Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:3962

DOI 10.1007/s11165-009-9145-x

The Effects of Learning Strategy Instruction

on Achievement, Attitude, and Achievement Motivation
in a Physics Course

Gamze Sezgin Seluk & Mehmet Sahin &

Kamile n Akgz

Published online: 3 December 2009

# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract This article reports on the influence of learning strategy instruction on

student teachers physics achievement, attitude towards physics, and achievement
motivation. A pre-test/post-test quasi-experimental design with matching control group
was used in the study. Two groups of student teachers (n=75) who were enrolled in an
introductory physics course participated in the study. In the experimental group,
questioning, summarizing, and graphic organizers were taught. The control group did
not receive any presentation on strategy learning. Data were collected via the pre- and
post-administration of the Physics Course Achievement Test, the Scale of Attitudes
towards Physics, and the Achievement Motivation Scale. Univariate and multivariate
analyses of variance on the data revealed no significant differences in the attitude and
achievement motivation between the strategy and control groups. However, the strategy
group students were observed to have a tendency of more positive attitude and motivation
than the control group students. Results also showed that explicit learning strategy
instruction was more effective than traditional instruction in improving physics
achievement of the participating students. The implications of these results for physics
education are discussed.

Keywords Achievement motivation . Attitude . Graphic organizers .

Learning strategy instruction . Physics . Questioning . Summarizing

Kamile n Akgz (retired)

G. Sezgin Seluk (*) : M. Sahin
Department of Physics Education, Education Faculty of Buca, Dokuz Eyll University, 35160 Izmir,
Turkey
e-mail: gamze.sezgin@deu.edu.tr
M. Sahin
e-mail: mehmet.sahin@deu.edu.tr

K. . Akgz
Department of Educational Sciences, Education Faculty of Buca, Dokuz Eyll University, 35160 Izmir,
Turkey
40 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:3962

Introduction

Physics education in Turkey starts in the fourth grade (at the age of eleven) as science
courses, and it continues all through high school. At university level, physics is taught in
many academic programs (such as chemistry, biology, medicine, dentistry, pharmacology,
environmental sciences, engineering, and architecture) as a compulsory course.
The Ministry of National Education in Turkey emphasizes teaching the means (methods,
styles, or strategies) of learning in the first, second, and third years of high school (Turkish
Ministry of National Education 1992). This focus has specific importance because it forms
one dimension of this study. This study is about the effects of learning strategies (questioning,
summarizing, and graphic organizers) (Bean and Steenwyk 1984; Friend 2001; Rosenshine
et al. 1996) on students achievement, attitude, and achievement motivation in a physics
course. As the traditional teaching approach is the only method most Turkish students and
educators are familiar with, the application of different learning strategies has been neglected
for years. The situation gets worse at the university level which makes it even more difficult
to achieve the learning objectives in the university courses. Here, learning objectives refer to
what the learner will know or be able to do by the end of a course or program.

Learning Strategies

The term learning strategy has been defined by many researchers. For example Jonassen
(1985) defines learning strategies as complex mental operations that assist learners to
perceive, store, retain, and recall different forms of knowledge or performance (p. 26).
A different definition of learning strategy was proposed by Weinstein and Mayer (1986).
They define learning strategies as behaviors and thoughts that a learner engages in during
learning and that are intended to influence the learners encoding process (p. 315).

Classification of Learning Strategies

In the education literature, there are various different classifications of learning strategies.
Cognitive psychologists divide learning strategies into two main categories: cognitive and
metacognitive. Vaidya (1999) describes these strategies as follows:
Cognitive strategies help a person process and manipulate information; examples
include taking notes, asking questions, or filling out a chart. Cognitive strategies tend
to be very task specific, implying that certain cognitive strategies are useful only
when learning or performing certain tasks. Metacognitive strategies are executive in
nature. They are the strategies a student uses when planning, monitoring, and
evaluating learning or strategy performance (p. 186).
Weinstein and Mayer (1986) divide the learning strategies into eight major categories. Each
category includes methods designed to influence certain aspects of the encoding process to
facilitate one or more types of learning outcome and performance. The categories are:
1. Basic rehearsal strategiesin which one simply repeats the names of items in an
orderly fashion.
2. Complex rehearsal strategiesinclude strategies such as copying, underlining, or
shading class notes.
3. Basic elaboration strategiesstrategies in which one forms a mental image or sentence
related to items in each pair for a paired-associate list of words.
Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:3962 41

4. Complex elaboration strategiesinclude processes such as paraphrasing, summarizing,

or describing how new knowledge relates to existing knowledge.
5. Basic organizational strategiesinvolve strategies such as grouping or ordering the
items to be learned from a list or out of a text.
6. Complex organizational strategiesinclude strategies such as framing a passage or
forming a hierarchy.
7. Comprehension monitoring strategiesinvolve checking for comprehension failures.
Metacognitive strategies are involved in comprehension monitoring strategies.
8. Affective and motivational strategiesare related to creating, monitoring, and
controlling an effective learning environment.

