motivation, learning, and transformative experience: a study of deep engagement in science

Motivation, Learning, andTransformative Experience:A Study of Deep Engagementin Science

KEVIN J. PUGHUniversity of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO 80639, USA

LISA LINNENBRINK-GARCIADuke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA

KRISTIN L. K. KOSKEY, VICTORIA C. STEWART, CHRISTINE MANZEYUniversity of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43606, USA

Received 25 January 2008; revised 22 January 2009; accepted 26 January 2009

DOI 10.1002/sce.20344Published online 15 April 2009 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

ABSTRACT: This study investigated the prevalence of transformative experiences, an-tecedents of transformative experience, and the relation between transformative experienceand deep-level learning (conceptual change and transfer) for high school biology students(N = 166). Results suggested that the high school students in our sample typically engagedin low levels of transformative experience with respect to biology, but those students whostrongly identified with science and who endorsed a mastery goal orientation were morelikely to report engagement in higher levels of transformative experience. Furthermore, ahigher level of engagement in transformative experience was positively associated with(a) conceptual change in understanding the concept of natural selection, but not inheri-tance, at the post- and follow-up assessments and (b) transfer at the follow-up assessment.C© 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 94:1 – 28, 2010

According to Jackson (1986), there are two enduring outlooks in education, the mimetic,which focuses on transmitting predetermined and measurable information to students,and the transformative, which focuses on the transformation of qualities such as values,attitudes, and perceptions. Unfortunately, the majority of our efforts for educating children

Correspondence to: Kevin J. Pugh; e-mail: [email protected] grant sponsor: Jacobs Foundation.The findings and views reported in this manuscript are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect the

views of the Jacobs Foundation. An earlier version of the manuscript was presented at the annual meetingof the American Educational Research Association.

C© 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

2 PUGH ET AL.

have focused on transmitting knowledge rather than enriching, expanding, and transformingeveryday experience. By failing to focus on transformative forms of education, we not onlylimit the potential influence of education on children’s lives but also miss out on theopportunity to dramatically change the way that students engage with and learn fromeducational materials. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to investigate a particularform of transformative learning known as transformative experience, with the intent ofexpanding our understanding of how to support transformative learning and the potentialbenefits of transformative learning for supporting conceptual understanding and transfer inscience.

Building on the work of Dewey (e.g., 1933, 1938, 1934/1980), Wong, Pugh, and theDeweyan Ideas Group at Michigan State University (2001) proposed a transformative per-spective of science education in which the goal is to engage students in transformativeexperiences with science concepts. Transformative experiences have been defined as thoseexperiences in which students actively use science concepts to see and experience theireveryday world in meaningful, new ways (Pugh, 2004). Unfortunately, little is knownabout the degree to which science education fosters transformative experiences (Pugh &Bergin, 2005) and very little empirical research has examined potential factors leading toengagement in transformative experiences. We do not know how common transformativeexperiences are or why some students may engage in transformative experiences while oth-ers do not. In addition, because transformative experiences involve a meaningful integrationof science content into everyday experience, they are likely beneficial to successfully over-coming misconceptions and for facilitating transfer among conceptual ideas. Yet there islittle empirical research investigating the potential benefits of transformative experience forlearning in science.

Accordingly, the current research investigated transformative experiences in the contextof a high school biology unit on natural selection with the purpose of addressing threemain issues. First, we examined the prevalence of transformative experiences in science.Second, we considered whether individual factors (e.g., science identity and achievementgoal orientations) related to increases in the likelihood that students engage in transforma-tive experiences. Finally, we examined how undergoing transformative experiences couldenhance learning in science by considering whether these types of experiences helped facil-itate conceptual change and transfer, two of the more difficult aspects of science learning.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Similar to sociocultural (Lemke, 2001) and feminist (Brickhouse, 2001) perspectiveson science education, the neo-Deweyan perspective proposed by Wong et al. (2001) high-lights the role of context, language, and participation in science learning. However, as arealist epistemology, it emphasizes not only the social and cultural aspects of context andparticipation but also the individual’s interactions with the real world. Wong et al. (2001)commented,

As a realist, Dewey did not view knowledge as a purely social (or individual) construction.Instead, legitimate knowledge and meaning always has a basis in our interactions with theworld . . . the value of an idea lies not simply in its rational basis, nor in the sway of thesocial influences associated with it, but also in what it yields for individuals as they act inthe world. (p. 332)

This focus on what an idea yields for the individual is where transformative learning issituated. From the Deweyan perspective, the acquisition of conceptual understanding and

Science Education

DEEP ENGAGEMENT IN SCIENCE 3

legitimate participation in a science discourse community are valuable outcomes but notsufficient for a complete learning experience. For a learning experience to be complete, itmust yield an expanded experiencing of the everyday world. It must be transformative.

Prominent scientists and science educators have emphasized these transformative aspectsof science learning. For example, Richard Feynman tells the story of a friend who thoughtartists saw more beauty in a flower than scientists. Feynman’s response was, “There are allkinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science, which only adds to theexcitement and mystery of a flower. It only adds” (1988, p. 11). Likewise, science educatorssuch as Flannery (1991), Root-Bernstein (1997), and Wickman (2006), to name a few, haveemphasized the potential of science education to transform our aesthetic experiencing ofthe everyday world. Even early views of scientific literacy emphasized the transformativepotential of science learning. For instance, Showalter (1974) argued, “the scientificallyliterate person has developed a richer, more satisfying, more exciting view of the universeas a result of his science education” (as cited in Laugksch, 2000, p. 77).

However, a concern with the transformative potential of science education is largelyabsent from our dominant research paradigms in science education. As Pugh and Girod(2007) stated, “We are more likely to ask questions like, ‘Do students understand theconcepts correctly?’ than ‘Do the concepts make any difference in the students’ everyday,out-of-school lives?”’ (p. 10). As such, we felt an exploration of the nature of transformativeexperience in science was sorely needed. In the following sections, we review the existingtheory and research on transformative experiences in science.

Defining and Conceptualizing Transformative Experience

Transformative experience is a form of engagement; thus, it is beneficial to situatethe construct in current research on engagement. Engagement refers to the intensity andemotional quality of students’ involvement (Connell, 1990; Fredricks, Blumenfeld, &Paris, 2004). It is a holistic construct having a behavioral (e.g., on-task behavior coupledwith goal-directed activity and persistence), affective (e.g., interest, curiosity), and cogni-tive component (e.g., use of deep-level learning strategies) (Ainley, 1993; Blumenfeld,Megendoller, & Puro, 1992; Connell, 1990; Caraway, Tucker, Reinke, & Hall, 2003;Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Meece, Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988; Skinner, Wellborn, & Connell,1990). Engagement is a promising construct in education because it has the potential tointegrate numerous bodies of literature (e.g., motivation, cognitive strategies) and providea unified framework for studying education (Fredricks et al., 2004). Moreover, given theties between deep engagement and conceptual change (Dole & Sinatra, 1998), engagementis also critical for addressing conceptual learning in science.

To date, researchers have primarily focused on engagement in the classroom, structuredout-of-school contexts such as museums (e.g., Falk, 2001), or school-related activitiesoutside the classroom such as study behavior (e.g., Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983).1 The con-struct of transformative experience fills a gap by defining a form of engagement that extendsbeyond the classroom. Specifically, Pugh (2002, 2004) defined a transformative experiencein terms of three interrelated and interdependent qualities: (1) motivated use; (2) expansionof perception; and (3) experiential value. Motivated use is a type of transfer that refers tothe application of learning in a context (including out-of-school contexts) in which suchuse is not required (Pugh & Bergin, 2006). Expansion of perception refers to seeing and

1 One exception is research on continuing motivation (Maehr, 1976), which looks at how engagement withcontent extends (or fails to extend) to everyday, out-of-school activities (Bergin, 1992, 1996; Laukenmannet al., 2003; Meyer & Eley, 1999). However, little research has been done in this area.

Science Education

4 PUGH ET AL.

understanding aspects of the world (objects, events, issues, others, or the self) in new ways.It is the cognitive aspect of the motivated use. Experiential value refers to the valuingof content for its usefulness in immediate, everyday experience. Experiential value over-laps with the intrinsic and utility aspects of task value (Eccles & Wigfield, 1985; Wigfield &Eccles, 1992) and the feeling and value components of actualized personal interest(Schiefele, 1991, 2001). Hence, in line with prior conceptions of engagement, transfor-mative experience is a holistic construct defined by behavior (motivated use), cognition(expansion of perception), and affect (experiential value). However, it is one that representsa deep level of engagement by focusing on engagement beyond the classroom.

As and example, Pugh (2002) described a high school biology student whose experiencewith animals was transformed by the ideas of adaptation and natural selection. He beganto think about these ideas when he saw animals in real life or on television (motivated use)and changed the way he perceived these animals (expansion of perception). He explained,

I now don’t just look at [an] animal and say, ‘That’s cute.’ I stop and think a littleharder . . . I wonder if they are closely related to me as a human. I also think about theirmarkings and how it helps them. (p. 1128)

He also displayed experiential value by reporting that he became more interested in animalsand valued the concept of adaptation because “it made me look past the animal and mademe try to understand more about it” (p. 1129).

