

Self-efficacy(R2= 10)

Learningapproach(R2= 38)

Achievement(R2= 11)

Source

Certanity

Development

Justification

.16

.09

.44

.08

.08

.27.13

.17

.10

.10

.62

.12

.07

.20

.06 (ns).33

.11

.08

.16

.07


11/16


weakest contribution was made by certainty beliefs, withthe lowest mean score (see Table 4). A possible reason forthis finding is the inconsistency of students responses torelated subscales, as indicated by low reliabilities.

In addition, Elder (1999) pointed out that elemen-tary students epistemological beliefs can develop from

their experiences in science and that they can simultane-ously hold seemingly contrasting epistemological beliefsabout science. Accordingly, they may have two distinctbeliefsthat knowledge is certain and that knowledge isevolvingand they may accept these two beliefs at thesame time rather than treat them as opposite views. There-fore, even in student-centered inquiry classes, certaintybeliefs, for example, may be important in the acquisition ofscience knowledge.

However, Tsai (1998) showed that students havingconstructivist epistemological beliefs about science had atendency to learn through constructivist-oriented instruc-tional activities and use more meaningful strategies whenlearning science, whereas students holdingepistemologicalbeliefs, which are consistent with empiricism, tended to usemore rote strategies to promote their understanding. Also,Tsai suggested that constructivist students were primarilymotivated by their interest and curiosity in science, whereasknowledgeempiricist students were mainly motivated byperformance on examinations.

In sum, research examining the associations betweenepistemological beliefs and learning approaches indicatedthat although students having more sophisticated, matureepistemological beliefs reported the adoption of more deepapproaches, students holding more simple, naive epistemo-logical beliefs reported the use of more surface strategies.In addition, epistemological beliefs and strategy use were

found to affect students academic performance (Holschuh,1998; Tsai, 1998).

The findings of the present study were similar in someaspects to results reported by Cavallo et al. (2003), whofound that meaningful learning and tentative views ofscience were positively associated with learning goals forbiology students. They reported that students who learn ina rote way also seek external approval or high grades and donot seek to learn for the sake of learning. In their study, stu-dents learning goals were negatively associated with perfor-mance goals and positively associated with epistemologicalbeliefs. However, performance goals were found to be nega-tively correlated with epistemological beliefs. Cavallo et al.(2003) concluded that high performance goals were linked

to the belief that science is authoritative and fixed. In aseparate study, Cavallo et al. (2004) found positive correla-tions between meaningful learning and learning goals andbetween rote learning and performance goals.

Our model also showed a statistically significant influ-ence of learning approaches on student achievement. Stu-dents who studied with a meaningful approach to learningtended to perform well, compared with those who adoptedrote approaches. This means that students who were

attempting to learn science by forming relations amongconcepts had greater achievement in the target concept.In fact, the learning of classification concepts requires theability to connect ideas from other fields of science.

Surprisingly, results from the present study showed anegative association between self-efficacy and learning

approach. Therefore, it appeared that students with a strongsense of self-efficacy were less likely to adopt meaningful-learning strategies. At this point, it is important to notethat the present study relied on sixth-grade studentsresponses to self-report instruments, and students at thisage may not be so realistic in their ability judgments. Forthis reason, students responses to the self-efficacy scalemay not be a reliable measure of their self-efficacy. In otherwords, there can be a mismatch between their actual andreported self-efficacy levels (Blumenfeld, Pintrich, Meece,& Wessels, 1982; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Thus, wesuggest that researchers interpret these findings with cau-tion, considering the drawbacks of self-report instrumentsand the reliability of self-efficacy judgments made by thestudents at that age.

Collectively, the present results revealed that studentswith higher levels of learning-goal approach and with beliefsthat scientific knowledge develops from careful thoughtand analysis of ideas, evolves over time as new discoveriesare made, and does not come from authority were morelikely to learn concepts by forming relations among con-cepts and also had greater achievement in the classificationunit. Epistemological beliefs were found to affect achieve-ment through their effect on achievement motivation andlearning approach. The present studys results suggest thatstudents epistemological beliefs, achievement motivations,and choices of learning approaches are important determi-

nants of sixth-grade students achievement in classifica-tion concepts. Therefore, science teachers should selectinstructional strategies that encourage students to devel-op sophisticated epistemological beliefs and meaningful-learning approaches. In line with this idea, it is necessaryto clarify students beliefs about knowing and learning andto develop the materials to promote meaningful learn-ing so that students go beyond memorization of facts andterminology and make sense of scientific explanations ofphenomena. Only then can learners become meaningfullearners who are better able to maintain knowledge andapply it to new situations.