Instruction in Learning Strategies

The majority of studies in the 1960s to 1980s aimed to determine the most superior strategy
systems or to determine which strategy was the most effective. During the 1990s, research
has shifted its focus to determine if the performance of students could be enhanced with the
employment of different interventions (Simpson and Nist 2000). It is suggested that
learning strategies may increase student achievement. Since we can teach these strategies,
strategy instruction could have significant effect on student learning (Protheroe 2002).
Metacognitive strategies and learning strategy teaching efforts were found to be effective in
facilitating attention, motivation, learning, memory, and comprehension and also in helping
to remedy some learning difficulties (Wittrock 1986).
Three approaches are used in teaching learning strategies: Stand alone, embedded,
and immersion (Rhoder 2002). In the stand alone approach, thinking skills and strategies
are presented separately from the curriculum. A curriculum-free text or a text that is not
part of students current curriculum can be used in strategy instruction. In the embedded
approach, strategy instruction is embedded explicitly within the content of the
curriculum. Students are taught subject matter at hand with a focus on the strategy
involved in related readings about the subject. The stand alone and embedded approaches
focus on explicit and direct teaching of the strategies. In the immersion approach, strategy
teaching is implicit not explicit. Students are immersed in reading, thinking, or
understanding new information during which they do not have to focus on the process
they are using. The present study employed both stand alone and embedded approaches in
strategy instruction.
There are various significant problems encountered in the strategy instruction. Despite
the support from education researchers for strategy use, teachers are reluctant to welcome
learning strategies into their classrooms. Among the important reasons why teachers do not
include more strategy training in their regular teaching programs are the concerns about
limited time and concentration on curriculum. There may be other reasons. For example,
teachers may not be convinced of the effectiveness of strategy training, or they may see
themselves as not able to carry out instructional processes simply because of a lack of
knowledge or inadequate training in the subject matter (Hamman 1998).
While instruction in a variety of learning strategies is a focus for research in some
countries, it is neglected in Turkey. The present study concentrates on strategies that
directly affect the initial acquisition, comprehension, and retention of knowledge. The study
utilized stand alone and embedded approaches and the instructions were prepared according
to questioning strategy, summarizing strategy and graphic organizers. The reasons for using
these strategies are that they are higher level (or deep level) strategies pertaining to
42 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:3962

elaboration and organization of knowledge (Somuncuolu and Yldrm 1999) and that they
can be easily incorporated into any regular classroom instruction.

Questioning Strategy

Question generation is both a cognitive (comprehension-fostering) and metacognitive strategy

(self-regulatory). With the help of the question generation process, students attention can be
focused on the content of the learning material (Rosenshine et al. 1996). Asking questions helps
students learn, and moreover, it guides instructors in their teaching. Student-generated
questions may reveal information such as students thinking about the learning material
presented, connections they make between the existing and new knowledge, and the
improvement of their knowledge level. In brief, questions created by students manifest their
conceptual understanding and quality of thinking (White and Gunstone 2000).
Questioning strategy can be applied at all levels and in different subjects ranging from
solving problems in physics, mathematics, or chemistry to questioning about a reading text
in Turkish or in a foreign language. The following techniques were identified in the
literature for instruction in questioning strategy: Reciprocal Teaching (Palinscar et al. 1989),
Question-Answer Relationship (QAR) (Raphael 1986), Guided Student-Generated Questioning
(King 1992a), and TeachQuest (Ciardiello 1998). TeachQuest is the technique used in the
present study and is described in detail in the methods section.

Summarizing Strategy

Summarizing is the students brief oral or written explanation of what they have learned
including basic ideas. Since it requires students to think about the reading as a whole but
support the holistic ideas with specific details, the summarizing strategy is somewhat
difficult to gain as a skill.
Reasearch on summarizing has shown that summarizing increases comprehension and
retention (Armbruster et al. 1987; Bean and Steenwyk 1984; Cordero-Ponce 2000; Malone
and Mastropieri 1992). Depending on the subject, different techniques can be used in the
instruction of the summarizing strategy. Some of the techniques used are: Generating
Interactions between Schema and Text (GIST) (Marzano et al. 2000), Hierarchical
Summarization (Swanson and De La Paz 1998), Rule-Based Summarizing (Brown et al.
1981), and Graphic Organizers. The present study employed Rule-Based Summarizing and
Graphic Organizers. The Rule-Based Summarizing technique is described under the
heading Instruction in summarizing strategy. Summarizing is often taught together with
graphic organizers. While summary provides a written aspect, graphic organizers can add a
visual facet (Maher 2000). The present study employed summarizing and graphic
organizers together.