A transformative experience may be as simple as a child looking at her bike and realizingwith excitement that it is made up of the shapes (e.g., circles, triangles) she is learningabout in school. Or, a transformative experience may be as profound as a high schoolstudent developing a lifelong interest in bird watching, because he was captivated by Dar-win’s study of the Galapagos finches. The defining criterion of a transformative experienceis that it involves students applying learning in their everyday lives in a way that yieldsvalue and an expanded perception. This synthesis of qualities (motivated use, expansionof perception, and experiential value) is critical in the examples provided and helps differ-entiate transformative experience from related constructs such as continuing motivation,interest, or transfer. A transformative experience is a unified event, one that is definedby a unique interaction of behavioral, cognitive, and affective components. Moreover, theemphasis on out-of-school experience helps differentiate transformative experience fromprior conceptualizations of engagement.

Prevalence of Transformative Experiences

Initial research suggests that transformative experiences occur infrequently, unless specif-ically targeted by instruction. In two intervention studies, transformative experiences wererare among students not receiving instruction designed to foster them (Girod, Rau, &Schepige, 2003; Pugh, 2002). For instance, in a study involving high school biologystudents, only 9% of students in the control condition underwent genuine transformativeexperiences (Pugh, 2002).

Thus, we suspect that most students are not undergoing transformative experiences. Infact, it may well be that most students do not even think about the science ideas they learnonce they leave the classroom. For instance, students may learn all about astronomy inclass but never look at the stars differently at night. Although it may not be immediatelyattainable for all students, we believe that transformative experiences for all is a worthwhilegoal. In this paper, we extend earlier work on transformative experience to suggest thattransformative experience can be conceptualized as a continuum ranging from in-schoolengagement to out-of-school engagement. Thus, the qualities of motivated use, expansion

Science Education


of perception, and experiential value may first emerge as in-class forms of engagement.Students may initially apply learning, perceive the world through the lens of science ideas,and display interest when these actions are deliberately supported in the classroom. Overtime, these in-school forms of engagement may develop into the out-of-school forms ofengagement that typify a mature transformative experience and the kind of idealized purposeof education envisioned by Dewey (1938). A realistic goal for educators may be to focuson developing engagement so that it becomes more transformative over time. However,before we can even get to this goal, we need to understand the scope of the problem.Currently, we know too little about the prevalence of transformative experiences in scienceclassrooms.

Individual Predictors of Transformative Experience

If transformative experiences are rare, then we also need to learn about the supportingand inhibiting factors.2 As discussed in the following text, we believe that science identityand achievement goal orientations are important individual factors related to the occurrenceof transformative experiences.

Identity has been conceptualized in terms of the goals, values, and beliefs to which anindividual commits (Waterman, 2004). Generally speaking, identity can refer to one’s senseof “this is who I am” as well as one’s possible selves or sense of “this is who I could become”(Markus & Nurius, 1986). A growing body of research on issues of self and identity revealsthat these issues play a vital role in science learning and motivation (Demastes, Good, &Peebles, 1995; Packard & Nguyen, 2003; Roeser, Peck, & Nasir, 2006).

Of particular relevance to the current work, Brophy (1999, 2004) and Bergin (1999)have argued that identity plays a role in the development of content-related interest andappreciation. Given that the development of content-related interest is a component ofexperiential value, identity should also have an influence on the occurrence of transformativeexperience. Initial studies support this latter contention. In two studies employing case-studyanalysis techniques (Girod & Wong, 2002; Pugh, 2004), those science students identifiedas having undergone transformative experiences perceived the subject matter as relevant totheir identities or could picture themselves pursuing studies or work in a science-relatedfield. For instance, a middle school student who engaged in an exemplary transformativeexperience when learning physics described himself as a “science person” and picturedhimself pursuing a career in science (Pugh, 2004). Learning the content had attainmentvalue in that it helped this student confirm his self-schema. In the current study, we furtherinvestigated whether students’ identity, particularly their science identity, was predictive ofengagement in transformative experiences with science content. Here, science identity refersto the degree to which students view science as an important part of who they are, perceivethemselves as science people, and can picture themselves pursuing science in the future.

Achievement goal orientations are also likely to be important factors related to engage-ment in transformative experiences. Achievement goal orientations represent a generalframework from which students react to and interpret achievement situations and explainhow and why students engage in achievement-related behavior (Ames, 1992; Dweck &Leggett, 1988). Theorists distinguish between two main goal orientations: mastery, with afocus on developing competence, and performance, with a focus on demonstrating com-petence. Performance goal orientations have been further divided into approach (focus

2 Although a transformative experience requires self-initiated action, such action may be either supportedor inhibited by the environment. A transformative experience results from a unique transaction (Dewey,1938) among the individual, content, and environment.

Science Education

6 PUGH ET AL.

on demonstrating competence) and avoidance (focus on avoiding the demonstration ofincompetence) orientations (Elliot, 1997; Middleton & Midgley, 1997).

Given that students with a mastery orientation have a focus on learning, we expect thatthey would be more likely to undergo transformative experiences. Specifically, students whohave a genuine desire to learn the content and develop their competence should be morelikely to carry their engagement with the content over to their everyday lives. In contrast,students who endorse performance goal orientations, either approach or avoidance, wouldbe unlikely to engage in transformative experience, as this would not readily serve theirfocus on demonstrating their competence or avoiding appearing incompetent. There is somesupport for these hypotheses in that mastery goals, but not performance goals, have beenlinked to increases in interest (e.g., Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter, Lehto, & Elliot, 1997;Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, Carter, & Elliot, 2000).

Importantly, goal orientations are thought to be based both in individual differencesthat students may bring to the situation (e.g., theories of intelligence, need for achieve-ment; Dweck, 2002; Elliot, 1999) and in features of the classroom or school context (e.g.,task, autonomy, recognition and evaluation; Ames, 1992). The latter, in particular, makeit especially important to consider goal orientations in relation to transformative experi-ence, as altering the classroom to emphasize mastery goal orientations may help facilitatetransformative experience.

Finally, it also seems plausible that the constructs of science identity and achievement goalorientations may be related; as such, achievement goal orientations may partially mediatethe relation of science identity to transformative experience. In particular, students whostrongly identify with science will likely be concerned with developing their competencein this domain and, perhaps, with demonstrating their competence. As such, we expectthat students with a strong science identity will be more likely to strongly endorse amastery orientation and may also strongly endorse a performance-approach orientation(the two orientations are not mutually exclusive). Although science identity may lead toboth mastery and performance-approach goal orientations, we only predict that masterygoal orientations will mediate the relation between science identity and transformativeexperience, as we expect a mastery goal orientation to be positively related to transformativeexperience but do not predict a relation between performance-approach goal orientationsand transformative experience. Accordingly, we examine whether the relation of scienceidentity to transformative experience will be partially mediated through the endorsementof mastery goal orientations in biology.

Transformative Experience, Conceptual Change, and Transfer

Transformative experience is a valued learning outcome in its own right. However, en-gagement in transformative experience is potentially linked with other valuable outcomessuch as conceptual change. Research has established the necessity to foster conceptualchange in students, as students often hold onto their existing conceptual frameworks andresist learning more scientifically appropriate conceptual frameworks (e.g., Brumby, 1984;McCloskey, 1983; Vosniadou & Brewer, 1992). While there are many different perspec-tives on conceptual change processes, the approach of Posner, Strike, Hewson, and Gertzog(1982) and Strike and Posner (1992) serves as the basis for much of the work in thisarea. They proposed that individuals are more likely to revise their existing conceptualframeworks when certain conditions are met. One condition is that the new concept ap-pears fruitful. Posner et al. (1982) explain that “if the new conception . . . leads to newinsights and discoveries, then the new conception will appear fruitful” (p. 222) and con-ceptual change will be more likely. In this statement, the authors refer to new conceptions

Science Education


introduced in scientific communities. Applied to students, new conceptions can prove fruit-ful when they lead to meaningful, new insights regarding objects, events, or issues in theireveryday experience. That is, they prove fruitful when they yield an expansion of perceptionand have experiential value. Similarly, one of the keys to lasting conceptual change is thatnew knowledge needs to be usefully and meaningfully integrated into the student’s existingframework of knowledge and experience (Georghiades, 2000). Hence, the qualities that de-fine a transformative experience, motivated use, expansion of perception, and experientialvalue, are likely to support conceptual change.

In addition, current models of conceptual change acknowledge the role of motivationalfactors such as interest. For example, Dole and Sinatra’s (1998) cognitive reconstructionof knowledge model suggests that interest and task value support conceptual change byincreasing cognitive engagement (e.g., focused attention, effective strategy use, persistence;see also Pintrich, Marx, & Boyle, 1993). There is some preliminary support for the impor-tance of interest in conceptual change processes (Andre & Windschitl, 2003). However,other research suggests that interest alone is not always sufficient for conceptual change(Venville & Treagust, 1998) and high prior topic interest may even inhibit conceptualchange (Murphy & Alexander, 2004). Indeed, it may be that interest facilitates concep-tual change only when interest changes the way that students approach and engage in thecontent (Murphy & Mason, 2006). In a transformative experience, interest takes on theform of experiential value. Because this form of interest focuses on the meaningfulness ofthe content in everyday experience, it should foster increased cognitive engagement whilelearning the content (e.g., students are more likely to stay focused and persist because theysee the relevance of the material to their everyday experience) and, as a result, increasedconceptual change.

Prior research supports our contention that transformative experiences contribute toconceptual change. Pugh (2002) found that high school biology students who underwenttransformative experiences achieved statistically significant gains in enduring conceptualunderstanding compared with students who did not undergo transformative experiences.Girod (2001) found that fifth-grade students who received instruction designed to fostertransformative experiences displayed statistically significant gains on measures of concep-tual understanding on the posttest and follow-up assessments compared with students notreceiving the intervention instruction. However, both studies involved small samples(N < 60) and conceptual change was not directly measured. Research is needed that targetschange in specific conceptions and utilizes a larger sample.