In addition, we suggest that to encourage the develop-ment of adaptive motivational beliefs, educators should

provide students with opportunities for some choice andcontrol over their learning. Moreover, individual improve-ment, learning, and understanding should be emphasizedin the classroom, and students should be able to realize thelink between personal effort and accomplishments (Ames,1992; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002).

The present study has some limitations that researchersshould consider in any attempt to generalize the findings.First,the study was limited by its reliance on self-reported


12/16


data. Subsequent research is needed to verify the consis-tency and accuracy of the present findings through the useof multiple methods and measures. Second, we conductedthis investigation at public schools located in a large urbanarea. Data from other school districts and other schooltypes may provide different results. Third, the present study

was limited to one classification unit and 1,042 sixth-gradeTurkish students. The results may not be reliable if general-ized beyond students enrolled in a similar situation and cul-tural context. Therefore, the generalization of the resultsfrom the present study should be viewed with caution.

REFERENCES

Ablard, K. E., & Lipschultz, R. E. (1998). Self-regulated learning inhigh-achieving students: Relations to advanced reasoning, achieve-ment goals, and gender. Journal of Educa tiona l Psychology, 90,94101.

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation.Journal of Educational Psychology, 84,261271.

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Stu-dent learning strategies and motivation processes.Journal of EducationalPsychology, 80,260267.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development andfunctioning. Educational Psychologist, 28,117148.

Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996).Multifaceted impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning.Child Development, 67,12061222.

Bell, B. (1981). When is an animal not an animal? Journal of BiologicalEducation, 15,213218.

Bell, B., & Baker, M. (1982). Towards a scientific concept of animal.Journal of Biological Education, 16,197200.

Biggs, J. B. (1987a). TheLearning Process Questionnaire (LPQ): Manual.Hawthorn, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Biggs, J. B. (1987b). Students approaches to learning and studying. Haw-thorn, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Blumenfeld, P., Pintrich, P. R., Meece, J., & Wessels, K. (1982). Theformation and role of self-perceptions of ability in the elementary class-room. Elementary School Journal, 82, 401420.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York:Wiley.

BouJaoude, S. B. (1992). The relationship between students learningstrategies and the change in their misunderstandings during a highschool chemistry course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29,687699.

BouJaoude, S. B., & Giuliano, F. J. (1994). Relationships betweenachievement and selective variables in a chemistry course for nonma-jors. School Science and Mathematics, 94,296302.

BouJaoude, S., Salloum, S., & Khalick, F. (2004). Relationships betweenselective cognitive variables and students ability to solve chemistryproblems. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 6384.

Braund, M. (1998). Trends in childrens conceptions of vertebrate andinvertebrates.Journal of Biological Education, 32,112119.

Buehl, M. M. (2003, April). At the crossroads: Exploring the intersectionof epistemological beliefs, motivation, and culture. Paper presented at theAnnual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,Chicago, IL.

Buehl, M. M., Alexander, P. A., & Murphy, P. K. (2002). Beliefs aboutschooled knowledge: Domain specific or domain general? Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 27, 415449.Cano, F. (2005). Epistemological beliefs and approaches to learning: Theirchange through secondary school and their influence on academic per-formance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75,203221.

Carey, S. (1991). The nature of science interview. Unpublished manuscript.Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., & Unger, C. (1989). An experi-

ment is when you try it and see if it works: A study of grade sevenstudents understanding of the construction of scientific knowledge.International Journal of Science Education, 11, 514529.

Cavallo, A. M. L. (1996). Meaningful learning, reasoning ability, and stu-dents understanding and problem solving of topics in genetics.Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 33, 625656.

Cavallo, A. M. L., Miller, R. B., & Blackburn, M. (1996, April). Testingand building causal models for meaningful understanding in the learning of

genetics concepts. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of theNational Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis,MO.