Graphic Organizers (GOs) Graphic organizers are defined as visual displays used by
teachers to organize information in such a way to make learning and understanding easy
(Sirias 2002). Using spatial arrangements, geometric shapes, lines, and arrows to portray
the content structure and to demonstrate key relationships between concepts graphic
organizers visually depict interrelationships of superordinate and subordinate ideas
(DiCecco and Gleason 2002, p. 307).
Graphic organizers are helpful for both teachers and students in teaching and learning as
they enable visualization of the concepts and relationships. Using graphic organizers
enables students participation in the processes of listening, speaking, marking, reading,
Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:3962 43

writing, and thinking in an active way (Luckner et al. 2001). They are shown to be useful in
many content areas and at different ages (Dye 2000). Depending on the instructional
content and objectives, four types can be distinguished (Marchand-Martella et al. 1998):
1. Hierarchical organizerspresent main ideas and supporting details.
2. Comparative organizersdisplay similarities and differences among major concepts.
3. Sequential organizersshow a series of steps or events.
4. Diagramspresent actual objects and systems in the real worlds of science and social
studies.
In the physics education literature, the majority of the studies related to strategy
instruction were found to focus mostly on teaching problem solving strategies. However,
few studies have focussed on elaboration, organizational and metacognitive groups. Studies
conducted in physics education for the purposes of enhancing reading comprehension of
physics texts, improving problem solving skills, and increasing the use of deep learning
strategies have focused on teaching and learning of question creation, text processing,
graphic organizers, and metacognition (such as self evaluation, cognitive awareness, and
comprehension monitoring), and have reported positive results (e.g., Austin and Shore
1995; Koch and Eckstein 1991; Koch 2001; Rouet et al. 2001; Vertenten 2002; Zieneddine
and Abd-El-Khalick 2001).
The present study focuses on learning strategy instruction in introductory level physics.
The study highlights the importance of strategy instruction that may encourage student
motivation towards learning.

Literature Review

Literature on strategy shows that asking students to summarize course notes or write
discussion questions about the course content enables them to actively interact with the
course material. For instance, King (1991) investigated the effects of teaching strategic
(guided) questioning on fifth grade students problem-solving performance. Students were
grouped as guided questioning, unguided questioning, and control groups and solved
problems using their own strategies. Students in the guided questioning group were more
successful in a written problem solving test than students in the other two groups. In
addition, they asked more strategic questions and included more detailed explanations in
their solutions than the other students.
In another study, King (1992b) compared the effectiveness of the strategies of
self-questioning, summarizing, and reviewing lecture notes. Of the three college-student
groups, one was taught how to generate and answer questions about the course content, the
second group was taught how to write summaries about the course content, and the third
group (control group) was not presented with a special strategy, however, they were asked
to review their lecture notes. An immediate testing of lecture content showed that the
summary group remembered more content than self-questioners, and both groups
remembered more content than note-reviewers. On the other hand, in a retention test, the
self-questioning group showed better performance than the summary group, and
significantly better performance than note-reviewers.
Cuccio-Schirripa and Steiner (2000) reported a study where four groups of seventh grade
students received instruction in researchable questioning strategy in science. The study
involved eight groups of seventh grade students four of whom did not receive any
44 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:3962