Another outcome potentially related to transformative experience is transfer. Transferrefers to the ability to apply knowledge or skills to tasks that differ from the learningtasks or in contexts that differ from the learning context (Marini & Genereux, 1995). Oftena degree of problem solving or analogical reasoning is required to complete the noveltasks (Gick & Holyoak, 1980). Transfer, as it is traditionally defined, is distinct from theconstruct of transformative experience in that it focuses on the ability to apply knowledgeand skills (Pugh & Bergin, 2005, 2006). In contrast, transformative experience incorporatesfeeling, value, and action. It addresses whether students actively apply learning even whenit is not required and whether doing so yields experiential value. Nevertheless, the twoconstructs are likely related. It is probable that students who actively apply learning as partof transformative experiences develop their abilities to successfully transfer that learning.That is, students who choose to engage with the content in their everyday lives should bemore successful when confronted with a task that requires them to apply that content.3

3 The predicted relation between transformative experience and deep-level learning may well be recip-rocal. However, a full analysis of the nature of this relationship is beyond the scope of this study.

Science Education

8 PUGH ET AL.

Thus, we expect students who engage in transformative experiences to maintain or furtherdevelop transfer ability over time.

PURPOSE

In this study, we investigated the prevalence of transformative experiences, individualpredictors of transformative experience, and the relation between transformative experienceand deep-level learning of natural selection concepts in high school biology classes. Wefocused on biology in particular because past research has shown that the concept of naturalselection can be a fertile source for transformative experiences (Pugh, 2002). In addition,students often hold deep-seated misconceptions about natural selection, making it a fruitfulconcept for studying conceptual change (Bishop & Anderson, 1990; Brumby, 1984; Clough& Wood-Robinson, 1985a, 1985b; Ferrari & Chi, 1998; Kelemen & DiYanni, 2005). Whilesome research examined how attitudes (e.g., Ingram & Nelson, 2006), epistemologicalbeliefs (Sinatra, Southerland, McConaughy, & Demastes, 2003), and affective factors (e.g.,Demastes et al., 1995) influence conceptual change, little research has directly examinedthe relation of transformative experiences to conceptual change with respect to the conceptof natural selection. Finally, the concept of natural selection has been applied to a diversearray of topics ranging from cognitive development (e.g., Siegler, 1996) to economics (e.g.,Laurent & Nightingale, 2001). Hence, it is also a valuable concept for investigating transfer.

Three main research questions guided this work:

1. How prevalent are transformative experiences among high school biology studentslearning about natural selection?

2. Do science identity and a mastery goal orientation relate positively to transforma-tive experiences? Also, is the relation between science identity and transformativeexperience mediated by the endorsement of a mastery goal orientation?

3. Does engagement in transformative experience relate to initial and enduring concep-tual change and transfer?

METHOD

Sample

One hundred ninety-eight students enrolled in high school biology courses during thespring of 2005 were asked to participate in the study. The participants (Mage = 15.25)were drawn from two different teachers’ classes from two high schools. Both teachers wereexperienced and well respected at their respective schools. One hundred twenty-nine (65%)of the students were enrolled in an urban, religiously affiliated private high school in a largemidwestern city in the United States; 70 (35%) students were enrolled in a public highschool located in the suburbs of the same city. A total of 124 students from the religiouslyaffiliated private high school volunteered to participate (96% response rate); 43 studentsfrom the public high school volunteered to participate (61% response rate). One studentdid not complete all the surveys and thus was not included in the final sample. Of the166 students in the final sample, 34% were male and 66% were female, suggesting a higherparticipation rate among females. Twenty-nine (17%) of these students were enrolled inhonors level biology courses. With respect to ethnicity, 80% of students were Caucasian,7% African American, and the remainder (13%) of the sample were Asian, Pacific Islander,or mixed or did not report their ethnicity. The sample comprised a nearly even split of9th-grade students (51%) and 10th-grade students (49%).

Science Education


Procedure

Data were collected in three waves: pretest (before a unit on adaptation and naturalselection), posttest (immediately following the unit), and follow-up (5 weeks after the unit).All data were collected from students in their science classes. Approximately 2 weeks priorto the start of the unit on natural selection, trained research assistants administered thepretest survey assessing students’ goal orientations, science identity, basic knowledge, andconceptual understanding. At the end of the unit but before taking the unit examination,research assistants administered the posttest survey assessing transformative experience.The posttest measures of basic knowledge, conceptual understanding, and transfer werecompleted as part of students’ regular in-class unit examination on natural selection. Finally,trained research assistants returned 5 weeks after the end of the unit and administeredfollow-up conceptual understanding and transfer questions.

Measures

Transformative Experience. A previously established measure (see Pugh, Kleshinski,Linnenbrink, & Fox, 2004) of transformative experience based on the assumption thattransformative experience exists as continuum, ranging from in-school engagement to out-of-school engagement, was used in this study. This previously established measure includeditems that were developed to reflect the three qualities used by Pugh (2002, 2004) to definetransformative experience: motivated use, expansion of perception, and experiential value.Some related items targeting students’ engagement in class were included to representthe lower end of the transformative experience continuum. For example, the expansion ofperception item “During science class, I see things in terms of adaptation and/or naturalselection” targeted in-class expansion of perception, whereas the item “I look for examplesof adaptation and/or natural selection outside of class” targeted out-of-school expansion ofperception and represents a higher level of transformative experience. Items were rated ona 4-point Likert scale (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree). A Rasch ratingscale analysis (Rasch, 1960, 1980) was used to transform the response scale to an equalinterval scale of log odd units (logits) and determine whether the data fit the Rasch model.Removing and modifying misfitting (i.e., MNSQ > 1.4; Wright & Linacre, 1994) and overfitting (i.e., redundant) items yielded a 29-item measure.

In this study, we began with the same 29-item measure and used Rasch analysis, usingWINSTEPS (Linacre, 2006), to inform the quality of the measure (see Appendix A foritems). Several iterations were conducted to determine the best fit to the Rasch model. The4-point rating scale functioned well, with at least 1.4 logits between each step and observedaverages progressing from less to more as recommended by Linacre (1999, 2002). Oneperson was dropped for having a negative point-biserial correlation, indicating this personhad too much unexpected variation in his responses. Two items were dropped becauseof misfit (see Appendix A for dropped items). The item statistics for the final 27-itemmeasure are provided in Appendix B. The remaining 27 items had acceptable fit statistics,indicating they contributed to the overall measure and positive point-biserial correlations.An item and a person reliability4 of .99 and .96, respectively, indicated the replicability ofthe ordering of items and persons along the continuum for similar samples. Person and item

4 Rasch reliability coefficients range from 0 to 1 and can be interpreted similar to Cronbach’s α (Bond &Fox, 2007). They indicate the replicability of item or person ordering along the continuum for other similarsamples or measures.

Science Education

10 PUGH ET AL.

separation5 were 4.82 and 11.15, respectively, indicating that the measure distinguishedamong people and among different levels of engagement along the continuum. A Raschprincipal components analysis (PCA) was also conducted to examine whether the itemsmeasured a single underlying construct (Linacre, 1998). The Rasch PCA supported thatthe items measured a unidimensional construct with a total of 85.6% of the variance inthe data explained by the Rasch linear measures, above the minimum criteria of 60.0%recommended by Linacre (2005). Greater detail regarding the nature of transformativeexperience with respect to this measure is provided in the “Results” section.

Achievement Goal Orientations. Achievement goal orientations were assessed duringthe pretest phase with the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey (PALS; Midgley et al.,2000), which was adapted to assess students’ motivation in relation to science. Studentswere asked to report on the extent to which each item reflected their beliefs in rela-tion to their high school biology course by rating each item on a 5-point Likert scale(1 = not at all true, 5 = very true). Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted usingMplus, Version 4.2 (Muthen & Muthen, 1998–2006), to ensure that the data fit the proposedthree-factor model (mastery, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance). On thebasis of these analyses, two items were dropped, one from the performance-approach scale(“One of my goals is to show others that I’m good at my biology class work”) and onefrom the performance-avoidance scale (“One of my goals is to keep others from think-ing I’m not smart in biology”), as they had relatively low factor coefficients for theirrespective scales and lowered the overall reliability of each scale. On the basis of theseanalyses, mastery goal orientations were assessed with five items (α = .90), performance-approach goal orientations were assessed with four items (α = .91), and performance-avoidance goal orientations were assessed with three items (α = .84). The final three-factormodel provided a reasonable fit for the data (χ2(51) = 130.68, p < .001, compara-tive fit index [CFI] = 0.94, standardized root mean-squared residual [SRMR] = 0.06).More detailed information regarding the factor analyses is available from the authors uponrequest.

Science Identity. Science identity was assessed with a self-report questionnaire adminis-tered at the pretest (sample item: “I consider myself a science person”; see Appendix A forcomplete scale). Students rated each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at alltrue) to 5 (very true). This scale was developed by cognitive pretesting, which involves theuse of targeted interviews to assess whether students understand items as the researchersintended and elicit feedback on problem wording in the items and use of the scale (Woolley,Bowen, & Bowen, 2004).6 Six students, 15–16 years old, who were currently enrolled in orrecently completed a biology course participated in the pretesting. On the basis of students’responses by the cognitive pretesting protocol, a final set of five items was included in thepretest measure as part of this study.

5 Rasch separation indices indicate the ability of the items to distinguish multiple levels of the variable(or people) on the continuum (Bond & Fox, 2007). A separation of two or more is desirable (Wright &Masters, 1982), indicating that items are measuring more than a dichotomy of items or people.

