relationships between students' meaningful learning orientation and their understanding of...

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 31, NO. 4, PP. 393-418 (1994)

Relationships between Students’ Meaningful Learning Orientation and Their Understanding of Genetics Topics*

Ann M. Liberatore Cavallo

Science Education Center, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019

Larry E. Schafer

Department of Science Teaching, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244

Abstract

This study explored factors predicting the extent to which high school students (N = 140) acquired meaningful understanding of the biological topics of meiosis, the Punnett-square method, and the relationships between these topics. This study (a) examined mental modeling as a technique for measuring students’ meaningful understanding of the topics, (b) measured students’ predisposed, generalized tendency to learn meaningfully (meaningful learning orientation), (c) determined the extent to which students’ meaningful learning orientation predicted meaningful understanding beyond that predicted by aptitude and achievement motivation, (d) experimentally tested two instructional treatments (relationships presented to students, relationships generated by students), (e) explored the relationships of meaningful learning orientation, prior knowledge, instructional treatment, and all interactions of these variables in predicting meaningful understanding. The results of correlations and multiple regressions indicated that meaningful learning orientation contributed to students’ attainment of meaningful understanding independent of aptitude and achievement motivation. Meaningful learning orientation and prior knowledge interacted in unique ways for each topic to predict students’ attainment of meaningful understanding. Instructional treatment had relatively little relationship to students’ acquisition of meaningful understanding, except for learners midrange between meaningful and rote. These findings imply that a meaningful learning approach among students may be important, perhaps as much or more than aptitude and achievement motivation, for their acquisition of interrelated, meaningful understandings of science.

A goal of science education is that students acquire sound conceptual knowledge about the world and how it works. Students should acquire this knowledge through the formulation of relationships among ideas. The interrelated understandings students acquire should further allow them to create new ideas from what is already known.

When asked to describe the relationship between meiosis and the use of the Punnett-square method a high school biology student explained the following:

* An earlier version of this article was presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA, March 1992 in the Symposium, The Current Status of Ausubel’s Assimilation Theory in Science Education.

0 1994 by the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0022-4308/94/040393-26

394 CAVALLO AND SCHAFER

Subject ID No. 121: I don’t think there could logically be a relationship; the Punnett square demonstrates fertilization, not meiosis.

In this explanation, the student correctly expressed what the Punnett-square method illustrates (union of gametes), but apparently could not envision how meiosis (preparation of gametes) relates with its use in solving genetics problems. This student’s response raises some important questions about the extent to which students formulate important relationships among science concepts.

The formulation of “non-arbitrary relationships among ideas in the learner’s mind” was described by Ausubel(1963, p. 23) as meaningful learning. Many students, however, tend not to learn meaningfully and thus may have difficulty relating what is taught to them in science with other science ideas, and with their real-world experiences (Novak, 1988). Instead, much of their learning tends to involve memorization of facts in which newly learned material is not related in ways that make sense to the learner (Novak, 1988). Students’ meaningful learning of meiosis and genetics are of special concern to science educators, because these topics are often learned by rote (Browning, 1988; Cho, Kahle, & Nordland, 1985; Stewart, 1982; Stewart & Dale, 1989). Students tend to learn meiosis and genetics as separate, isolated topics and may not formulate conceptions of how the topics are related. Many students can successfully use Punnett-square diagrams in genetics, for example, without attaining an understanding of the concepts represented by their use, and without formulating a conceptual link between the processes of meiosis and the distribution of genetic traits in fertilization (Browning, 1988; Cho et al., 1985; Kinnear, 1983; Stewart, 1982).

A study of high school students by Stewart and Dale (1989) revealed that most were able to correctly solve Punnett-square diagrams after meiosis and genetics instruction, but did so with little or no understanding of chromosome/gene behavior during meiosis. Several students tended to use the Punnett-square diagram as an algorithm to correctly solve genetics problems. Nonetheless, though many students in the Stewart and Dale (1989) study correctly reproduced information of meiosis and the Punnett-square method without relating these topics, there were some students who did make connections.

It may be argued that students who attain meaningful understandings of topics studied are simply those students with greater academic ability. It may also be argued that students attaining meaningful understandings have a greater motivation to achieve in their academic work (Entwis- tle & Ramsden, 1983). It is proposed in this study, however, that in addition to ability, motivation, and other factors, there is a distinct variable that contributes to students’ meaningful understanding of subject matter. That variable, called meaningful learning orientation, is the extent to which students approach a learning task with the intention of meaningfully understanding the ideas and relationships involved (Donn, 1989; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Entwistle & Waterston, 1988).

Meaningful Learning Orientation

According to Ausubel (1963, 1968), for meaningful learning to take place (a) the concepts presented to the learner must be potentially meaningful and hence must provide opportunity for the learner to form nonarbitrary relationships with existing conceptual frameworks (meaningful learning tasks), (b) the learner must have a conceptual framework to which the new concepts can be linked (relevant prior knowledge), and (c) the learner must manifest the meaningful learning set. To fulfill this last criterion, the learner must actively attempt to relate what is known to substantive aspects of new concepts (Ausubel, 1963, 1968; Novak, 1988). Meaningful learning

MEANINGFUL LEARNING ORIENTATION AND GENETICS 395

set also implies that learners must have the desire or tendency to make connections among concepts. Recent literature indicates that this tendency to formulate relationships is important regardless of how learners acquire new concepts (Osborne, & Wittrock, 1983, 1985).

Research suggests that students may have a predisposed learned orientation; for some students it is meaningful learning and for other students it is rote learning (Donn, 1989; Edmonson, 1989; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Robertson, 1984). Furthermore, students’ learning orientations can be identified (Atkin, 1977; Donn, 1989; Edmonson, 1989; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Robertson, 1984). In an investigation in a college organic chemistry course, Atkin (1977) identified students as knowledge integrators and nonintegrators. Edmonson (1989) identified students as rote learners, meaningful learners, and those midrange between the two learning approaches. In a study that involved observations and videotaped stimulated recall interviews of college biology students in the laboratory, Robertson ( 1984) concluded that some students tended to use rote strategies in learning and others tended to formulate relationships, or learn meaningfully. Donn (1989) used a Likert-type instrument, adapted from the work of Entwistle and Ramsden (1983), to identify meaningful and rote learners and subsequently found a clear distinction in their approach to learning new concepts. Meaningful learners responded to novel problems by self-questioning and by relating and elaborating ideas. In contrast, rote learners responded by stating definitions and could not extrapolate their ideas (Donn, 1989).

Prior Knowledge, Instruction, and Meaningful Learning

Ausubel (1963) contended that relevant prior knowledge was the most important criterion for meaningful learning. Stewart and Dale (1989) reported that prior knowledge of meiosis was critical for the meaningful understanding of genetics and of the relationships between the topics. Although students’ prior knowledge is an important factor in their attainment of meaningful understanding (Ausubel 1963, 1968; Novak, 1988), some students may still tend not to connect new ideas to that prior knowledge. Therefore, attaining a meaningful understanding may not only require relevant prior knowledge, but also an orientation toward meaningfully learning the material.

Another of Ausubel’s (1963, p. 19) contentions was that, for older students, reception learning is an effective and efficient way for students to attain meaningful understandings of the material. Accordingly, in reception learning, students may acquire meaningful understandings by being taught in an expository manner in which the information and relationships are described for them. In contrast, Osborne and Wittrock (1983) and Wittrock and Alesandrini (1990) posed that students must actively generate relationships themselves to formulate meaningful understanding. This study explored how the method of instruction (reception versus generative) differentially relates to the understandings attained by those students with a meaningful learning orientation and those students with a more rote learning orientation.