Cavallo, A. M. L., Potter, W. H., & Rozman, M. (2004). Gender differ-ences in learning constructs, shifts in learning constructs, and theirrelationship to course achievement in a structured inquiry, yearlong

college physics course for life science majors. School Science and Math-ematics, 104,288300.

Cavallo, A. M. L., Rozman, M., Blickenstaff, J., & Walker, N. (2003).Learning, reasoning, motivation and epistemological beliefs: Differingapproaches in college science courses.Journal of College Science Teach-ing, 33,1823.

Cavallo, A. M. L., & Schaffer, L. E. (1994). Relationships betweenstudents meaningful learning orientation and their understanding ofgenetics topics.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 393418.

Chan, K. (2003). Hong Kong teacher education students epistemologicalbeliefs and approaches to learning. Research in Education, 69,3650.

Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2006). Learning in science: A comparison ofdeep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,37,109138.

Cohen, P., Cohen, J., Teresi, J., Marchi, M., & Valez, C. N. (1990).Problems in the measurement of latent variables in structural equationscausal models.Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 183196.

Conley, A. M., Pintrich, P. R, Vekiri, I., & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes

in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 29, 186204.

DeBacker, T. K., & Crowson, M. H. (2006). Influences on cognitiveengagement: Epistemological beliefs and need for closure. British Journalof Educational Psychology, 76, 535551.

Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Moti-vation in education: The self-determination perspective. EducationalPsychologist, 26, 325346.

Dembo, M. H., & Eaton, M. J. (2000). Self-regulation of academic learn-ing in middle-level schools. Elementary School Journal, 100, 473490.

Diakidoy, I. N., Kendeou, P., & Ioannides, C. (2003). Reading aboutenergy: The effects of text structure in science learning and conceptualchange. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 335356.

Dweck, C. (1986). Motivation processes affecting learning. AmericanPsychologist, 41,10401048.

Elder, A. D. (1999).An exploration of fifth grade students epistemological beliefsin science and an investigation of their relation to science learning. Unpub-lished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achieve-ment goals, epistemological beliefs and need for closure. British Journalof Educational Psychology, 76, 535551.

Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning.London: Croom Helm.

Greene, B. A., Miller, R. B., Crowson, H. M., Duke, B. L., & Akey, K.L. (2004). Predicting high school students cognitive engagement andachievement: Contributions of classroom perceptions and motivation.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 2, 462482.

Hatcher, L., & Stepanski, E. J. (1994). A step-by-step approach to usingthe SAS system for univariate and multivariate statistics. Cary, NC: SASInstitute.

Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemologi-cal theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation tolearning. Review of Educational Research, 67,88140.

Holschuh, J. L. (1998). Epistemological beliefs in introductory biology:Addressing measurement concerns and exploring the relationship with strat-egy use. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia,

Athens.Hoy, A. W. (2004, April). What do teachers know about self-efficacy?Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, San Diego, CA.

Jreskog, K. G., & Srbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8.30: Users referenceguide [Computer software manual]. Chicago: Scientific Software Inter-national.

Jreskog, K. G., & Srbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: Structural equationmodeling with the SIMPLIS command language [Computer softwaremanual]. Chicago: Scientific Software International.

Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C., Noh, T., & Koh, H. (2005). The Influenceof students cognitive and motivational variables in respect of cognitive


13/16


conflict and conceptual change. InternationalJournal of Science Educa-tion,27, 10371058.

Kaplan, A., & Midgley, C. (1997). The effect of achievement goals: Doeslevel of perceived academic competence make a difference? Contempo-rary Educational Psychology, 22, 415435

Lindner, R. W., & Harris, D. (1992). Self-regulated learning: Its assess-ment and instructional implications. Educational Research Quarterly,16, 2937.

Meece, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Hoyle, R. (1988). Students goal orientationand cognitive engagement in classroom activities.Journal of EducationalPsychology,80, 514523.

Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L.,Freeman, K. E., et al. (2000). Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learn-ing Scales (PALS). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Ministry of National Education of Turkey. (2005). Elementary school sci-ence and technology curriculum. Ankara, Turkey: Author.