6 A standard protocol was followed in which interviewees read seven items aloud and were asked foreach item: “What is this question trying to find out from you?” and “How would you respond to thisquestion?” In addition, to assess whether students’ responses aligned with their response choice, they wereasked, “Why did you choose this response?” Follow-up prompts were used for some items to assess whetherinterviewees understanding of specific terms agreed with the intended meaning.

Science Education


To ensure that science identity was distinct from other theoretically related constructs(interest, utility, and self-efficacy)7 and achievement goal orientations, we conducted aseries of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. The first set of analyses examinedwhether science identity was distinct from task value (interest, utility) and self-efficacy. Onthe basis of both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, we dropped one item becauseit had relatively high factor coefficients on several of the other scales and removing theitem improved the overall fit of the confirmatory models. The final model, which consistedof four latent variables (science identity, interest, utility, and self-efficacy), fit the datareasonably well (χ2(129) = 243.36, p < .001, CFI = 0.95, SRMR = 0.05). Accordingly,we created a 4-item scale (α =.93 to assess science identity in this study). Both exploratoryand confirmatory factor analyses suggested that the four predictor variables used in thisstudy (science identity, mastery goal orientation, performance-approach goal orientation,and performance-avoidance goal orientation) were distinct (χ2(98) = 219.12, p <.001, CFI= 0.94, SRMR = 0.06). More detailed information regarding these analyses is availablefrom the authors.

Basic Knowledge. Ten multiple-choice items assessing basic knowledge of adaptationand natural selection were included on the pretest. The sum of the correct responseswas used as an indicator of prior knowledge at the pretest. The basic knowledge itemswere developed from multiple-choice tests that were used by the high school scienceinstructors who participated in the study. Many of the items came from examinations thatwere packaged with the textbook. The science instructors and an expert in high schoolscience education reviewed all of the items to ensure that the basic concepts pertaining tonatural selection and adaptation were included in these items.

Conceptual Change. Two common misconceptions related to adaptation and natural se-lection were assessed: (1) a belief that individual organisms can change to fit the needs oftheir environment (natural selection misconception) and (2) a belief that acquired character-istics can be passed on (inheritance misconception). Open response items assessing thesetwo misconceptions were adapted from prior studies (Brumby, 1984; Clough & Wood-Robinson, 1985a, 1985b). A set of three corresponding items was developed for eachmisconception for use on the pretest, posttest, and follow-up. These items were reviewedby two science teachers, revised, and then pilot tested with a small sample of approximately10 individuals matching the target population. The pilot testing involved interviewing theindividuals to assess how they interpreted the items and evaluating whether they providedresponses appropriate to the items. Examples of a natural selection misconception item andinheritance misconception item are as follows:

Natural selection misconception: Some scientists found that most of the lizards that live inthe desert are brown and most of the lizards that live in the forest are green. Can you explainthis? How do you think this arrangement came about in the first place? What might happenif the forest became a desert over the years—say it was cut down and it rained less? Whatwould happen to the green lizards? (adapted from Clough & Wood-Robinson, 1985a)

Inheritance misconception: A married couple had trained hard to become good runners(though they were not particularly talented naturally). Would their children be automaticallygood runners? If the children of this family practiced hard over several generations—would

7 Measures of interest, utility, and self-efficacy were used as part of a larger study. Information regardingthese measures is available upon request.

Science Education

12 PUGH ET AL.

you get automatically faster runners in about 200 years? Please explain your answer.(adapted from Clough & Wood-Robinson, 1985b)

An initial coding scheme composed of four categories, ranging from clear misconceptionto correct understanding, was developed for each item set. Two researchers then used thesecategories to code 15 surveys. The researchers met to compare codes, resolve discrepancies,and revise the coding categories. For the natural selection items, it was found that theresponses represented more levels of understanding and a more nuanced coding schemewas needed to differentiate between these levels. Consequently, we added a fifth category,misconception with scientific language (see Appendix C). The researchers then coded theremaining surveys, with discrepancies resolved through discussion. Interrater reliabilitywas .91 for the natural selection items and .88 for the inheritance items. The final codingschemes are provided in Appendix C.

Transfer. Two corresponding items requiring students to apply understanding of naturalselection in a new context were developed to assess transfer during the posttest and follow-up phases (e.g., “Not only do organisms change over time, but so do TV programs. In whatways, if any, is this change similar to evolution of organisms through natural selection?In what ways, if any, is it different?”). These items were pilot tested in the same manneras the conceptual change items. Two researchers coded each of the items, with discrep-ancies resolved through discussion. Students were given credit for each valid similarityor difference provided. A surface-level similarity/difference was given 1 point, whereas adeep-level similarity/difference was given 2 points (interrater reliability = .85). Responseswere coded as surface level if they made simple comparisons based on basic ideas suchas adaptation or gradual change over time (e.g., “The TV program changes according toits environment of viewers. The same goes for organisms who change because of theirenvironment.”). Responses were coded as deep level if they made complex comparisonsbased on central principles such as survival of the fittest (e.g., “Examples: reality TV andmedical drama. People love these shows, hence, more of them tuning in. The TV station’srating goes up during that time. Money is made. They continue to broadcast it. It lasts andthere are more of them.”).

RESULTS

Prevalence of Transformative Experience

We began our analysis of transformative experience by using a Rasch analysis to orderparticipants along the continuum of the measure of transformative experience and computea composite score for each participant. To facilitate interpretation of the results, USCALEand UMEAN commands in WINSTEPS were used to convert the logit scale into the origi-nal 1- to 4-point scale used on the survey. Figure 1 displays an item–person map in whichparticipants are placed relative to the hierarchy of items. On the right side, items are listedin order of difficulty, with the easiest item to agree to at the bottom (#3) and the hardest itemto agree to at the top (#9). The ordering of items suggests a continuum of transformativeexperience generally ranging from engagement in the classroom8 (noticing examples of

8 Given the conceptualization of transformative experience as representing engagement that extendsbeyond the classroom, it may seem problematic to consider in-class actions as representing a level oftransformative experience. However, as explained earlier, the defining qualities of transformative experience(i.e., motivated use, expansion of perception, and experiential value) may be continuous with in-class actions

Science Education


5. Think about A/NS in salient situations. 14. During assignments, think about plants/animals in terms of A/NS. 17. Notice A/NS outside of class.

6. Think about A/NS outside of class.8. Love talking about A/NS. 10. Think about A/NS outside of school because interested. 28. A/NS make out-of-school experience more meaningful.

12. Seek out opportunities to apply A/NS. 19. Can’t help but see plants/animals in terms of A/NS. 29. Exciting to think about A/NS outside of school.

4. Talk about A/NS with parents.18. Look for examples of A/NS outside of class.

11. Think about A/NS in everyday situations.

9. Talk about A/NS for fun of it.

Less transformative

More transformative

4 . + |

| . |

| .. |

| . |

| |T T| 3 .. + . | .. | .. |S ....| . S| ... | ....... | 16. If see interesting plant/animal, think about it in terms of A/NS. 26. A/NS useful in everyday life.

........ | 7. Apply A/NS even when don’t have to. 27. Interested when hear about A/NS outside of school.

................... |M

................... | .............. | .................M| 13. During science class, see things in terms of A/NS. 25. A/NS makes plants/animals interesting. ......... | ........ | 21. Interesting in class when talk about plants/animals in terms of A/NS.

.... |S 23. A/NS is an interesting topic.

....... | 15. Notice examples of A/NS during science class. 20. During science class, A/NS is interesting.

..... | ... S| ... | 24. A/NS help me better understand plants/animals.

2 .. + 2. Think about A/NS in science class.

..... |T 3. Apply A/NS in science class.

.. | .. | . | T|

| .... | . | . | . | | . |

|||||||

1 .. + |

Items more difficult to agree with

Items easier to agree with

Figure 1. Map of students relative to items on a 1- to 4-point scale for the measure of transformative experience.Note. Each “.” represents 1 person. M = mean; S = 1 SD; T = 2 SD; and A/NS = adaptation and/or naturalselection. N = 163. Student estimates are listed on the left in hierarchical order from students who least agreed toengagement in a transformative experience (bottom of the map) to students who most agreed (the top of the map).Items are listed on the right in hierarchical order from items perceived as least difficult to agree with (bottom ofthe map) to those perceived as most difficult to agree with (top of map).

related to these qualities. For instance, applying learning to real-world situations under the direction of theteacher in class may be the first step to applying learning in one’s everyday experience. While this in-classlevel of engagement is minimally transformative, the in-class items fit the overall Rasch model and thussupport the view that this level of engagement is part of a transformative experience continuum.

Science Education

14 PUGH ET AL.

adaptation/natural selection in class) to engagement outside the classroom (noticing exam-ples of adaptation/natural selection outside of class) to engagement representing an activeand intentional seeking out of transformative experiences (e.g., looking for examples ofadaptation/natural selection outside of class).

On the left-hand side of Figure 1, the distribution of participants is represented. Itemslocated below a participant are ones that the individual was likely to agree to (as predictedby the Rasch model). Items located above are items that the individual was unlikely toagree to. The mean composite Rasch score for participants was 2.40 (SE = .03). By lookingat which items are located above and below this point, we can understand the sample’saverage level of engagement in transformative experience. Items located below the meanalmost exclusively target in-class engagement (Items 23 and 24 are the exceptions), andall the items specifically targeting out-of-school engagement are located above the mean.Thus, on average, we can describe this sample’s engagement as being at a lower levelon the transformative experience continuum. Specifically, they were likely to think aboutand apply natural selection in class, perceive objects through the lens of natural selectionduring class, find interest in natural selection during class, and view the learning of naturalselection as useful for understanding the world and for future studies and work. However,they were unlikely to talk about, think about, or apply their learning outside of school whennot required. That is, they were unlikely to agree to engaging in genuine motivated useof the content. They were also unlikely to perceive the world in terms of natural selectionoutside of class, be interested in natural selection outside of class, or find it to be usefulin their everyday experience. Overall, the students seemed, on average, to be developinga basis for higher level transformative experiences, but right now their engagement withnatural selection was largely confined to the classroom context.

Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations

The bivariate correlations (Table 1) suggest that both science identity (r = .24) andmastery goal orientations (r = .31) were positively associated with transformative expe-rience, as expected. The more students identified with science and were oriented towarddeveloping their competence in biology, the more likely they were to report higher lev-els of engagement in transformative experience. Furthermore, transformative experiencewas positively correlated with the posttest and follow-up indicators of both the naturalselection conceptual change question (posttest: r = .25; follow-up: r = .24) and transfer(posttest: r = .18; follow-up: r = .24), which suggests that students who underwent higherlevels of transformative experience also learned the information more deeply. However, itis also clear that students with initial basic knowledge of adaptation and evolution weremore likely to report higher levels of transformative experience (r = .24). Accordingly, wedecided to control for initial knowledge in our analyses examining the antecedents andconsequences of transformative experience. We also tested for gender differences, but therewere no statistically significant gender differences; therefore, we did not include gender inthe regression analyses.

Individual Predictors of Transformative Experience

A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted, with pretest basic knowledgeentered as a control in the first step, science identity entered in the second step, andachievement goal orientations entered in the third step to investigate the antecedents oftransformative experience (Table 2). Science identity was a statistically significant positivepredictor (β = .23) when controlling for prior knowledge. However, the effect was no longer

Science Education


TAB

LE

1M

ean

s,S

tan

dar

dD

evia

tio

ns,

and

Co

rrel

atio

ns

for

Co

ntr

ols

,Pre

dic

tors

,an

dD

epen

den

tV

aria

ble

s

Cor

rela

tion

Var

iabl

eN

MS

D1

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

Con

trol

s1.

Bas

ickn

owle

dge

pret

est

166

5.17

a1.

66–

2.N

atur

alse

lect

ion

pret

est

163

1.82

b1.

04.0

4–

3.In

herit

ance

pret

est

163

3.04

c.9

7−.

04−.

01–

Pre

dict

ors

4.S

cien

ceid

entit

y16

62.

64d

1.08

.03

.06

.03

–5.

Mas

tery

-app

roac

hgo

als

166

3.78

d.8

4−.

02.0

7−.

04.5

3–

6.P

erfo

rman

ce-a

ppro

ach

goal

s16

62.

32d

1.02

−.04

−.04

−.14

.22

.21

–7.

Per

form

ance

-avo

idan

cego

als

166

2.62

d1.

09.0

0.0

3−.

13.1

2.1

7.7

8–

Pre

dict

or/d

epen

dent

varia

ble

8.Tr

ansf

orm

ativ

eex

perie

nce

163

−.80

2.11

.24

.15

.04

.24

.31

.10

.10

–D

epen

dent

varia

bles

9.N

atur

alse

lect

ion

post

test

162

3.07

b1.

41.3

0.1

5−.

04.1

9.0

9.0

2.0

2.2

5–

10.N

atur

alse

lect

ion

follo

w-u

p16

53.

03b

1.34

.12

.33

.13

.11

.16

−.04

−.01

.24

.41

–11

.Inh

erita

nce

post

test

165

3.24

c.9

9−.

12.0

0.3

7−.

11−.

14−.

13−.

05−.

04−.

03.0

7–

12.I

nher

itanc

efo

llow

-up

164

3.33

c.9

2.1

7.0

5.2

7−.

02−.

14−.

11−.

06.0

3.0

8.1

1.4

3–

13.T

rans

fer

post

test

159

1.54

e1.

22.2

1.1

0−.

04−.

08−.

09.0

2.0

4.1

8.3

2.2

1−.

02.0

3–

14.T

rans

fer

follo

w-u

p16

61.

14e

1.00

.26

.13

.10

.11

.08

−.12

−.14

.24

.26

.29

.01

.13

.40

Not

e.A

llco

rrel

atio

nsab

ove

.16

are

sign

ifica

ntat

∗ p<

.05.

All

corr

elat

ions

abov

e.2

1ar

esi

gnifi

cant

at∗∗

p<

.01.

a Out

ofa

poss

ible

10po

ints

.b Res

pons

esw

ere

code

don

asc

ale

of1

(mis

conc

eptio

n)to

5(c

orre

ctco

ncep

tion)

.c Res

pons

esw

ere

code

don

asc

ale

of1

(mis

conc

eptio

n)to

4(c

orre

ctco

ncep

tion)

.dR

espo

nses

wer

eon

a5-

poin

tLik

erts

cale

(1=

nota

tall

true

;5=

very

true

).e R

espo

nses

wer

eco

ded

soth

atst

uden

tsre

ceiv

ed1

poin

tfor

each

surfa

ce-le

velt

rans

fer

and

2po

ints

for

each

deep

-leve

ltra

nsfe

r.

Science Education

16 PUGH ET AL.

TABLE 2Regression Analysis Predicting Transformative Experience

Engagement

Predictor B SE B β R2 Cohen’s d

Step 1 .05∗∗

Basic knowledge (pretest) 0.31 0.10 .24∗∗

Step 2 .10∗∗


Science identity 0.45 0.15 .23∗∗

Step 3 .14∗∗ .87a


Science identity 0.18 0.17 .09Mastery goals 0.64 0.22 .26∗∗

Performance-approach goals −0.02 0.24 −.01Performance-avoidance goals 0.10 0.23 .05

Note. N = 163.aCohen’s d effect size: .20 = small, .50 = medium, and .80 = large (Cohen, 1988).∗∗p < .01.

statistically significant when achievement goal orientations were added in the third step. Asexpected, mastery goal orientation was a statistically significant positive predictor (β = .26)of transformative experience. Thus, even when prior knowledge was included as a control,students with a focus on developing their competence were more likely to report higherlevels of engagement in transformative experience.

In addition to the direct relation of science identity and achievement goal orientationsto transformative experience, we considered the possibility that the relation of scienceidentity to transformative experience might be mediated by the endorsement of masterygoal orientations in biology. Using Baron and Kenny’s (1986) criteria, we found evidence formediation. The analyses reported thus far establish that (a) science identity was statisticallysignificantly related to transformative experience when mastery goal orientation was notincluded in the model (Step 2 of the regression analyses), (b) mastery goal orientationwas statistically significantly related to transformative experience (Step 3 of the regressionanalyses), and (c) the relation of science identity to transformative experience was no longerstatistically significant when mastery goal orientation was included (Step 3 of the regressionanalysis, β dropped from .23 to .09). The final criterion for mediation is that science identitymust be related to mastery goal orientations. Bivariate correlations suggested that there wasa positive relation (see Table 1), but we also tested this in a multiple regression analysisin which prior knowledge was included as a control and found that science identity was astatistically significant positive predictor of mastery goal orientations (β = .56, p < .001).Overall, these findings suggest that students who were more likely to identify with sciencewere also more likely to endorse mastery goal orientations, and that this increased focus ondeveloping competence in biology helps explain, at least partially, the positive relation ofscience identity to transformative experience.9

9 Science identity was also positively correlated with performance-approach goal orientations as wepredicted (see Table 1), but we did not examine performance-approach goal orientations as a mediator sinceperformance-approach goal orientations were unrelated to transformative experience.

Science Education


Predicting Conceptual Change and Transfer

To explore the relation of transformative experience to conceptual change, hierarchicalmultiple regression analyses were conducted for the posttest and follow-up natural selec-tion and inheritance items. The pretest measures of the corresponding conceptual changeitems were included in the first step as a control for prior understanding and transforma-tive experience was added in the second step (Table 3). Transformative experience was astatistically significant predictor of the natural selection item at both the posttest (β = .23)and follow-up (β = .19) assessments. Although we expected that the effect would becomelarger by the follow-up assessments, it was just slightly lower than the posttest measure.For the inheritance item, transformative experience was not a statistically significant pre-dictor at either the posttest or follow-up assessment (see Table 3). Thus, after accountingfor students’ initial conceptual understanding, students who reported higher levels of en-gagement in transformative experience were more likely than other students to displaygreater conceptual understanding of the principle of natural selection at the posttest andfollow-up assessments, but they were no more likely than other students to display a greaterconceptual understanding of the principle of inheritance at either time point.

A similar hierarchical multiple regression was used to predict transfer using pretestbasic knowledge as a control in the initial step (Table 4). Controlling for prior knowledge,transformative experience was a statistically significant positive predictor of transfer at thetime of follow-up (β = .19) but not at the time of posttest (β = .14). These results support ourinitial hypothesis that individuals who engage in higher levels of transformative experiencemaintain or further develop transfer ability over time.

DISCUSSION

Transformative learning is a long-standing tradition in education (Jackson, 1986), yetlittle empirical research has investigated this topic. A likely reason is the difficulty ofstudying a construct such as transformative experience. It is only recently that the field ofeducation has begun examining complex, holistic constructs in a scientifically sophisticatedway. As a result, we know little about the nature of transformative experiences and the rolethey may play in learning. In this study, we addressed this gap by studying the prevalenceof transformative experiences during science learning, individual factors that may serve asantecedents to transformative experience, and consequences of transformative experienceon conceptual change and transfer.