instruction. The results of the study indicated that the experimental groups performance on
questioning was higher than the control groups performance.
Ayaduray and Jacobs (1997) investigated the effects of learning strategy on two
English-as-a-Second-Language classes performance on higher order questioning in
Singapore. One group received instruction in asking higher-order questions, whereas the
other group did not receive any instruction. During small group discussions, the
experimental group asked significantly more higher-order questions and provided
significantly more exploratory responses than the control group.
Bean and Steenwyk (1984) compared two different summarizing techniques. Three
sixth-grade student groups were randomly assigned to three instructional settings. The first
group received Rule-Based Summarizing instruction, the second group received GIST
(Generating Interactions between Schema and Text) instruction. The third group was
assigned as the control group and did not receive any instruction about summarizing;
however, they were asked to write summaries. Results showed that the two groups who
received summarizing instruction did significantly better in both the reading test and
summarizing than the control group. Experimental groups did not differ significantly, thus,
summarizing techniques were considered equal in terms of effectiveness.
In Friends (2001) study, university students with poor writing ability were taught
summarization strategies based on Van Dijk and Kintschs (1983) text-processing theory.
Students were divided into three groups, two of which were summarization (argument
repetition and generalization) groups and the third was the control group. Analyses of test
summaries indicated that generalization instruction was significantly more effective with
regards to stating a thesis, and both summarization groups showed significantly higher
performance than the control group on judging the importance of the content.
In a graphic organizers study, Amer (1994) investigated the effects of knowledge-map
and underlining instructions on college students reading comprehension of scientific texts.
No significant differences were found between knowledge-map and underlining groups;
however, these groups were found to have higher achievements than the control group
students on asking open-ended questions. Summarizing evaluations revealed similar results.
The knowledge-map group showed statistically significant success on summarizing.
Boothby and Alvermann (1984) reported the effects of graphic organizer instruction on
comprehension and retention. The study involved two groups of fourth grade students. One
of the groups received graphic organizer instruction; the other group did not receive any
instruction and formed the control group. Results of the study revealed that the instructional
group showed a significantly higher comprehension level than the control group; however,
a retention test administered one month after instruction suggested no significant
differences between performances of the groups.
Huffman and Spires (1994) provided direct instruction for sixth grade students on
notetaking skills and comprehension of course information. Students were randomly
assigned to one of the experimental and control groups. Strategy instruction was carried out
in 50-min classes for 2 weeks. In the pre and post-test evaluations, students were asked to
write one-paragraph summary of the lecture and answer test questions on the same lecture.
In addition, students were administered The Stanford Listening Comprehension subtest and
Notetaking Attitude Survey. The experimental group students scores on the achievement
test about the lecture were higher, and their attitudes toward notetaking were more positive
than the control group students scores and attitudes respectively. No significant differences
were found between the experimental and control group students listening skills.
Guthrie et al. (2000) investigated the effects of Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction
(CORI), which integrates reading, language education, and science inquiry, on students
Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:3962 45

intrinsic motivation. Learning objectives, real-world interaction, mastery help and

cooperation were emphasized in the study. The results of the study showed that the
experimental group students who received CORI displayed significantly higher levels of
motivation compared to the students in traditional classes.
Chang and Huang (1999) carried out a research study with Taiwanese graduate and
undergraduate students whose foreign (second) language was English, to investigate the
relationships between foreign language learning strategies and student motivation. The
results revealed that motivational intensity, intrinsic motivation, and extrinsic motivation
had relationships with learning strategies. While intrinsic motivation was found to have a
relationship with both cognitive and metacognitive strategies, extrinsic motivation had a
relationship with memory and affective strategies.
In summary, strategy instructions were found to influence students performance on
problem solving and asking strategic questions, students ability to remember more
content, their retention, and comprehension level. Studies investigating strategy
instructions not only help students attain strategies effective in learning but also
provide valuable information about the effects of using the strategies on students
affective characteristics such as attitude and motivation. Research in physics education
has revealed that learning strategy instruction has positive influences on students
conceptual learning (Harper et al. 2003), achievement (Pankratius 1990), reading
comprehension (Koch 2001), problem solving performance (Austin and Shore 1995), and
use of deep learning strategies (Vertenten 2002). However, the literature about learning
strategy instruction in physics education is limited in number. In addition, there is no
quantitative study, as far as we know, investigating the effects of learning strategies on
affective variables such as attitude and motivation. Therefore, the present study aims to
make new contributions to the literature in the domain of introductory physics in these
aspects.

The Present Study

The main purpose of this study was to examine the effects of explicit strategy instruction on
student teachers physics achievement, attitudes towards physics, and achievement
motivation. The research questions investigated in this study were as follows:
1. Are there any effects of using strategy instruction on student teachers physics
achievement scores?
2. Are there any effects of using strategy instruction on student teachers attitudes toward
physics?
3. Are there any effects of using strategy instruction on student teachers achievement
motivation?

Method

Participants

The participants included 75 second-year student teachers who were enrolled in the
Department of Elementary Mathematics Education (EME) in a state university in Turkey.
Students at the Department of EME were randomly divided into two groups and assigned as
46 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:3962

section A and B. Physics is compulsory in this department, and it is offered in two

successive semesters (fall and spring) as Physics I (4 credits) and Physics II (4 credits).
Physics I focuses on mechanics concepts and Physics II focuses on electricity and
magnetism concepts. The distribution of participants according to gender and groups is
presented in Table 1.