Murphy, P. K., Buehl, M. M., Monoi, S., & Long, J. F. (2002, April).Understanding the achievement of inner-city adolescents: The influenceof epistemological beliefs and achievement goal orientation on academicachievement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Neber, H., & Schommer-Aikins, M. (2002). Self-regulated science learningwith highly gifted students: The role of cognitive, motivational, episte-mological, and environmental variables. High Ability Studies, 13, 5974.

Nichols, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of abil-ity, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological

Review, 91,328346Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of

Educational Research, 66, 543578.Paulsen, M. B., & Feldman, K. A. (1999). Student motivation and episte-

mological beliefs.New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 78, 1725.Paulsen, M. B., & Feldman, K. A. (2005). The conditional and interac-

tion effects of epistemological beliefs on the self-regulated learning ofcollege students: Motivational strategies research in higher education.Researchin HigherEducation, 46, 731768.

Pinarbasi, T., Canpolat, N., Bayrakceken, S., & Geban, O. (2006).An investigation of effectiveness of conceptual change text-orientedinstruction on students understanding of solution concept. Research inScience Education, 36, 313335.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). An achievement goal theory perspective on issuesin motivation terminology, theory, and research. Contemporary Educa-tional Psychology, 25, 92104.

Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulatedlearning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of

Educational Psychology,82, 3340.Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory,

research, and applications.Columbus, OH: Merrill.Pintrich, P., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reli-

ability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for LearningQuestionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53,801813.

Pomeroy, D. (1993). Implications of teachers beliefs about the nature ofscience: Comparison of the beliefs of scientist, secondary science teach-ers, and elementary teachers. Science Education, 77, 261278.

Ravindran, B., Greene, B. A., & Debacker, T. K. (2005). Predicting pre-service teachers cognitive engagement with goals and epistemologicalbeliefs. The Journal of Educational Research, 98, 222232.

Saunders, G. L. (1998). Relationships among epistemological beliefs, gender,approaches to learning, and implementation of instruction in chemistry

laboratory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma,Oklahoma City.

Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge oncomprehension.Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498504.

Schommer, M. (1993). Epistemological development and academic per-formance among secondary students. Journal of Educational Psychology,85, 406411.

Schommer, M. (1998). The influence of age and schooling on epistemo-logical belief. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 551560.

Shu-Shen, S. (2002). Childrens self-efficacy beliefs, goal setting behav-iors, and self-regulated learning. Journal of National Taipei TeachersCollege, 15, 263282.

Smith, C. L., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., & Hennessey, M. G. (2000).Sixth-grade students epistemologies of science: The impact of schoolscience experiences on epistemological development. Cognition andInstruction, 18, 349422.

Sungur, S. (2007). Modeling the relationships among students motiva-tional beliefs, metacognitive strategy use, and effort regulation. Scandi-

navian Journal of Educational Research, 51, 315326.Trowbridge, J. E., & Mintzes, J. (1988). Alternative conceptions in animal

classification: A cross-age study.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,25, 547571.

Tsai, C.-C. (1998). An analysis of scientific epistemological beliefs andlearning orientations of Taiwanese eighth graders. Science Education,82, 473489.

Tung-Hsien, H. (2004). The relations among trichotomous achievementgoals, self-efficacy, and self-regulation in EFL sixth-grade classes in Tai-wan.Journal of National Taipei Teachers College, 17, 111134.

Valle, A., Cabanach, R. G., Nunez, J. C., Gonzalez-Pienda, J., Rodriguez,S., & Pieniro, I. (2003). Cognitive, motivational, and volitional dimen-sion of learning. Research in Higher Education, 44, 557580.

Walker, C. O., Greene, B. A., & Mansell, R. A. (2006). Identificationwith academics, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation and self-efficacy aspredictors of cognitive engagement. Learning and Individual Differences,16, 112.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achieve-

ment motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 6881.Wolters, C. A., Yu, S. Y., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). The relation between

goal orientation and students motivational beliefs and self-regulatedlearning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 211238.

Yen, C.-F., Yao, T.-W., & Mintzes, J. J. (2007). Taiwanese studentsalternative conceptions of animal biodiversity. International Journal ofScience Education, 29, 535553.


14/16


15/16


16/16

learning approach - motivational

Documents