Our results suggest that transformative experience may be conceptualized as a continuumranging from in-class engagement to active out-of-school engagement. The upper levelsof this continuum are more typical of the conceptualization of transformative experienceused in prior research (e.g., Pugh, 2004; Pugh & Girod, 2007). In our sample, we foundthe average level of engagement to be at the low end of the transformative experiencecontinuum and engagement at the upper end was rare.

This latter result is in line with prior research (Pugh, 2002) and leads us to suspectthat transformative experience is an outcome that, much like conceptual change, has tobe deliberately addressed. As such, research is needed that examines the prevalence oftransformative experiences in relation to particular science teaching models. Within thefield of science education, educational models are being developed that are based oncore concepts and learning progressions (Duschl, Schweingruber, & Shouse, 2007). Thesemodels are designed to engage students with the central ideas of a discipline and help themdevelop successively deeper understandings of these ideas over time. It is probable thatthese models will foster transformative experiences. In addition, Pugh and Girod (2007)proposed a model of teaching for transformative experiences in science based on the results

Science Education

18 PUGH ET AL.

TAB

LE

3R

egre

ssio

nA

nal

ysis

Pre

dic

tin

gC

on

cep

tual

Ch

ang

e

Nat

ural

Sel

ectio

naN

atur

alS

elec

tiona

Inhe

ritan

ceb

Inhe

ritan

ceb

(Pos

ttest

,n=

157)

(Fol

low

-up,

n=

159)

(Pos

ttest

,n=

158)

(Fol

low

-up,

n=

158)

Coh

en’s

Coh

en’s

Coh

en’s

Coh

en’s

Pre

dict

orB

SE

Bβ

R2

dB

SE

Bβ

R2

dB

SE

Bβ

R2

dB

SE

Bβ

R2

d

Ste

p1

.01

.11∗∗

.13∗∗

.07∗∗

Initi

al0.

190.

11.1

40.

440.

10.3

5∗∗0.

370.

08.3

7∗∗0.

260.

07.2

8∗∗

conc

eptio

nc

Ste

p2

.06∗∗

.55d

.15∗∗

.85d

.13∗∗

.79d

.07∗∗

.57d

Initi

al0.

140.

11.1

10.

410.

10.3

2∗∗0.

370.

08.3

7∗∗0.

260.

07.2

8∗∗

conc

eptio

nc

Tran

sfor

mat

ive

0.15

0.05

.23∗∗

0.12

0.05

.19∗

−0.0

30.

04−.

060.

010.

04.0

2ex

perie

nce

a Ite

mta

rget

ing

unde

rsta

ndin

gof

natu

rals

elec

tion

and

the

mis

conc

eptio

nth

atin

divi

dual

orga

nism

sca

nch

ange

tofit

the

need

sof

thei

ren

viro

nmen

t.b I

tem

targ

etin

gun

ders

tand

ing

ofin

herit

ance

and

the

mis

conc

eptio

nth

atac

quire

dch

arac

teris

tics

can

bepa

ssed

on.

c Cor

resp

ondi

ngna

tura

lsel

ectio

nor

inhe

ritan

cepr

etes

tite

m.d

Coh

en’s

def

fect

size

:.20

=sm

all,

.50

=m

ediu

m,a

nd.8

0=

larg

e(C

ohen

,198

8).

∗ p<

.05

and

∗∗p

<.0

1.

Science Education


TABLE 4Regression Analysis Predicting Transfer Ability

Transfer (Posttest, n = 156) Transfer (Follow-up, n = 163)

Predictor B SE B β R 2 Cohen’s d B SE B β R 2 Cohen’s d

Step 1 .04∗∗ .06∗∗

Basic 0.16 0.06 .21∗∗ 0.16 0.05 .26∗∗

knowledgeStep 2 .05∗∗ .51a .09∗∗ .68a

Basic 0.13 0.06 .18∗ 0.13 0.05 .22∗∗

knowledgeTransformative 0.09 0.05 .14 0.09 0.04 .19∗

experience

aCohen’s d effect size: .20 = small, .50 = medium, and .80 = large (Cohen, 1988).∗p < .05 and ∗∗p < .01.

of initial intervention studies. This model is composed of a set of general strategies thatcould be used in conjunction with other models such as the learning progressions model.Research examining the prevalence of transformative experiences in relation to these modelswould be fruitful. Research is also needed that examines the prevalence of transformativeexperiences in relation to other science concepts and student populations. We still knowvery little about the impact of school learning on out-of-school experience, but this studysuggests that it would be unwise for science teachers to simply assume that the content ismaking a difference in students’ everyday lives.

Clearly, efforts are needed to understand the individual factors that predict transformativeexperience. Along these lines, students who reported identifying with science and whoendorsed a personal mastery goal orientation were more likely to engage in higher levelsof transformative experience. Both approach and avoidance performance goal orientationswere unrelated to engagement in transformative experience. In addition, a mastery goalorientation was found to mediate the relation between science identity and transformativeexperience. That is, students who identified with science were also more likely to endorse amastery goal orientation and this focus on developing competence helped explain, at leastpartially, the positive relation between science identity and transformative experience. Onemust keep in mind, however, that both science identity and mastery goal orientations wereassessed at the same time point and thus we are not able to make any direct claims aboutthe direction of this relation (e.g., it is possible that students who endorse mastery goalorientations in science are more likely to develop a strong identification with science).

These results suggests that it would be fruitful to design experimental studies focused onthe potential causal relations among a personal mastery goal orientation, science identity,and transformative experience. In addition, researchers have found that particular learningenvironments shape students’ own personal goal orientations (Kaplan & Maehr, 1999;Nolen & Haladyna, 1990; Roeser, Midgley, & Urdan, 1996). Thus, it would be fruitful toinvestigate whether classrooms with a mastery-focused goal structure foster transformativeexperiences and whether this, in turn, facilitates students’ conceptual understanding inscience.

With respect to students’ conceptual change as a function of transformative experience,transformative experience predicted conceptual change with respect to the natural selectionmisconception at both the posttest and follow-up assessments. These results are consistentwith prior experimental studies (Girod, 2001; Pugh, 2002). However, we found no effect

Science Education

20 PUGH ET AL.

with respect to the inheritance misconception at the posttest or follow-up assessment. Thedifference in results regarding the natural selection and inheritance misconception may bea result of the students’ overall understanding and conceptual change related to the thesemisconceptions. More than 90% of the students expressed a natural selection misconceptionon the pretest, whereas just over 30% expressed an inheritance misconception. Also, thestudents demonstrated greater conceptual change with respect to the natural selectionmisconception, largely because many came in with a correct understanding of inheritanceand many possessing the inheritance misconception showed no conceptual growth. Thus,the smaller variance over time for the inheritance items may be a reason why it was notstatistically significantly related to transformative experience.

An additional explanation as to why we found no statistically significant results for theinheritance misconception and relatively modest effects for the natural section miscon-ception may be the low number of students whose engagement was at a higher level oftransformative experience. Prior studies (Girod, 2001; Pugh, 2002), which yielded strongereffects and an increase in effects over time, were experimental studies in which transfor-mative experiences were deliberately fostered in an experimental condition. Although wesee transformative experience as part of an engagement continuum, it may be that there isa critical level of engagement needed for students to experience the benefits in terms ofconceptual change.

With regard to transfer, transformative experience predicted transfer performance at thetime of the follow-up assessment. This result is in line with our theory that as students applythe concepts they learn in the classroom to their everyday lives by engaging in transformativeexperiences, they become more fluid and agile in thinking about these conceptions, thusincreasing their transfer ability and making it more enduring. However, transformativeexperience was not a robust predictor. As with the conceptual change results, the modesteffect may be a result of the low number of students who displayed engagement at a higherlevel of transformative experience.

To summarize, these data generally support the theory that conceptual change and trans-fer increase as engagement becomes more transformative. Furthermore, these data are inline with the results of prior, small-scale, experimental studies (Girod, 2001; Pugh, 2002)in that transformative experience was found to be positively related to conceptual under-standing. Additional experimental research is now needed to establish (or disconfirm) acausal relation between transformative experience and various learning outcomes. Thisstudy provides some of the tools needed (e.g., a quantitative measure of transformativeexperience) for such research to be conducted on a larger scale. In addition, we believethat it would be valuable to examine the potential reciprocal nature of the relation betweentransformative experience and other learning outcomes. For instance, the development oftransfer ability may foster engagement in transformative experiences as well as engagementin transformative experiences fostering transfer ability.

We would also like to note several limitations to this study. First, our sample was rathersmall and was conducted in classes taught by two science instructors. In future work, itwill be important to collect data from more classes with additional instructors. Second,across all of the analyses, the overall amount of variance explained was modest indicatingthat other factors are important in predicting a transformative level of engagement and thatfactors other than prior knowledge and transformative experience are critical in predictingwhether one undergoes conceptual change and transfer. As such, future research shouldalso look to identify other factors that may come into play.

Overall, this study helps extend prior research on transformative experience by concep-tualizing transformative experience as an engagement continuum, quantifying an indicatorof transformative experience, and then using this measure of transformative experience to

Science Education


examine the prevalence of transformative experiences in science, potential predictors oftransformative experience, and outcomes associated with transformative experience. Thefindings highlight the concern that learning is often minimally transformative for sciencestudents. That is, student engagement may typically be confined to the classroom and rarelyextend to everyday, out-of-school experience. This is a concern for those who believe thatscience education should seek to expand experience, enrich everyday life, and open themarvels of the world up to students. Dawkins (1998) claimed that science books led himto perceive and experience the world as “a much fuller, much more wonderful, much moreawesome place” (p. 37). Obviously, Dawkins’ learning was transformative and this mayhave influenced his choice to pursue science as a career. Science educators cannot di-rectly cause transformative experiences, but they may play a critical role in inspiring them.Expanding our understanding of transformative experiences can help achieve this goal.