Research Design

In this study, pre-test/post-test quasi-experimental method with equivalent control group,

involving a 2 (group) 2 (time) factorial design was used. There was one control and one
experimental group, namely, the strategy group. Student teachers were assigned randomly
to the strategy and control groups. The strategy group received strategy plus traditional
instruction; the control group received only traditional instruction. Both groups were tested
before and after the intervention to measure their physics achievement, attitudes towards
physics, and achievement motivation.
Control variables were prior physics achievement, attitude, and achievement motivation.
The independent variable was the intervention (the strategy and/or the traditional
instruction). The dependent variables were post-test physics achievement, attitude, and
achievement motivation.

Instruments

Dependent Measure Instruments

The data for this study were collected using the Physics Course Achievement Test (PCAT),
the Scale of Attitudes towards Physics (SAP), and the Achievement Motivation Scale
(AMS).

Physics Course Achievement Test Students physics achievement was measured using the
Physics Course Achievement Test (PCAT). The instrument, containing 35 five-option,
multiple-choice questions, was developed by the researcher (G.S.S.). Five sections from the
textbook Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics 2 by Serway and
Beichner (2000) were selected for this study. The topics included in the test were as
follows: Electric Fields, Electric Potential, Capacitance and Dielectrics, Current and
Resistance, and Direct Current Circuits. The test was intended to determine the knowledge
of students related to the fundamental concepts, and their skills on recalling the
relationships between concepts, and applying them to problems. The Kuder-Richardson

Table 1 The distribution of participants according to gender and groups

Gender Strategy Group Control Group Total

n % n %

Male 25 68 25 66 50
Female 12 32 13 34 25
Total 37 49 38 51 75

n: number of participants in groups; %: percentage of participants in groups

Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:3962 47

(KR-20) reliability of the test was found to be 0.85. To illustrate the structure of the test,
three sample questions are provided in Figs. 1, 2 and 3 below.

The Scale of Attitudes Toward Physics A 40-item scale was developed by the researcher
(G.S.S.) to measure the students attitudes towards physics (see Appendix A). The Scale of
Attitudes toward Physics (SAP) has the Likert-type scale and five-option choices (Highly
Applicable, Applicable, Neutral, Inapplicable, and Highly Inapplicable). Cronbachs alpha
reliability coefficient of the total scale was 0.97. A factor analysis yielded two dimensions
of SAP. The dimensions were named as sense of interest and sense of care. The sense
of interest scale consists of twenty-five items with a coefficient alpha of 0.96. This
dimension consists of items involving emotional perceptions and feelings about physics
such as interest in and enjoyment of physics. Sample items from the sense of interest
scale are: I am interested in everything related to physics, and I am not interested in
physics except for when I am in class.
The sense of care scale consists of fifteen items with a coefficient alpha of 0.90. In this
dimension, there are items involving statements such as: I think physics is important and
I think physics is a course that needs to be learned.

The Achievement Motivation Scale Students were administrated the Achievement Motivation
Scale (AMS) developed by Ellez (1999) before and after the intervention (Cronbachs
=0.87). The AMS has 35 Likert-type items that provide information on each students
achievement motivation (see Appendix B). The options of the scale ranged as Highly
Applicable, Applicable, Neutral, Inapplicable, and Highly Inapplicable. Twenty-eight items of
the scale contain positive statements about motivation, and 7 items have negative statements.
The scale consisted of two sub-scales; effort and desire to work. The effort scale consists of
19 items with a coefficient alpha of 0.75. This dimension consists of items related to students
ideas and behaviors about topics such as learning, attendance, and carrying out the tasks related
to a course. Sample items from the effort scale are: I usually finish the tasks I work on and
Whatever I do, I try to do my best. The desire to work scale consists of 16 items with a
coefficient alpha of 0.80. This dimension is composed of items related to students ideas and
behaviors about success in a course, preference of hard or easy tasks, and completion of
learning activities on time. Sample items from this scale are: I try hard to answer very difficult
questionsand If I havent finished my homework, I dont feel comfortable.

Fig.1 Sample electrical potential problem

48 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:3962

Fig. 2 Sample Ohms Law problem

Intervention Instruments

The Turkish translation version of the textbook Physics for Scientists and Engineers
with Modern Physics 2 by Serway and Beichner (5th edition) was used as the textbook.
During the instruction process, researcher scripts, which were developed by the
researcher (G.S.S.), containing information about the three learning strategies (questioning,
summarizing, and graphic organizers) and work sheets (one per session) were used in the
strategy group.