Purpose

This study explored whether meaningful learning is a distinct variable, independent of aptitude and achievement motivation, that is related to students’ understanding of meiosis, genetics, and the relationships between these topics. This investigation then explored relationships and the possible predictive influence of meaningful learning orientation, relevant prior knowledge, instructional treatment, and all interactions of these variables on students’ attainment of meaningful understanding of the biology topics. The purposes of this study were to (a) determine whether or not students’ learning orientation (meaningful, rote) is a variable that is


distinct from other variables (academic aptitude and achievement motivation) that tend to influence acquisition of meaningful understanding; (b) examine the extent to which learning orientation is related to the attainment of meaningful understanding across different but related biological topics (meiosis and the Punnett-square method); (c) evaluate the relative importance of relevant prior knowledge, meaningful learning orientation, and instructional approach (reception, generative) in determining the acquisition of understanding; and (d) explore all possible interactions between meaningful learning orientation, relevant prior knowledge, and instructional approach as predictors of students’ attainment of meaningful understanding of meiosis, the use of the Punnett-square method in genetics, and the relationships between these two topics.

Methodology

Sample.

The sample consisted of 163 10th-grade students (average age 15.5 years) attending a public, suburban high school in central New York state. The students were enrolled in Regents Biology (a college preparatory course) in seven classes taught by four different teachers. Students missing any portion of the treatment due to absenteeism were eliminated from the initial sample. The final sample consisted of 140 students, 70 males and 70 females. The ethnic background of the sample was 139 Caucasian, and 1 Asian-American.

Time Frame.

This research was conducted at the time of year the genetics unit was normally taught at the sampled school. All biology teachers customarily geared their instruction according to a depart- mentally designed syllabus and their students were regularly given printed instructional packets for each unit of the course. Thus, the administration of prewritten instructional packets in this study was not novel for students. In addition, the teachers used the same instructional materials and presented each unit at the same time during the academic year, so all students had similar background information of the course before beginning this study. The implementation of questionnaires, tests, and instruction took place over a period of approximately 1 week.

Procedures and Instrumentation

Meaningful Learning Orientation.

Research cited earlier used either student self-reports on a questionnaire (Donn, 1989) or teacher/researcher observations (Edmonson, 1989; Robertson, 1984) to identify students’ meaningful learning approaches. The study reported here used a combination of student self-reports and observations of students to provide supporting evidence for a more valid determination of their meaningful learning approaches. Meaningful, midrange, and rote learning orientations of students were identified using a composite score from the Learning Approach Questionnaire (Donn, 1989) and teacher ratings of their students’ learning approaches.

Learning Approach Questionnaire. The Learning Approach Questionnaire (LAQ) is a 50- item Likert instrument for measuring students’ tendency to learn meaningfully or by rote and students’ epistemological view of science (Biggs & Collis, 1982; Donn, 1989; Edmonson,


1989; Entwistle, 1981; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Novak, Ken-, Donn, & Cobern, 1989). This study used only those questions (24 total) that addressed students’ meaningful or rote approach to learning. The instrument asked students to respond to questions regarding how they learn, ranging from A (always true) to E (never true). A Cronbach alpha internal consistency coefficient for this instrument was reported as 0.77 (BouJaoude, 1992) for an independent sample of students from the same school. The Cronbach alpha internal consistency coefficient for the 24 questions used in this study was determined as, r = 0.54. Sample questions from the LAQ included the following:

Never True Always True

7. I go over important topics until I under-

12. I learn some things by rote, going over

stand them completely. A B C D E

and over them until I know them by heart. A B C D E

A response of “always true” on Question 7 above indicated a strong tendency toward meaningful learning, whereas a response of “always true” on Question 12 indicated a strong tendency toward rote learning. After taking the LAQ, students’ scores were listed in order and divided into four categories: 4 = more meaningful learners, 3 = less meaningful learners, 2 = less rote learners, 1 = more rote learners.

Teacher ratings. The four teachers in this study rated their students according to their perception of each student’s general approach to learning. The teachers were prepared to make their ratings after participating in three training sessions led by the researcher that took place in the two months before administration of the treatments (see Cavallo, 1991). The teachers rated their students according to a four-category ranking: 4 = more meaningful learners, 3 = less meaningful learners, 2 = less rote learners, 1 = more rote learners.

Composite meaningful learning orientation rating. The students’ self-ratings and teachers’ observation-based ratings were analyzed for matches and mismatches. Of the 140 students in the sample, 94 students had ratings that matched their teachers’ rating. The 94 ratings were con- sidered more representative of the students’ actual learning approach, and thus these students were used in the major analyses of this study. The remaining 46 students’ data were analyzed separately and results of those analyses are reported elsewhere (Cavallo, 1991).’

General Aptitude. Differential Aptitude Test. Student aptitude was determined using the Differential Aptitude

Test (DAT) scores obtained from the school guidance counselor. The DAT is an examination used to provide information about students’ abilities in a variety of areas of mental activity (Bennett, Seashore, & Wessman, 1989). Spearman-Brown reliability scores reported in the DAT Administrators’ Manual range from r = 0.88 to r = 0.94. The DAT was taken by students less than 1 year prior to this study and was the most recent measure of students’ general aptitude available.

Achievement Motivation. Achievement motivation questionnaire. Achievement motivation was defined in this study

as students’ motivation toward performance goals such as high grades, praise and favorable judgements of their work. The questionnaire used for measuring performance-oriented achieve-


ment motivation was a 30-item subscale of 65-item Likert instrument designed and used by Dweck (1986) and by Ames and Archer (1988). The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient for the 30-item subscale was determined as r = 0.89. Examples of items on the achievement motivation questionnaire are shown below.

6. In this biology class, how satisfied do you feel when you. , .

a little a lot

a. get a good grade 1 2 3 4 5 b. do better than other students in the class 1 2 3 4 5

1 1 . Think back over all the science classes you have had in school. In general, when did you feel most successful?

strongly stronly disagree agree 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

a. When I scored higher than other

b. When I showed people I was smart students

A high score on the questionnaire represented a high performance oriented individual-one who desires favorable judgments in terms of high grades, or teacher, peer, and parental approval.

Measuring the Attainment of Meaningful Understanding.

Meaningful learners would likely attain quite complex understandings of meiosis, the Punnett-square method, and the relationships between these topics compared with those who learn the same information by rote. Traditional testing procedures may not detect differences in conceptual understanding, because many students are able to obtain correct answers on tests with only rote-level knowledge of the subject matter (Ridley & Novak, 1983) or, in this case, with little understanding of genetics (Stewart, Hafner, & Dale, 1990). This study used an open- ended response mechanism to reveal the extent and nature of students’ understandings and not limit assessment of students’ answers to a specific set of questions. The assessment technique, called “mental modeling,” comes from the literature in reading education on knowledge processing (Anderson, 1983; McNamara, Miller, & Bransford, 1991 ; Mosenthal & Kirsch, 1992a, 1992b). Mental model assessments illustrate students’ understanding of relationships among ideas and concepts, and between their conceptual and procedural propositional knowledge of the topic (Mosenthal & Kirsch, 1991a, 1991b; 1992b). Important to this study was that the understandings represented by students’ propositional knowledge could be determined as ranging from rote-level to meaningful-level understanding (Ausubel, 1963; Cavallo, 199 1).