APPENDIX A: TRANSFORMATIVE EXPERIENCE AND SCIENCEIDENTITY SCALES

Transformative Experience Items

Motivated Use Items

1 I talk about adaptation and/or evolution with others during science class.a

2 I think about adaptation and/or evolution when I have to for science class.3 I apply the knowledge I’ve learned about adaptation and/or evolution when I

have to for science class.4 When my parents ask about school, I talk with them about adaptation and/or

evolution.5 I think about adaptation and/or natural selection when I do things like go to the

zoo or see a TV show about animals, plants or nature.6 I think about adaptation and/or natural selection outside of class.7 I apply the stuff I’ve learned about adaptation and/or natural selection even

when I don’t have to.8 I love talking about adaptation and/or natural selection.9 I talk about adaptation and/or natural selection just for the fun of it.10 I think about adaptation and/or natural selection outside of class just because

I’m interested in the ideas.11 I find myself thinking about adaptation and/or natural selection in all kinds of

everyday situations.12 I seek out opportunities to apply my knowledge of adaptation and/or natural

selection in my everyday life.

Expansion of Perception Items

13 During science class, I see things in terms of adaptation and/or natural selection.14 When I am working on a class assignment about certain animals or plants, I tend

to think of them in terms of adaptation and/or natural selection.15 I notice examples of adaptation and/or natural selection during science class.16 If I see a really interesting animal or plant (either in real life, in a magazine, or

on TV) then I think about it in terms of adaptation and/or natural selection.17 I notice examples of adaptation and/or natural selection outside of class.18 I look for examples of adaptation and/or natural selection outside of class.

(Continued)

Science Education

22 PUGH ET AL.

Continued

19 I can’t help but see animals and/or plants in terms of adaptation and/or naturalselection now.

Experiential Value Items

20 During science class, I think the stuff we are learning about adaptation and/ornatural selection is interesting.

21 I find it interesting in class when we talk about animals and/or plants in terms ofadaptation and/or natural selection.

22 The ideas of adaptation and/or natural selection are useful for me to learn formy future studies or work.a

23 I think adaptation and/or natural selection is an interesting topic.24 The ideas of adaptation and/or natural selection help me to better understand the

world of plants and animals.25 The ideas of adaptation and/or natural selection make animals and plants much

more interesting.26 Knowledge of adaptation and/or natural selection is useful in my current,

everyday life.27 I’m interested when I hear things about adaptation and/or natural selection

outside of school.28 I find that the ideas of adaptation and/or natural selection make my current,

out-of-school experience more meaningful and interesting.29 I find it exciting to think about adaptation and/or natural selection outside of

school.

Note. Items are listed by quality (e.g., motivated use) for illustrative purposes. A degree ofoverlap exists with some items relating to more than one quality. However, the intent of thestudy was to provide a holistic measure of transformative experience rather than a measurethat could be broken down by quality.

aThese items were dropped due to misfit (i.e., MS > 1.4).

Science Identity Items

I can imagine myself being involved in a science related career.Being involved in science is a key part of who I am.I consider myself a science person.I can see myself doing science in the future.

APPENDIX B: FIT STATISTICS FOR TRANSFORMATIVEEXPERIENCE MEASURE

Infit Statisticsb Outfit Statisticsc

Item Measurea SE MS ZSTD MS ZSTD P d

2 1.98 .03 1.33 2.90 1.44 2.60 .543 1.94 .03 1.23 2.20 1.21 1.30 .584 2.83 .03 1.28 2.40 1.24 1.20 .60

(Continued)

Science Education


Continued

Infit Statisticsb Outfit Statisticsc

Item Measurea SE MS ZSTD MS ZSTD P d

5 2.47 .03 1.26 2.20 1.30 2.30 .696 2.74 .03 0.85 −1.40 0.78 −1.40 .737 2.61 .02 0.75 −2.60 0.70 −2.50 .768 2.76 .03 1.03 0.30 1.09 0.60 .649 2.93 .03 0.92 −0.80 0.87 −0.50 .6510 2.75 .03 0.76 −2.40 0.70 −2.00 .7411 2.91 .03 0.78 −2.10 0.76 −1.10 .6712 2.80 .03 0.91 −0.80 0.90 −0.50 .6513 2.38 .03 1.32 2.60 1.40 2.90 .6214 2.47 .03 1.24 2.10 1.43 3.20 .6415 2.18 .03 1.11 1.00 1.28 2.00 .6416 2.63 .02 1.00 0.10 0.97 −0.20 .6617 2.46 .03 1.02 0.30 0.95 −0.40 .7218 2.85 .03 0.57 −4.70 0.59 −2.40 .7119 2.82 .03 1.12 1.10 1.05 0.30 .6020 2.21 .03 1.17 1.40 1.10 0.80 .7121 2.28 .03 1.00 0.10 0.94 −0.40 .7523 2.23 .03 1.04 0.40 0.96 −0.30 .7424 2.07 .03 1.11 1.00 1.26 1.80 .6925 2.41 .03 0.93 −0.60 0.90 −0.90 .7526 2.67 .02 0.77 −2.30 0.74 −2.00 .7127 2.62 .02 0.85 −1.40 0.81 −1.40 .7528 2.75 .03 0.98 −0.20 0.91 −0.50 .6829 2.81 .03 0.56 −4.80 0.57 −2.70 .76

Note. MS = mean square; ZSTD = standardized Z value.aMeasures converted to a 1- to 4-point scale where USCALE = 0.18, UMEAN = 2.54.bInfit MS values between .60 and 1.40 are considered acceptable (Wright & Linacre,

1994). Items 18 and 29 yielded an infit MS <.60, indicating they are redundant. However,removing the items did not improve the fit of the data to the Rasch model and thus they werenot dropped.

cOutfit MS < 2.0 is considered acceptable (Linacre, 1999, 2002).dPositive point-biserial values are considered acceptable (Wright, 1992).

APPENDIX C: CONCEPTUAL CHANGE CODING SCALES

Coding Scale for the Natural Selection Items

Value Label Description

1 Misconception Convey belief that individual organisms can change tofit their environment and this change is a result ofintentional efforts on the part of the organisms orsome other process that is not scientifically valid.

(Continued)

Science Education

24 PUGH ET AL.

Continued


2 Misconception withscience language

Convey belief that individual organisms can changeto fit their environment by simply statingsomething like “they will adapt/evolve.”

3 Hybrid conception Convey some understanding of natural selection, butit is confused and competing with a belief thatindividual organisms can change to fit theirenvironment.

4 Incomplete but correctconception

Do not convey a clear misconception but fail toexplain how adaptation occurs through naturalselection.

5 Correct conception Convey belief that adaptation is the result oforganisms with particular traits surviving/passingon genes while others die off/fail to pass on genes.Do not convey misconceptions related to naturalselection.

Coding Scale for the Inheritance Items


1 Misconception Convey belief that acquired characteristics can bepassed on.

2 Hybrid conception Convey belief not only that acquired traits cannotimmediately be passed on but also that it would bepossible over many generations. May show someunderstanding that genes play a role, for instance,by stating that an acquired trait could become agene that is passed on.

3 Incomplete but correctconception

Do not convey a clear misconception but fail toexplain that acquired traits cannot be passed on orthat traits can only be passed on through genes.

4 Correct conception Convey belief that acquired traits cannot be passed onor that traits can only be passed on through genes.

We thank the reviewers for their thoughtful and insightful feedback on an earlier draft of themanuscript.

REFERENCES

Ainley, M. D. (1993). Styles of engagement with learning: Multidimensional assessment of their relationship withstrategy use and school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 395 – 405.

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84,261 – 271.

Andre, T., & Windschitl, M. (2003). Interest, epistemological belief, and intentional conceptual change. In G. M.Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 173 – 197). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Science Education


Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychologicalresearch: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,51, 1173 – 1182.

Bergin, D. A. (1992). Leisure activity, motivation, and academic achievement in high school students. Journal ofLeisure Research, 24, 225 – 239.

Bergin, D. A. (1996). Adolescents’ out-of-school learning strategies. Journal of Experimental Education, 64,309 – 323.

Bergin, D. A. (1999). Influences on classroom interest. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 87 – 98.Bishop, B. A., & Anderson, C. W. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 415 – 427.Blumenfeld, P. C., Megendoller, J. R., & Puro, P. (1992). Translating motivation into thoughtfulness. In H. H.

Marshall (Ed.), Redefining student learning: Roots of educational change (pp. 207 – 239). Norwood, NJ: Albex.Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences

(2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Brickhouse, N. W. (2001). Embodying science: A feminist perspective on learning. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 38, 282 – 295.Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in education: Developing appreciation for

particular learning domains and activities. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 75 – 85.Brophy, J. (2004). Motivating students to learn (2nd ed.) Boston: Erlbaum.Brumby, M. N. (1984). Misconceptions about the concept of natural selection by medical biology students. Science

Education, 68, 493 – 503.Caraway, K. L., Tucker, C. M., Reinke, W. M., & Hall, C. (2003). Self-efficacy, goal orientation, and fear of failure

as predictors of school engagement in high school students. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 417 – 427.Clough, E. E., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1985a). How secondary students interpret instances of biological adaptation.