Procedure

The study was conducted during the spring semester in a Physics II course. The duration of
the study was eight weeks from March to May. The pre-test measures of physics

Fig. 3 Sample problem involving capacitors with dielectrics

Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:3962 49

achievement, attitudes towards physics, and achievement motivation were used in the first
week to collect data. During the intervention, the strategy group received explicit strategy
plus traditional instruction in whole-class format for four classes (45 min each) a week.
Strategy instruction composed of two training phases called strategy acquisition and
strategy application as used in Montague and Bos (1986). Strategy acquisiton is the phase
where students learn the particular learning strategies (in this study, questioning,
summarizing, and graphic organizers). The means used to teach these strategies are stand
alone and embedded approaches. Strategy application refers to the phase where students use
these strategies to learn the content of the course.
The first phase of the intervention involved the strategy acquisition training which
was designed according to the stand alone approach. Training was implemented during
the first week of the semester in eight class hours (a total of 360 min) in a period of
1 week. During strategy acquisition training, informative codes (scripts) about the
strategies and their usage were distributed to students. First, the strategies were
presented independently. Guided practice studies were conducted using subjects that
were different from the topics to be presented in the study in order not to influence the
experimental study. When the presentations on three strategies were done an
independent practice study where the strategies can be applied was carried out by the
students.
Strategy application training which included independent student practices, started on
the second week of the semester and was embedded into the content of traditional
instruction (embedded approach was used in the training). The students in the strategy
group studied using Questioning and Summarizing sheets prepared by the researcher.
Content and strategy application training (in whole-class format) was completed in two
successive classes and the remaining two successive hours of the physics course were used
for feedback and traditional problem-solving tasks. Strategy application training lasted for
7 weeks. Measurements of the same variables were done by a post-test at the end of the
treatment period, that is, at the beginning of the ninth week.

Treatment in the Strategy Group

Instruction in Questioning Strategy Ciardiellos (1998) TeachQuest technique was used in

the instruction of the questioning strategy. Treatment steps recommended by Ciardello were
adapted to the question types with six levels of thinking in Blooms (1956) Taxonomy
(i.e., knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation levels).
These stages and the tasks involved are summarized below:
Stage 1. Identification of question type: First, the purpose and significance of asking
questions were explained to students. Then, the question type that was aimed to
be taught was described, key words involved in this type of questioning and
sample questions from physics (from subjects other than those taught in the
treatment) were provided. Examples that will enable students to identify the
question type from a pool of different types of questions were provided.
Students were provided immediate corrective feedback.
Stage 2. Classification of question type: The importance of question classification was
explained to students. By providing examples of different question types,
students were helped to understand the relevant question type. They were
required to review the sample questions. The first and second stages of the
strategy were repeated for all question types.
50 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:3962

Stage 3. Generating questions: At this phase of the application, a reading material related
to Heat and Temperature was distributed to the students. The text was read by the
teacher to the students and a variety of question types were formed and then
answered. Whenever students had difficulty, the researcher helped them to create
questions.

Instruction in Summarizing Strategy The Rule-Based Summarizing technique (Brown et al.

1981) was used to teach the summarizing strategy. The following method was applied
during the instruction of the summarizing strategy:
1. Guidelines (including definition, purpose, significance, usage, rules, and examples) related
to the summarizing strategy were distributed to the students in the strategy group.
2. The aim and importance of the summarizing strategy were explained.
3. The procedures suggested in the Rule-Based Summarizing technique to be undertaken
while summarizing a reading material were explained:
& To detach the unnecessary information,
& to throw away the excess material,
& to replace the specific concepts with the more general concepts in the material (e.g.,
dielectrics for mica, quartz, and plastic), and
& to choose a title for the summary.
4. Summarizing examples were provided.
5. To help students practise the strategy, they were asked to review a given reading
material (Subject: Newtons Laws of Motion) and to summarize it with respect to the
rules (on a given summarizing sheet).
6. Student summaries were examined and immediate feedback was provided.

Instruction in Graphic Organizers (GOs) The following treatment steps were applied
during the instruction of GOs used for the purpose of summarizing:
1. The purpose and importance of graphic organizers and how they are used during the
classes were explained.
2. GO examples that can be used in physics (compare/contrast matrices, tables, sketches,
free-body diagrams, and graphics) were presented.
3. The procedures that should be followed while creating the graphic organizers were
described in detail.
4. Students practised GOs by reviewing a reading material (Subject: Extension with
Temperature) and summarizing it on a given summarizing sheet using the graphic
organizer(s) they created.
5. GOs formed by the students were examined and immediate feedback was provided.
After learning strategy instruction, an independent practice study was conducted by
using topics from the Law of Universal Gravitation. During the content and strategy
application training, first, the researcher presented concepts in lecture style at the beginning
of the class, then questioning and summarizing applications took place. At the beginning of
each class, a Questioning Sheet was distributed to the students in the strategy group, and
they were asked to write questions about the subject of that day during the class. After the
presentation, a Summarizing Sheet was distributed to the students; they were asked to
review the reading material quietly and write a summary of the lecture by using graphic
Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:3962 51

organizer(s) they formed. The Questioning and Summarizing Sheets were collected at the
end of the class. These sheets were reviewed and evaluated at the beginning of the next
class by the researcher. Student questions were answered in student-researcher dialogues
and deficiencies and mistakes (if any) in the summarizing sheets were discussed. The
remaining part of the class time was used for traditional problem solving activities.