Mental Model assessnient. In mental model assessment, students provide a comprehensive written description of their understanding of a particular topic. In this study, students were given three questions. The questions asked students to explain everything they knew about (a) the biological topic of meiosis, (b) the use of Punnett-square diagrams, and (c) the relationships between the biological topic of meiosis and the use of Punnett-square diagrams. The students were given six pages for each question (front and back) on which to write their responses. They were encouraged by their teacher and the researcher to write everything they knew about the topics and to be complete and thorough in their responses. They were also told that diagrams could be used with their explanations. Students were informed that the tests counted toward their grade, but incorrect spelling and grammar would not be counted against their grade.


Students’ written explanations on all mental model tests were first checked for accuracy, and any incorrect information was omitted. Thus, this study focused only on students’ correct understandings of the topics. Content accuracy of students’ explanations was determined by the researcher and two genetics professors.

The knowledge that students expressed was separated into individual, information-bearing propositions representing each thought or idea. The propositions were categorized according to conceptual knowledge and either process knowledge (meiosis is a process) or procedural knowledge (the Punnett-square method is a procedure). Using meiosis as an example, a conceptual description may have included discussion of objects (i.e., cells, chromosomes), actions involved (i.e., division, duplication), locations where meiosis occurs (i.e., in the body, in the gonads), directions of movement (i.e., toward the center of the cell), conditions or constraints (i.e., only in specialized cells), and/or how certain agents (i.e., the influence of drugs) cause certain efects (i.e., damage to chromosomes and problems in the gamete and fertilized egg).

Some conceptual explanations focused primarily on actions and objects about the topic, which was little more than a list of facts. Students may have described actions such as division, and objects such as cells and chromosomes, but they did not connect this information to where meiosis occurs in the body (or that it even occurs in a body), what conditions are necessary for it to occur, what the results of the process are, and what situations might cause certain effects. Other explanations also included actions and objects, but the actions and objects were described as related to where and why (locations, directions, agents, effects, etc.) meiosis occurs. The broader the range of conceptual knowledge categories used in students’ descriptions, the more meaningful their understanding of the topic.

In addition to conceptual knowledge, students’ explanations may have included process or procedural knowledge. Continuing with meiosis as an example, students’ process knowledge was their description of how meiosis works. Students may have indicated that two cell divisions occur (major processes) and that activities occur in the cell within the stages of the two meiotic divisions, such as chromosome duplication (minor processes).* The more cellular activities of meiosis correctly explained by students, the greater their understanding of the process or mechanics of meiosis. Drawings and labels on the drawings were also used in determining students’ process knowledge of meiosis and procedural knowledge of using Punnett-square diagrams. An example of a rote and a meaningful explanation of meiosis is shown in Table 1.

Scoring procedures. Mental model tests were scored by the researcher and subsequently reviewed by one of the authors of mental model assessment. All students’ transcribed work was marked with an identification number so their identity was not known by the scorers.

Students’ categorized propositions were mapped on templates with columns. The propositions were written in these columns under headings representing conceptual knowledge (actions, objects, agents, effects, results, reference points, directions, conditions), and either process knowledge for meiosis (major processes, minor processes) or procedural knowledge for the Punnett-square method (major procedures, minor procedures).3

Conceptual knowledge and process or procedural knowledge was scored based on the number and kinds of knowledge categories students used in their explanations. Besides explanations with no understanding represented, the lowest score was assigned to those with one knowledge category represented and the highest score was assigned to those with all knowledge categories represented. Students’ conceptual knowledge scores by process or procedural knowledge scores were plotted on a matrix (see example, Table 2).

Students’ mental model explanations of the relationships between meiosis and the Punnett- square method (test question 3 ) included process knowledge of meiosis as related to procedural


Table 1 Examples of a Rote and Meaningful Understanding Represented in Two Students’ Explanations of Meiosis

~ ~ ~~~~

Rote Example

Meiosis is cell reproduction. Gametes are egg and sperm. In meiosis, chromosomes duplicate. Meiosis is splitting of cells. Chromosomes split. Chromosomes carry genes and are in cells. Meiosis includes interphase, prophase.

(Subject ID No. 329)

Major processes Minor processes Agents Actions Objects Reference points Direction Effects as results Effects wlagent

(causality) Conditions

chromosomes duplicate, Chromosomes split, interphase, prophase

Meiosis, is, reproduction, meiosis, duplicate, is splitting, split, carry, are, includes cell, chromosomes, Chromosomes, Chromosomes, genes, cells

Meaningful Example (Subject ID No. 210)

Sperm cells are formed by meiosis inside the male. A cell doubles its chromosomes, the cell splits into 2 new cells. The 2 new cells then divide, splitting all pairs of chromosomes. When the process is complete there are 4 specialized cells with half the number of chromosomes as a normal body cell. The same process occurs in females, but only one of the 4 eggs can be fertilized.

Major processes Minor processes Agents by meiosis Actions

Objects

Reference points Direction Effects as results Effects w/agent

(causality) Conditions

cell splits into 2 new cells, The 2 new cells then divide cell doubles its chromosomes, splitting all pairs of chromosomes

are formed, doubles, splits, divide, splitting, is complete, are, occurs, can be fertilized

Sperm cells, cells, A cell, chromosomes, cell, cells, cells, chromosomes, cells, chromosomes, cell, eggs

inside the male, in females

into 2 new cells, 4 specialized cells, (by meiosis) Sperm cells are formed

new, 2 new, all pairs, complete, 4 specialized, half the number, normal body, same, only one

knowledge of using Punnett-square diagrams. Their explanations also included conceptual knowledge of meiosis as related to conceptual knowledge of what Punnett-square diagrams represent. Students’ process knowledge of meiosis as related to procedural knowledge of the Punnett-square method was determined using the template procedure, and scores were plotted on a matrix similar to that shown in Table 2. The resulting scores obtained represented their procedural relationship scores. Students’ conceptual knowledge of meiosis as related to conceptual knowledge of the Punnett-square method was also determined using the template procedure, and scores were plotted on a matrix similar to that shown in Table 2. The resulting scores obtained represented their conceptual relationship scores.

MEANINGFUL LEARNING ORIENTATION AND GENETICS

I I

2 ~ l i l l 1 1 6 I

3 ! - ( l j 7

6 1 - r - l -

I I I

1-Quadrant I Process 4 I - I - 1 1

I

I I

1 - 1 - t I Score

5 I -

-Quadrant bI

40 1

I I

4 i 2 6 j l o /

1 1 3 / I I 3 1

I I I I

1 I 5 1 3 j Quadrant 11-

I I I - I I 4 ; 2 ;

I - I

I

- I : 3 1 4 j Quadrant ~ V I

Table 2 Matrix Used to Plot Conceptual and Procedural Scores of Meiosis for the Total Sample (N = 140). The Frequency Distribution of Scores for the Meiosis Posttest Mental Model is Shown in the Cells of the Matrix

Meiosis Conceptual score

I 2 3 4 5 6

Not Represented: no understanding Quadrant I: rote understanding

Quadrants I1 & 111: intermediate Quadrant IV: meaningful understanding

0 13 1 48 2 50 3 29

N = 140

Placement in the quadrant determined students’ score of meaningful understanding of the topics. Meaningful understanding scores for meiosis, the Punnett-square method, the procedural relationship and the conceptual relationship ranged from 0 (no understanding) to 3 (meaningful understanding). These scores were used in the data analyses.