Journal of Biological Education, 19, 125 – 130.Clough, E. E., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1985b). Children’s understanding of inheritance. Journal of Biological

Education, 19, 304 – 310.Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Connell, J. P. (1990). Context, self, and action: A motivational analysis of self-system processes across the life-

span. In D. Cicchetti & M. Beeghly (Eds.), The self in transition: From infancy to childhood (pp. 61 – 97).Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dawkins, R. (1998). Unweaving the rainbow: Science, delusion, and the appetite for wonder. New York: TeachersCollege Press.

Demastes, S. S., Good, R. G., & Peebles, P. (1995). Students’ conceptual ecologies and the process of conceptualchange in evolution. Science Education, 79, 637 – 666.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process.Boston: DC Heath & Co.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.Dewey, J. (1980). Art as experience. New York: Perigee Books. (Original work published 1934)Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge.

Educational Psychologist, 33, 109 – 128.Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching

science in grades K-8. Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and SocialSciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Dweck, C. (2002). The development of ability conceptions. In J. Eccles & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Development ofachievement motivation (pp. 57 – 88). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Dweck, C., & Leggett, E. (1988). A social/cognitive approach to motivation and personality. PsychologicalReview, 95, 256 – 273.

Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (1985). Teacher expectations and student motivation. In J. Dusek (Ed.), Teacherexpectancies (pp. 185 – 226). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Elliot, A. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34,169 – 189.

Elliot, A. J. (1997). Integrating the “classic” and “contemporary” approaches to achievement motivation: Ahierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.),Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 143 – 179). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.Falk, J. H. (Ed.). (2001). Free-choice science education: How we learn science outside of school. New York:

Teachers College Press.Ferrari, M., & Chi, M. T. H. (1998). The nature of naıve explanations of natural selection. International Journal

of Science Education, 20, 1231 – 1256.

Science Education

26 PUGH ET AL.

Feynman, R. (1988). What do you care what other people think? Further adventures of a curious character.New York: Norton.

Flannery, M. C. (1991). Science and aesthetics: A partnership for science education. Science Education, 75,577 – 593.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of theevidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59 – 109.

Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement andperformance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 148 – 162.

Georghiades, P. (2000). Beyond conceptual change learning in science education: Focusing on transfer, durabilityand metacognition. Educational Research, 42, 119 – 139.

Girod, M. (2001). Teaching 5th grade science for aesthetic understanding. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Girod, M., Rau, C., & Schepige, A. (2003). Appreciating the beauty of science ideas: Teaching for aestheticunderstanding. Science Education, 87, 574 – 587.

Girod, M., & Wong, D. (2002). An aesthetic (Deweyan) perspective on science learning: Case studies of threefourth graders. The Elementary School Journal, 102, 199 – 224.

Gick, M., & Holyoak, K. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306 – 355.Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M., Lehto, A. T., & Elliot, A. J. (1997). Predictors and consequences

of achievement goals in the college classroom: Maintaining interest and making the grade. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 73, 1284 – 1295.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Short-term and long-termconsequences of achievement goals in college: Predicting continued interest and performance over time. Journalof Educational Psychology, 92, 316 – 330.

Ingram, E. L., & Nelson, C. E. (2006). Relationship between achievement and students’ acceptance of evolutionor creation in an upper-level evolution course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 7 – 24.

Jackson, P. W. (1986). The practice of teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (1999). Achievement goals and student well-being. Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 24, 330 – 358.Kelemen, D., & DiYanni, C. (2005). Intuitions about origins: Purpose and intelligent design in children’s reasoning

about nature. Journal of Cognition and Development, 16, 3 – 31.Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84, 71 – 94.Laukenmann, M., Bleicher, M., Fuss, S., Glaser-Zikuda, M., Mayring, P., & von Rhoeck, C. (2003). An investi-

gation of the influence of emotional factors on learning in physics instruction. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 25, 489 – 507.

Laurent, J., & Nightingale, J. (Eds.). (2001). Darwinism and evolutionary economics. Northampton, MA: EdwardElgar.

Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 38, 296 – 316.

Linacre, J. M. (1998). Detecting multidimensionality: Which residual data-type works best? Journal of OutcomeMeasurement, 2, 266 – 283.

Linacre, J. M. (1999). Investigating rating scale category utility. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 3(2),103 – 102.

Linacre, J. M. (2002). Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3, 85 – 106.Linacre, J. M. (2005). A user’s guide to Winsteps/Ministeps Rasch-model program. Chicago: Mesa-Press.Linacre, J. M. (2006). WINSTEPS Rasch measurement computer program. Chicago: Winsteps.Maehr, M. (1976). Continuing motivation: An analysis of a seldom considered educational outcome. Review of

Educational Research, 46, 443 – 462.Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954 – 969.Marini, A., & Genereux, R. (1995). The challenge of teaching for transfer. In A. McKeough, J. Lupart, &

A. Marini (Eds.), Teaching for transfer: Fostering generalization in learning (pp. 1 – 19). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.McCloskey, M. (1983). Naive theories of motion. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models

(pp. 299 – 324). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and cognitive engagement in

classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514 – 523.Meyer, J., & Eley, M. (1999). The development of affective subscales to reflect variation in students’ experiences

of studying mathematics in higher education. Higher Education, 37, 197 – 216.Middleton, P., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An underexplored aspect of

goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710 – 718.Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E., et al. (2000). Manual for

the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Science Education


Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (2004). Persuasion as a dynamic multidimensional process: A view of individualand intraindividual differences. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 337 – 363.

Murphy, P. K., & Mason, L. (2006). Changing knowledge and beliefs. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.),Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 305 – 324). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (1998 – 2006). Mplus user’s guide (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Author.Nolen, S. B., & Haladyna, T. M. (1990). Personal and environmental influences on students’ beliefs about effective

study strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15, 116 – 130.Packard, B. W., & Nguyen, D. (2003). Science career-related possible selves of adolescent girls: A longitudinal

study. Journal of Career Development, 29, 251 – 263.Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs

and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63,167 – 199.

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception:Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211 – 227.

Pugh, K. J. (2002). Teaching for idea-based, transformative experiences in science: An investigation of theeffectiveness of two instructional elements. Teachers College Record, 104, 1101 – 1137.

Pugh, K. J. (2004). Newton’s laws beyond the classroom walls. Science Education, 88, 182 – 196.Pugh, K. J., & Bergin, D. A. (2005). The effect of education on students’ out-of-school experience. Educational

Researcher, 34(9), 15 – 23.Pugh, K. J., & Bergin, D. A. (2006). Motivational influences on transfer. Educational Psychologist, 41, 147 – 160.Pugh, K. J., & Girod, M. (2007). Science, art and experience: Constructing a science pedagogy from Dewey’s

aesthetics. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 9 – 27.Pugh, K. J., Kleshinski, O., Linnenbrink, E. A., & Fox, C. M. (2004, April). Transformative experiences in

science: Using Rasch to develop a quantitative measure. Paper presented at the American Educational ResearchAssociation Annual Conference, San Diego, CA.

Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen, Denmark:Danmarks Paedagogiske Institut.

Rasch, G. (1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests (expanded ed.). Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological environment and earlyadolescents’ psychological and behavioral functioning in school: The mediating role of goals and belonging.Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 408 – 422.

Roeser, R. W., Peck, S. C., & Nasir, N. S. (2006). Self and identity processes in school motivation, learning,and achievement. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed.,pp. 391 – 424). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Root-Bernstein, R. S. (1997). The sciences and arts share a common creative aesthetic. In A. Tauber (Ed.),The elusive synthesis: Aesthetics and science (pp. 49 – 82). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 299 – 323.Schiefele, U. (2001). The role of interest in motivation and learning. In J. Collis & S. Messick (Eds.), Intelligence

and personality: Bridging the gap in theory and measurement (pp. 163 – 194). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Siegler, R. S. (1996). Emerging minds: The process of change in children’s thinking. New York: Oxford University

Press.Sinatra, G. M., Southerland, S. A., McConaughy, F., & Demastes, J. W. (2003). Intentions and beliefs in students’

understanding and acceptance of biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 510 – 528.Skinner, E. A., Wellborn, J. G., & Connell, J. P. (1990). What it takes to do well in school and whether I’ve got

it: The role of perceived control in children’s engagement and school achievement. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 82, 22 – 32.

Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. A. Duschl & R. J. Hamilton(Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology and educational theory and practice (pp. 147 – 176). Albany:State University of New York Press.

Venville, G. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Exploring conceptual change in genetics using a multidimensionalinterpretive framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1031 – 1055.

Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood.

Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535 – 585.Waterman, A. (2004). Finding someone to be: Studies on the role of intrinsic motivation in identity formation.

Identity, 4, 209 – 228.Wickman, P. (2006). Aesthetic experience in science education: Learning and meaning-making as situated talk

and action. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical analysis. Develop-

mental Review, 12, 265 – 310.

Science Education

28 PUGH ET AL.

Wong, E. D., Pugh, K. J., & The Deweyan Ideas Group at Michigan State University. (2001). Learning science:A Deweyan perspective. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 317 – 336.

Woolley, M. L., Bowen, G. L., & Bowen, N. K. (2004). Cognitive pretesting and the developmental validity ofchild self-report instruments: Theory and applications. Research on Social Work Practice, 14, 191 – 200.

Wright, B. D. (1992). Point-biserials and item fits. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 5(4), 174.Wright, B. D., & Linacre, M. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8,

370.Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis. Chicago: Mesa-Press.

Science Education

motivation, learning, and transformative experience: a study of deep engagement in science

Documents