Treatment in the Control Group

The following treatments were performed in the control group during the study:
1. The control group did not receive any strategy instruction. However, the same amount
of time, used by the strategy group for strategy training (360 min), was allocated to the
control group to review and study learning materials. During this period, topics (Heat
and Temperature, Newtons Laws of Motion, Extension with Temperature, and the Law
of Universal Gravitation) were presented via lecture method in the control group. Any
questions students might have were answered, and they were asked to review the
learning materials using their own study techniques.
2. In the control group, the topics were presented via traditional lecture format by the
researcher.
3. When the presentation was done, the control group students were asked to review the
concepts using their own study techniques.
4. During the last class hour of each week, the researcher reviewed the topics from the
previous class, and the remaining time was used for traditional problem solving
activities. Both groups solved the same problems.

Data Analysis

The data from the Physics Course Achievement Test, the Scale of Attitudes towards
Physics, and the Achievement Motivation Scale were analyzed using SPSS 13.0 statistical
analysis program. Frequencies (n), percentages (%), means (M), and standard deviations
(SD) were calculated, t-test and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) were
conducted. To test for changes over time, 2 (group) 2 (time) repeated measures ANOVA
and repeated measures MANOVA were performed with group (strategy vs. control) as the
between-subjects factor and time (pre-test and post-test) as the within-subjects factor. We
used an alpha level of 0.05 for all statistical tests.

Results

The data from the two groups, measured on three dependent variables (physics
achievement, physics attitude and achievement motivation), were collected two times over
two months. Table 2 summarises the descriptive statistics for PCAT, SAP and AMS pre and
post-test scores according to each group. Appropriate parametric tests (independent samples
t-test and MANOVA) were used to detect any significant differences between the strategy
group and the control group on the pre-test scores. In order to check whether the
assumptions of MANOVA were met, preliminary assumption testing for normality, linearity,
univariate and multivariate outliers, homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices and
multicollinearity were conducted. No significant violation was found. The analyses
52 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:3962

Table 2 Descriptive statistics for dependent variables

Measure Strategy Group (n=37) Control Group (n=38)

Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test

PCAT 10.37 (4.73) 25.32 (4.04) 9.84 (3.96) 15.92 (4.78)

SAP
Sense of interest 71.78 (17.89) 81.21 (15.29) 68.65 (19.07) 69.34 (16.35)
Sense of care 54.48 (8.50) 57.83 (7.74) 50.50 (9.43) 51.10 (7.59)
AMS
Effort 59.27 (11.58) 64.86 (7.45) 61.34 (9.52) 61.57 (6.10)
Desire to work 62.18 (6.34) 65,32 (7.71) 61.00 (5.61) 61.63 (9.67)

Values in parentheses are standard deviations

PCAT physics course achievement test, SAP the scale of attitudes towards physics, AMS the achievement
motivation scale

revealed no statistically significant differences in physics achievement [t(73)=0.53, p=

0.596], physics attitude [Wilks Lambda=0.941, F(2,72)=2.25, p=0.113] and achievement
motivation [Wilks Lambda=0.964, F(2,72)=1.35, p=0.265].

The Effects of Strategy Instruction on Physics Achievement

The repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine any significant differences between
the strategy and control group mean scores on the pre and post Physics Course
Achievement Test. Results from a 22 (Time Group) repeated measures ANOVA
confirmed achievement differences between the strategy and control groups. A statistically
significant main effect for group was found, F(1,73)=49.95, p=0.000 p2 =0.406. The
ANOVA indicated that the strategy group outperformed the control group across pre- and
post-treatment. A significant main effect for time, F(1,73)=205.29, p=0.000 p2 =0.738,
suggested that scores for both groups increased from Time 1 to Time 2. The analyses also
yielded a statistically significant Time Group interaction, F(1,73)=36.15, p=0.000
p2 =0.333. We performed a plot of the means to interpret the interaction. Figure 4 presents
the mean pre-/post-treatment change per group across time on the PACT. Although both
groups showed an increase over time, the increase was significantly higher for the strategy
group than it was for the control group. Effect sizes were measured via partial Eta squared
(p2). Partial Eta squared effect sizes were considered to be small for p2 0.01, medium for
p2 =0.06, and large for p2 =0.14 as suggested by Stevens (1992). Accordingly, the
proportion of partial population variance explained by the Time Group interaction can be
regarded as large in the present study.