A second scoring procedure (in addition to the mental model procedure) was administered to students’ written explanations of the third question on the relationships between meiosis and the Punnett-square method. This second scoring focused on the portion of the explanation in which the student directly linked meiosis with the Punnett-square method. Thus, the statements within the text of students’ explanations that specifically described the relationships were extrac- ted from the rest of the text. These statements were analyzed and identified as students’ relationship statements.

The scoring procedure for students’ relationship statements was based on suggestions of Cho, Kahle, and Nordland (1985). Statements that related meiosis and the Punnett-square method were scored according to the amount of detail about the relationships that students described in their essays. Table 3 shows the statements made about meiosis and the statements made about Punnett-square diagrams that, as determined by students’ essays, were found to accompany them.

For all three scoring methods for the third test question, a description of only meiosis or only Punnett-diagrams indicated no understanding of the relationship. These explanations were


Table 3 Scoring Procedure for Students’ Relationship Statements Representing the Specific Stated Relationships between Meiosis and the Punnett Square Method. Key: Meaningful understanding score = Column A Score + Column B Score

Column A

Score Meiosis

I = 2 =

Results of meiosis are . . . Results of meiosis are sperm and

egg cells (or gametes) which are . . .

Results of meiosis are sperm and egg cells (or gametes) which contain chromosomes which are . . .

Results of meiosis are sperm and egg cells (or gametes) which contain chromosomes with genes, which are . . .

Results of meiosis are sperm and egg cells (or gametes) which contain chromosomes with genes for certain traits, which are . . .

3 =

4 =

5 =

Column B Score Punnett square

I = 2 =

. . . used in Punnett squares.

. . . used in Punnett squares to show how genes may combine.

3 = . . . used in Punnett squares to show how genes may combine to produce traits (or characteristics).

4 = . . . used in Punnett squares to show how genes may combine to produce certain traits in offspring.

. . . used in Punnett squares to show how genes from sperm and egg cells (or gametes) may combine to produce certain traits in a fertilized egg cell (or zygote).

5 =

Interpretation of overall meaningful understanding score (Score = Column A score + Column B score):

0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No understanding Rote Meaningful of relationship

assigned a score of “0.” Students’ scores for their relationship statements ranged from 0 (no understanding) to 10 (meaningful understanding). These scores were used in the data analyses.

Experimental Design.

The experimental design of the study was a pretest-treatment-posttest design with random assignment of students to the two treatment groups (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). To control for possible differential influence in students’ writing skills, written expression ability scores were obtained from student records on the Tests of Achievement and Proficiency [TAP] (1986), which have a reported Cronbach alpha reliability score of r = 0.88. Written expression ability factored into the analyses did not change the results of this study. Results of analyses with written expression ability as a covariate are reported in Cavallo (1991).

Pretest mental models. The students were given a mental model pretest to assess their prior knowledge of m e i ~ s i s . ~ The scores from this test were used as the prior knowledge variable in the data analyses.

Instructionul Treatments. Students were given instruction on meiosis by their respective classroom teachers. The teachers’ meiosis instruction included naming the phases of meiosis and identifying the cellular events characterized by each phase. Following this instruction, two


variations of typewritten, self-tutorial instructional packets were randomly assigned to the students. The packets were used to control for differential teacher effect and to ensure that students in all of the seven classes had identical instruction on the material. The packets were students’ only source of information on the Punnett-square method and the relationships between meiosis and the Punnett-square method during the study. Laboratory activities and discus- sions were used after this study was completed.

The instructional packets were pilot tested using 2 1 high school Regents Biology students from another area suburban school. The instructional packets were critically analyzed for validity of content and pedagogy by a panel of expert science education professors, biology professors, and science teachers. The critical analyses of the students and the reviewers were used to modify the instructional packets and produce the final forms.

The instructional packets were based on computerized instruction developed by Browning (1988) and, like Browning’s work, incorporated the methods for meaningful instruction suggested by Cho et al. (1985), Stewart (1982), and Tolman (1982). The instruction was entitled “Genetics: The Inheritance of Traits.” Topics in the instructional packets included, “Chromo- somes,” “Meiosis,” “Fertilization,” “Genetics,” and “The Inheritance of Traits.” The section entitled, “The Inheritance of Traits” introduced the use of the Punnett-square method and discussed the relationships between meiosis and the use of the Punnett-square method in genetics. Similar to the work of Kindfield (1991) and Smith (1991) on meiosis misconceptions and difficulties, the instructional packets emphasized events of meiosis rather than phase names and focused on reasoning about the process. The packets also used pictorial representations of meiosis (Kindfield, 199 1) and of relationships between meiosis and Punnett-square diagrams.

After reading each topic within the packet, students answered a set of multiple-choice and short-answer questions. When students completed one set of questions, they checked their responses with those on colored answer sheets placed in specific areas in the classroom. The students then corrected their work and proceeded on to the next section of instruction in the packet and a new set of questions until all sections and question sets were completed. This procedure provided feedback to students on their knowledge of the material within the packet and controlled for sufficient interaction with the treatments.

An important modification made to Browning’s (1988) instruction served as the basis for the instructional treatments. An additional set of questions and problems written by the researcher and reviewed by the panel of science education experts appeared in the final instructional section, which related meiosis and the Punnett-square method. The questions and problems, highlighted in boldfaced print, were designed to help students make cognitive links between meiosis and the Punnett-square method and enable them to formulate relationships between the two topics. The presentation of these questions and problems was the only difference between the treatments.

In Treatment I (reception treatment), the highlighted questions and problems addressed the relationships between meiosis and the Punnett-square method and answers to the questions were provided. Thus, the information needed for students to formulate conceptual links between these two topics was told to the students. Treatment 2 (generative treatment) included the same highlighted questions and problems as Treatment 1, but students were to generate the answers to the questions themselves. Blank spaces appeared beneath each question and problem for students to fill in their own ideas and conceptualizations of the relationships. The responses to the highlighted questions in Treatment 2 were not graded and students were not given direct feedback. They did answer the set of multiple-choice and short-answer questions that appeared after the section on the relationships and corrected their answers according to the colored answer sheets (the same as in Treatment 1).


Sixteen pages of the 35-page instructional packets included the highlighted questions and problems, as well as text readings and drawings focused on the relationships between meiosis and Punnett-square diagrams. Some examples of the relational questions are shown below. These particular questions appeared after students had worked on diagrams of male and female meiosis using chromosomes with the gene for cystic fibrosis and then worked on problems with Punnett-square diagrams to predict the inheritance of cystic fibrosis in offspring.

Page 3 1 :

How do you know which letters to write around the sides of the Punnett square diagram? What do the letters around the Punnett square diagram represent? Why were the genes for the egg cells written as “C” and “c” across the top and those for the sperm cells written as “C” and ”c” along the sides of the Punnett square diagram’? What process is simulated (imagined to occur) when you “fill in” the boxes of the Punnett square diagram?

With the exception of the answers to relational questions and problems in Treatment I , the treatments were identical and had about the same number of pages. Because students worked individually, the differences between the packets, and hence, the treatments were not readily detectable by the students. The individual nature of the work was emphasized and reinforced by the teachers and researcher throughout the study to maintain fidelity of the treatments.

Posttest mental models. After administration of the instructional packets, students were given the three-question mental model test on meiosis, the Punnett-square method, and the relationships between these topics.

Results

Distribution of Meaningful Learning Orientation Across Treatments

Of the 94 students assigned a meaningful learning orientation score, 53 had the reception form of instruction and 41 had the generative form of instruction. Of students with a meaningful learner score, 21 had the reception treatment and 17 had the generative treatment. Of the midrange learners, 14 had the reception treatment and 8 had the generative treatment. Of the rote learners, 18 had the reception treatment and 16 had the generative treatment.

Statistical Analyses

The Distinction of Meaningful Learning Orientation from Students’ Aptitude and Achievement Motivation. The first aim of this research was to determine whether meaningful learning orientation uniquely predicted students’ attainment of meaningful understanding independent of aptitude and achievement motivation. Stepwise multiple regressions, with the variables of aptitude (DAT scores) and achievement motivation (questionnaire scores) forced into the equation first, and students’ meaningful learning orientation scores (n = 94) entered last, were conducted to predict posttest mental model scores of meiosis, the Punnett-square method, the procedural relationship, the conceptual relationship, and students’ relationship statements. The results of the stepwise multiple regressions in these analyses are shown in Table 4.

In two of the five prediction equations, meiosis and the Punnett-square method, meaningful learning orientation uniquely explained the variance in posttest scores independent of that explained


Table 4 Contribution of Meaningful Learning Orientation to the Prediction of Posttest Scores with Aptitude and Achievement Motivation Forced into each Regression Equation First

Forced Variables

Achievement Motivation Orientation Total Model Aptitude Plus Meaningful Learning

Meiosis R2 0.09 F 4.58 P .0128*

Punnett squares R2 0.12 F 5.79 P .0043 * *

F 0.94 P ,3940

Conceptual relationship RZ 0.04 F I .96 P ,1464

F 5.77

Procedural relationship R’ 0.02

Relationship statements R 2 0.12

P .0044**

0.07 0.17 7.09 5.86

.0067** .0012**

0.11 0.22 11.9 8.32

,0009 * * .0001**

0.05 0.07 4.27 2.07

.0418* ,1081

0.10 0.15 10.56 4.97

0.02 0.14 2.34 4.68

.0016** .0031**

.1300 .0046**

*p < .05. **P < .01.

by aptitude and achievement motivation (p < .01). Meaningful learning orientation was significantly correlated with and alone predicted both the procedural relationship and the conceptual relationship scores. Meaningful learning orientation did not predict students’ relationship state- ment scores. Given that meaningful learning orientation was a significant predictor of four the five test scores, it was concluded that meaningful learning orientation was a factor that contributed to students’ meaningful understandings beyond that of aptitude and motivation, and was worthy of further investigation.

The Influence of Meaningful Learning Orientation, Prior Knowledge, and Treatment on the Attainment of Meaningful Understanding. Stepwise multiple regressions were conducted on posttest scores using meaningful learning orientation, prior knowledge, and treatment as predictor variables (correlations are shown in Table 5). The results of the stepwise regression analyses for meiosis, the Punnett-square method, the procedural and conceptual relationships, and students’ relationship statements have been summarized in Table 6.

As shown in Table 6, results of the regression analyses indicated that meaningful learning orientation and prior knowledge of meiosis were significant predictors of students’ meaningful understanding of meiosis, the Punnett-square method and the procedural and conceptual relationships between the topics. Students’ meaningful learning orientation alone predicted their meaningful understanding of students’ relationship statements.

The Injluence of All Possible Interactions between Meaningful Learning Orientation, Prior Knowledge, and Treatment on the Attainment of Meaningful Understanding. Stepwise multiple

Tab

le 5

C

orre

latio

n M

atri

x of

Var

iabl

es U

sed

in t

his

Stud

y

ML

X

ML

x M

Lx

PK

x

PK x

D

A

AM

M

L

PK

TR

PK

TR

TR

TR

PR

CR

RS

M

S PS

DA

A

M

ML

PK

TR

M

L X

PK

M

L X

TR

PK

X T

R

ML

X PK

X

TR

MS

PS

PR

CR

R

S

-

.30*

* .3

8**

.04

-.I3

-

.15

.04

-.08

-

.I5

.02

-

-.25

* -

-

.I4

.06

.49*

* .8

8**

-

-.I7

.07

-.05

.05

.01

.41*

* .1

4 ..1

4 .3

4**

.85*

* .5

9**

.04

.35*

* -

.59*

* -

.05

.04

.35*

* .3

5**

.so**

-

.46*

* .6

7**

.92*

* -

.29*

* .2

6*

.02

.28*

* .3

5**

.38*

* .3

4**

.34*

* .0

5 .0

7 -

.40*

* .4

2**

.08

.21*

.0

9 .2

3*

.17

.32*

* -

.45 *

* -

.13

.02

.27*

* .2

9**

.I2

.34*

* .0

1 .0

1 .I

2 .3

2**

.42*

* -

.18

.32*

* .l

I .0

5 0

.40*

* .2

7**

$ .3

2**

.I9

E

.37*

* .3

9**

5

-.I1

-.

I6

.05

-.02

.24*

.I

1

.56*

* .3

8**

.80*

* .7

0**

-

.66*

*

> U

z icr

.41*

* .2

3*

z

.I0

-.oo

K

-

No

te. D

A =

Diff

eren

tial A

ptitu

de T

est;

AM

= a

chie

vem

ent m

otiv

atio

n; M

L =

mea

ning

ful l

earn

ing

orie

ntat

ion;

PK

= p

rior k

now

ledg

e of

mei

osis

; TR

= tr

eatm

ent;

ML

X P

K =

mea

ning

ful l

earn

ing

orie

ntat

ion

X p

rior k

now

ledg

e; M

L X

TR

= m

eani

ngfu

l lea

rnin

g or

ient

atio

n X

tre

atm

ent;

PK X

TR

= p

rior k

now

ledg

e X

tre

atm

ent;

ML

X

PK X

TR

= m

eani

ngfu

l le

arni

ng o

rient

atio

n X

pr

ior

know

ledg

e X

tre

atm

ent;

MS

= p

ostte

st m

eios

is;

PS =

pos

ttest

Pun

nett-

squa

re m

etho

d; P

R =

pro

cedu

ral

rela

tions

hip;

CR

= c

once

ptua

l rel

atio

nshi

p; R

S =

rel

atio

nshi

p st

atem

ents

. *

p C

; .0

5.

**p

< .0

1.


Table 6 Stepwise Multiple Regressions on Students’ Meaningful Understanding (Posttest Scores) of Meiosis, the Punnett-Square Method, the Procedural Relationship, the Conceptual Relationship, and Students’ Relationship Statements, with Meaningful Learning Orientation, Prior Knowledge, and Treatment as Predictor Variables

Predictor Variables Posttest df (Significant p < .05) R2 F P

Meiosis (1,92) Meaningful learning orientation Prior knowledge

Punnett squares (1,92) Meaningful learning orientation Prior knowledge

Procedural relationship (1,92) Prior knowledge Meaningful learning orientation

Conceptual relationship (1,92) Meaningful learning orientation Prior knowledge

Relationship statements (1,92) Meaningful learning orientation

.12 12.97

.08 9.69

.14 15.40

.08 9.67

.08 8.33

.05 5.62

.16 17.27

.07 8.33

.07 7.47

.0005 * *

.0025 * *

.0002 * *

.0025**

.0048**

.0198*

.0001**

.0049**

.0075**

* p < .05. * * p < .01.

regressions were conducted to determine the influence of the interaction terms as predictors of the five posttest scores. Entered into each regression equation were the following independent variables: (a) meaningful learning orientation X prior knowledge, (b) meaningful learning orientation X treatment, (c) prior knowledge X treatment, and (d) meaningful learning orientation x prior knowledge X treatment.

Stepwise multiple regressions on posttest scores revealed that only the meaningful learning orientation x prior knowledge interaction term was a significant predictor of meiosis (F( 1,92) = 17.62, p = .0001, R2 = 0.16), the procedural relationship (F(1,92) = 12.16, p = .0007, R2 = 0.12), the conceptual relationship (F(1,92) = 18.48, p = .0001, R2 = 0.17), and students relationship statements (F(1,92) = 5.32, p = .0234, R2 = 0.05). Both the meaningful learning orientation X prior knowledge interaction and the meaningful learning orientation X treatment interaction were significant predictors of posttest scores on the Punnett-square method. The meaningful learning orientation X prior knowledge interaction explained 18% of the variance in Punnett-square method posttest scores (F(1,92) = 19.95, p = .0001), and the meaningful learning orientation X treatment interaction explained 4% of the variance (F( 1,9 1 ) = 4.61, p = .0344). The two interaction terms explained 22% of the variance in students’ Punnett-square method posttest scores (F(1,91) = 12.67, p = .Owl).

The meaningful learning orientation X prior knowledge interactions are represented by the regression lines of each of the posttest scores for meaningful, mid-range and rote learners in Figures 1-5. The meaningful learning orientation X treatment interaction for the Punnett-square method posttest scores is represented by the regression lines shown in Figure 6.

The regression lines shown in Figure 1 reveal a general increase in meiosis posttest scores as prior knowledge of meiosis increased for all three learner groups (meaningful, mid-range, rote). Meaningful learning orientation accounted for smaller differences in posttest scores when prior knowledge was greater. When students had higher levels of prior knowledge, their meaningful learning orientation made less of a difference in their meaningful understanding of meiosis.

The regression lines in Figure 2 indicate that posttest scores of the Punnett-square method generally increased with prior knowledge for all three learner groups. Mid-range learners’ posttest scores for the Punnett-square method however, appeared to increase rather gradually


KCI:

M 0 I 0 S I S

P 0 S t

t 0 S

t

3.0

2.8

2.6

2.4

2.2

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4

I .2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

a = rote learners = mid-range learners

x - meaningful learners

I

I I I L

0 1 2 3

Prior Knowledge of Melosis

Figure 1 . ingful learners, mid-range learners, and rote learners.

Regression lines for posttest scores of meiosis by prior knowledge for mean-

with prior knowledge as compared to meaningful and rote learners. Apparently, prior knowledge of meiosis had less of an impact on meaningful explanations of the Punnett-square method for mid-range learners than it did for either rote or meaningful learners. Mid-range learners developed more meaningful understanding than rote learners when they had little prior knowledge. At high levels of prior knowledge, however, the understandings attained were similar between these two groups.

The regression lines for meaningful, mid-range, and rote learners in Figure 3 indicate that mental model scores of the procedural relationship increased as prior knowledge increased. The regression line for mid-range learners increased rather sharply with increased prior knowledge, as compared with the regression lines for meaningful and rote learners. Mid-range and rote learners with low prior knowledge of meiosis appeared to have formulated relatively compara- ble understandings of the procedural relationship. However, mid-range learners seemed to have formulated a more meaningful understanding of the procedural relationship when they had high prior knowledge, as compared with both meaningful and rote learners with high prior knowledge.

The regression lines in Figure 4 show that with high prior knowledge of meiosis, all groups attained more meaningful understandings of the conceptual relationship. The level of meaningful understanding attained was particularly great for meaningful learners with high prior knowledge of meiosis, and similar between mid-range and rote learners.


The regression lines shown in Figure 5 indicate that with low prior knowledge, meaningful learners apparently attained more meaningful understandings shown in their relationship statements than mid-range or rote learners. With high prior knowledge, however, mid-range learners attained particularly more meaningful understandings of the terminology-based relationships as compared with meaningful or rote learners.

The regression lines for posttest scores of the Punnett-square method by treatment in Figure 6 for meaningful and rote learners were nearly parallel with the x axis, indicating that test scores essentially were not increased with the reception treatment as compared with the generative treatment. For mid-range learners, posttest scores of the Punnett-square method (a topic first introduced to students in the instructional packets) were increased when students were told relationships as compared to when they were asked to generate relationships themselves.

Discussion

This study explored possible relationships between students’ meaningful learning orientation and their attainment of meaningful understanding of meiosis, the Punnett-square method, and the relationships between these topics, The findings indicated that meaningful learning orientation explained a unique portion of the variance from that explained by aptitude and

K N :

P

n n e t t

S

q U

U

a r e S

P 0 s t

t e S t

3.0

2.8

2.6

2.4

2.2

2.0

1 .B

1.6

1.4

1.2

1 .o

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

o = rote learnem * = mid-range learners x - rneanlngM learners

I

I I I 1

0 1 2 3

Prlor Knowledge of Meiosis

Figure 2. knowledge for meaningful learners, mid-range learners, and rote learners.

Regression lines for posttest scores of the Punnett-square method by prior


achievement motivation in two of the five regression analyses: meiosis and the Punnett-square method. In addition, meaningful learning orientation alone predicted students’ mental model scores of the procedural relationship and conceptual relationship between the topics.

The distinction of meaningful learning orientation from aptitude and achievement motivation is less clear relative to students’ scores on the relationship statements. In their relationship statements, students linked certain meiosis concepts (such as genes with chromosomes, genes and chromosomes with gametes), and Punnett-square concepts (such as gametes combine to show fertilization in Punnett squares). The work of Cho, Kahle, and Nordland (1985) suggested that an understanding of relationships between such concepts (i.e., genes and chromosomes) represents meaningful understanding because students know the hierarchical linkages. In this study, although students’ meaningful learning orientation was correlated with connecting information in their relationship statements, it was best explained by both aptitude and achievement motivation. Thus, citing the specific term-related relationships between the topics may require skill or knowledge beyond that of meaningful learning. This conclusion may be true even though later analyses, with aptitude and motivation omitted from the equation, indicated that meaningful learning orientation significantly predicted students’ meaningful understanding. Alternatively, meaningful learning orientation may be tied to aptitude and motivation for the performance of certain skills such as those required in specifying relationships. More research is needed to clarify this finding.

KEY: o = rote learners = mid-range learners

x = meanlngM learners

I

P I

0 I C 2.6 - e I d 2.4 - U I r 2.2 - a I I 2.0

1.8 R e 1.6

3.0 - r 2.8 -

I a 1.4 t I 1.2 0

n 1.0 S h 0.8 I p 0.6

0.4 ~

0.2 . 0.0 I I I

0 1 2 3

I

I

Prior Knowledge of Meiosis

Figure 3. Regression lines for posttest mental model scores of the procedural relationship by prior knowledge for meaningful learners, mid-range learners, and rote learners.

MEANINGFUL LEARNING ORIENTATION AND GENETICS 41 I

KEY: o = rote learners = mid-range learners

x - meaningful learners

4.0

3.8

3.8

3.4

3.2

3.0 C 0 2.8 n c 2.6 e p 2.4 t u 2.2 a I 2.0

1.8 R e 1.6 I a 1.4 t I 1.2 0 n 1.0 s h 0.8 i p 0.6

0.4

0.2 t

0.0 I I I 0 1 2 3

Prior Knowledge of Melosls

Figure 4 . Regression lines for posttest mental model scores of the conceptual relationship between meiosis and the Punnett-square method by prior knowledge for meaningful learners, mid-range learners, and rote learners.

In light of the above findings the evidence was still quite strong that meaningful learning orientation was a unique and distinct variable related to students’ acquisition of meaningful understanding. In analyses of relationships between meaningful learning orientation, prior knowledge, and treatment, both meaningful learning orientation and prior knowledge of meiosis were consistently important for students’ meaningful understanding of genetics. The persistent finding that prior knowledge of meiosis was positively correlated with students’ meaningful understandings supports research conducted by Stewart and Dale (1989), who emphasized the importance of prior knowledge of meiosis for meaningfully understanding the Punnett-square method, and for understanding the relationships between meiosis and the use of Punnett-square diagrams to solve genetics problems. Results of this study extended those of the Stewart and Dale (1989) research with the finding that not only prior knowledge of meiosis was important, but how this prior knowledge is used by learners. If students had the requisite knowledge of

412 CAVALM AND SCHAFER

5.8

5.6

5.4

5.2

R 5.0

I 4.8 a t 4.6 I 0 4.4 n s 4.2 h I 4.0 P

3.8 S t 3.6 a t 3.4 e m 3.2

n 3.0 t 1 2.8

2.6

2.4

2.2

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1 .o

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

e

1

0 1 2 3

Prior Knowledge of Meiosis

Figure 5 . prior knowledge, for meaningful learners, mid-range learners, and rote learners.

Regression lines for posttest scores of students’ relationship statements by

meiosis and they had a tendency to actively integrate what they knew with new information, they likely achieved a meaningful understanding of the material. It is not known whether students’ prior knowledge activated the meaningful learning set or whether the tendency to meaningfully learn activated their prior knowledge while they were first learning the information. What was indicated, however, was that students who tended to learn meaningfully and


KEY:

P U n n e I t

s q

a r e

U

s

P 0

s I

t B s t

3.0

2.8

2.6

2.4

2.2

2.0

1 .8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1 .o

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

o - rote learners - mld-range learners x - meaningful learners

I

I

I - X

I I

generative 0

reception 1

Instructional Treatment

Figure 6. for meaningful learners, mid-range learners, and rote kearners.

Regression lines for posttest scores of the Punnett-square method by treatment

who had meaningful prior knowledge of meiosis were likely to have attained a meaningful understanding of the material.

The regression analyses with the interaction terms and graphic representations of the regression lines revealed interesting patterns among the three learner groups. A rather predictable pattern was revealed for meiosis: Students who were rated as most meaningful in their learning orientation also attained the greatest meaningful understandings of meiosis. Meaning- ful, mid-range, and rote students with high prior knowledge of meiosis attained greater meaningful understanding than those with low prior knowledge of meiosis.

The regression equations (Figure 4) of the meaningful learning orientation X prior knowledge interaction for the conceptual relationship showed that meaningful learners with high prior knowledge attained particularly more meaningful understandings than mid-range or rote learners. Conceptualizing how and why meiosis is related with the use of Punnett-square diagrams clearly required sound prior knowledge of meiosis. The ability to conceptualize relationships was particularly sound among meaningful learners, that is, students who tended to learn by actively forming relationships between ideas, facts, and concepts of science.

The other patterns observed in the regression equations for the interaction terms were not as predictable. With low prior knowledge, mid-range learners had greater understanding of the Punnett-square method than rote learners, but the two groups’ levels of understanding were similar with high prior knowledge (Figure 2). As prior knowledge of meiosis was increased, meaningful understanding of the Punnett-square method was markedly increased for meaningful


and rote learners, but only slightly increased for mid-range learners. Mid-range learners with high prior knowledge were not as likely as meaningful and rote learners to use their higher levels of prior knowledge to create more meaningful understandings when explaining the Punnett- square method.

Students’ understanding of the procedural relationship between meiosis and the Punnett- square method also revealed an unusual pattern among the mid-range learner group (Figure 3). With low prior knowledge, mid-range learners had approximately the same level of understanding as rote learners. With high prior knowledge, however, mid-range learners had more meaningful understandings of the relationship than rote learners. Compared to both meaningful and rote learners, mid-range learners’ meaningful understanding was increased rather markedly as prior knowledge increased.

The same findings were revealed by the regression lines of the meaningful learning orientation X prior knowledge interaction for students’ relationship statements (Figure 5). Once again, mid-range learners with high prior knowledge appeared to attain greater meaningful understandings indicated by their relationship statements as compared to meaningful or rote learners.

The unusual performance of mid-range learners may indicate that greater prior knowledge of meiosis helped them better understand how meiosis is related to the Punnett-square method. This proposition is supported by Entwistle & Ramsden (1983), who contended that students may need to use both rote and meaningful learning approaches to attain complete understandings. This contention may explain the finding that mid-range learners (who may tend to use both rote and meaningful strategies to some extent) attained a more meaningful understanding of the procedural relationship and of their relationship statements with high prior knowledge than rote or meaningful learners. Knowing the procedure or mechanics of meiosis and Punnett-square diagrams may actually be more of a rote activity than it is meaningful, or may require both rote and meaningful learning. Likewise, the knowledge expressed in students’ relationship statements may require a mix of both rote and meaningful learning.

Comparing regression lines among mid-range learners of the meaningful learning orientation x prior knowledge interaction for procedural relationship scores (Figure 3) and relationship statements scores (Figure 5), and the meaningful learning orientation X treatment regression lines for the Punnett-square method scores (Figure 6) may offer insight as to how these students learn. It is speculated that when mid-range learners were told to relate meiosis and the Punnett- square method as in the third mental model test question, they were cued to use their prior knowledge of meiosis in their explanation. When they were not specifically prompted or cued to make relationships between meiosis and the Punnett-square method, as in the second test question asking them to explain the Punnett-square method alone, they may not have used prior knowledge of meiosis to help in their explanations. In essence, if mid-range learners had high prior knowledge and were explicitly told to relate new topics with this prior knowledge they showed a more interrelated, meaningful understanding of topics. This speculation is reinforced by the finding that mid-range learners performed better than rote learners on the Punnett-square test question when they were told relationships (reception treatment), but performed about the same as rote learners when they were not told the relationships between the topics (generative treatment). Explanations in the instruction of the relationships between meiosis and the Punnett- square method may have helped mid-range learners recognize how the topics are connected, and allowed them to formulate a more meaningful understanding of the Punnett-square method. For mid-range learners, it appears that some level of guidance may be necessary for them to make connections between ideas. Referring to the work of Vygotsky (1986), the mid-range learners may be within a zone of proximal development and require scaffolding to attain the next level of mental thinking or development. These findings did not occur for meaningful or rote learners;


their performance was not related to treatment or to the framing of the test question. It is also recognized that only eight of the mid-range learners had the reception treatment. Further research is needed to explore possible relationships between various levels of teacher guidance and students’ meaningful learning orientation.

It is evident across the analyses that the variable that was prevalent was meaningful learning orientation. Meaningful learning orientation interacted with prior knowledge in predicting students’ mental models of meiosis, the Punnett-square method, the procedural and conceptual relationships and students’ relationship statements. Meaningful learning orientation also interacted with treatment to predict students’ meaningful understanding of the Punnett-square method. The findings pertaining to meaningful learning orientation in this study advance the work of other researchers (Atkin, 1977; Donn, 1989; Edmonson, 1989; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Robertson, 1984) who identified and described students’ meaningful and rote approaches to learning. The present study not only identified and described students’ approaches to learning, but also discovered an important relation between the students’ learning approach and their attainment of meaningful understanding.

Educational Implications.

Educators have expressed concern that a large number of high school students learn primarily by rote (Novak, 1988; Ridley & Novak, 1983; Tobin & Fraser, 1989). One important aspect of this study was that it attempted to characterize what is meant by meaningful and rote learning, and subsequently identify how individual students tended to approach learning. Much work has to be done to improve the capacity of identifying students’ learning orientations, and the use of a combination of self-reports and teacher observations should be further researched.

This study revealed several potential benefits to knowing how students learn. There was a direct relation between meaningful learning orientation and students’ understandings: The more meaningful the students’ learning orientation, the more meaningful the understandings they tended to attain. Thus, science learning may not be restricted by a students’ particular aptitude, and may be more a factor of how they learn. The work of Novak and Gowin (1984) suggests that students who do not tend to learn meaningfully can learn to do so, which in turn may help them formulate more meaningful understandings of the information presented to them in teaching. Students who tend to learn meaningfully should be encouraged to maintain their efforts toward making sense of new information in order that they may continue to attain meaningful understandings of science.

Notes

1 Results of this study were not appreciably different when analyses were conducted with the 46 students included in the sample. Correlations and F values were similarly significant but somewhat lower than those reported here.

* The terms major and minor were used to indicate that one step in understanding the process of meiosis was knowing that two divisions occur, and another step was knowing the various activities that take place in the cell prior to the divisions. These terms do not imply that some processes of meiosis are more significant than other processes.

3 A more detailed description of the mental model scoring method, including a description of the knowledge categories represented in students’ explanations, is documented in Cavallo (1991).

4 ‘The pretest also included the second and third questions on the Punnett-square method and the relationships between the topics. Students’ responses indicated that they had no prior knowledge of these topics.


References

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260-267.

Anderson, J.R. (1 983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Atkin, J.A. (1977). An information processing model of learning and problem solving. Unpublished M.S. thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

Ausubel, D.P. ( 1 963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune & Stratton, Inc.

Ausubel, D.P. (1968). A subsumption theory of meaningful verbal learning and retention. In R.G. Kuhlen (Ed.), Studies in educational psychology. Boston: Blaisdell Publishing Compa- “Y-

Bennett, G.K., Seashore, H.G., & Wessman, A.G. (1989). The Psychological Corpora- tion: Differential Aptitude Tests. Administrator’s handbook. Niles, IL: Harcourt Brace Java- novich.

Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.

BouJaoude, S.B. ( 1992). The relationship between high school students’ learning strategies and the change in their misunderstandings during a high school chemistry course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(7), 687-699.

Browning, M. (1988). The efects of meiosislgenetics integration and instructional se- quence on college biology student achievement in genetics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Lake of the Ozarks, MO. (Eric Document Reproduction Service ED 291 578)

Campbell, D.T., & Stanley, J.C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Cavallo, A.L. (1 99 1). The relationship between students’ meaningful learning orientation and their mental models of meiosis and genetics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University. Syracuse, NY.

Cho, H., Kahle, J.B., & Nordland, F.H. (1985). An investigation of high school biology textbooks as sources of misconceptions and difficulties in genetics: Some suggestions for teaching genetics. Science Education, 69(5), 707-719.

Donn, S. (1989). Epistemological issues in science education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA .

Dweck, C.S. ( 1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist,

Edmonson, K.M. (1989). Direrences and similarities between males’ and females’ conceptions of scient@c knowledge and their orientation to learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Fran- cisco, CA.

Entwistle, N.J. (1981). Styles of learning and teaching: An integrative outline of educational psychology, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

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

Entwistle, N., & Waterston, S. (1988). Approaches to studying and levels of processing in university students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, 258-265.

41(10), 1040-1048.


Kindfield, A.C.H. (1991, April). Understanding a basic biological process: Expert and novice models of meiosis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Fontana, WI.

Kinnear, J. (1983). Identification of misconceptions in genetics and the use of computer simulations in their correction. In Proceedings of the International Seminar: Misconceptions in Science and Mathematics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

McNamara, T.P., Miller, D.L., & Bransford, J.D. (1991). Mental models and reading comprehension. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Mosenthal, P.B., & Kirsch, I.S. (1991a). Mimetic documents: Process schematics. Journal of Reading, 34(5), 390-397.

Mosenthal, P.B., & Kirsch, I.S. (1991b). More mimetic documents: Procedural schematics. Journal of Reading, 34(6), 486-490.

Mosenthal, P.B., & Kirsch, 1.S. (1992a). Understanding knowledge acquisition from an knowledge model perspective. Journal of Reading, 35(7), 588-596.

Mosenthal, P.B., & Kirsch, I .S. (1992b). Using knowledge modeling as a basis for assess- ing students’ knowledge. Journal of Reading, 35(8), 668-678.

Novak, J.D. (1988). Learning science and the science of learning. Studies in Science Education, 15, 77-101.

Novak, J.D., & Gowin, D.B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Novak, J.D., Kerr, P., Donn, S. , & Cobern, W. (1989). Epistemological issues in science education. Symposium presented at the Annual Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.

Osborne, R., & Wittrock, M. (1983). Learning science: A generative process. Science Education, 67(4), 489-508.

Osborne, R., & Wittrock, M. (1985). The generative learning model and its implications for science education. Studies in Science Education, 12, 59-87.

Ridley, D.R., & Novak, J.D. (1983). Sex-related differences in high school science and mathematic enrollments: Do they give males a critical head start toward science- and math- related careers? The Alberta Journal of Education Research, 24(4), 308-3 18.

Robertson, M. (1984). Use of videotape-simulated recall interviews to study the thoughts and feelings of students in an introductory biology laboratory course. Unpublished M.S. thesis, Cornell University.

Smith, M.U. (1991). Teaching cell division: Student difficulties and teaching recommenda- tions. Journal of College Science Teaching, 21( I), 28-33.

Stewart J.H. (1982). Difficulties experienced by high school students when learning basic Mendelian genetics. The American Biology Teacher, 44(2), 80-89.

Stewart, J.H., Hafner, B., & Dale, M. (1990). Students’ alternative views of meiosis. The American Biology Teacher, 52 (4), 228-232.

Stewart, J.H., & Dale, M. (1989). High school students’ understanding of chromosome/gene behavior during meiosis. Science Education, 73(4), 501-521.

Tests of Achievement and Proficiency. ( 1986). Manual for school administrators. Chicago, IL: The Riverside Publishing Co.

Tobin, K., & Fraser, B. J. (1989). Barriers to higher-level cognitive learning in high school science. Science Education, 73(6), 659-682.

Tolman, R.R. (1982). Difficulties in genetics problem solving. The American Biology Teacher, 44(9), 525-527.

418 CAVALM AND SCHAFER

Wittrock, M.C., & Alesandrini, K. (1990). Generation of summaries and analogies and

Vygotsky, L. (1986). A. Kozalin (Ed.), Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT analytic and holistic abilities. American Educational Research Journal, 27(3), 489-502.

Press.

Manuscript accepted March 18, 1993.

relationships between students' meaningful learning orientation and their understanding of...

Documents