The Effects of Strategy Instruction on Attitudes Towards Physics

A 22 repeated measures MANOVA was conducted to seek out the effects of the
treatment on the student teachers attitude towards the physics course. Results indicated
a statistically significant main effect for group, F(2,72)=6.72, p=0.002 p2 =0.157, for
physics attitude as a multivariate composite. Univariate ANOVA indicated that the
strategy group held more positive attitude towards physics in the dimension of sense
of interest, F(2,72)=7.30, p=0.009 p2 =0.091, and in the dimension of sense of care,
Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:3962 53

Fig. 4 Mean scores of the strategy

27
and control groups on the pre-test
and the post-test of the Physics
Course Achievement Test (PCAT) 24

PCAT Mean Score

21

(CG)
18 (SG)

15

12

1 2
Time
Note: SG= Strategy Group, CG= Control Group

F(2,72)=13.55, p=0.000 p2 =0.157, than did the control group across pre- and post-
treatment. Neither the time main effect, F(2,72)=1.68, p=0.193 p2 =0.045, nor the Time
Group interaction F(2,72)=1.16, p=0.318 p2 =0.031, was statistically significant. The
proportion of partial population variance explained by the between-subjects main effect
may be considered large, p2 =0.157. Figure 5 depicts the interaction between time and
group. The mean score of the strategy group was higher than that of the control group on
the attitude measures at the pre-test. This difference was not statistically significant. Whilst
the strategy group also scored higher on the SAP than the control group at the post-test, no
between group difference was found in the magnitude of the pre-test to post-test change.

Fig. 5 Mean scores of the strategy

and the control group on the pre-test 140
and the post-test of the Scale of
Attitude towards Physics (SAP)
135
SAP Total Score

130 (CG)
(SG)

125

120

115

1 2
Time
Note: SG=Strategy Group, CG= Control Group
54 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:3962

Fig. 6 Mean scores of the strategy

135
and the control group on the pre-test
and the post-test of the Achievement
Motivation Scale (AMS)
132

AMS Total Score

129
(CG)
(SG)

126

123

120

1 2
Time
Note: SG= Strategy Group, CG=Control Group

The Effects of Strategy Instruction on Achievement Motivation

A repeated measures MANOVA was conducted to determine any significant differences

between the strategy and control group mean scores in pre- and post-administration of the
Achievement Motivation Scale. The results demonstrated that group differences as a
function of intervention did not approach statistical significance, F(2,72)=2.21, p=0.117
p2 =0.058, for motivation as a multivariate composite. In addition, neither the time main
effect, F(2,72)=2.95, p=0.058 p2 =0.076, nor the Time Group interaction F(2,72)=2.24,
p=0.114 p2 =0.059, was statistically significant. Figure 6 presents the mean pre- to post-
treatment change per group across time on the AMS. As seen in Fig. 6, both strategy and
control groups have a better score on the post-test than on the pre-test. Moreover, the
strategy group students seem to make somewhat more progress.
The plot of means revealed that the strategy group showed greater increase from Time 1
to Time 2 on the achievement motivation compared to the control group. However, this
increase was not large enough to make the difference between the scores statistically
significant.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of strategy instruction on physics
achievement, attitude towards physics, and achievement motivation. From the analysis of
the data, it is concluded that strategy instruction increased the achievement of the students
in the physics class. Students who received strategy instruction showed more positive
attitude towards the physics course and enhanced their achievement motivation more than
their peers who received only traditional instruction. However, neither the strategy nor the
control group made substantial progress on these dependent variables.
The first finding of this study is consistent with the findings of strategy instruction
research in different subject matters and grade levels, from secondary school to university.
For instance, the research conducted on questioning (Cuccio-Schirripa and Steiner 2000)
Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:3962 55

and summarizing and graphic organizers (DiCecco and Gleason 2002; Friend 2001)
revealed that strategy instruction resulted in higher student achievements.
Perhaps the success of questioning, summarizing and graphic organizers on course
achievement can be attributed to the cognitive and metacognitive nature of these strategies.
The strategies presented in the present study serve not only as a means for improving
understanding (cognitive) but also for controlling understanding (metacognitive). In the
process of questioning and summarizing, students focus on the content of the course,
investigate the learning material, organize new knowledge, establish relationships between
new knowledge and prior knowledge, and check if the learning material has been learned,
that is, if it is used actively (Friend 2000/2001; Rosenshine et al. 1996). Using graphic
organizers for the purpose of summarizing not only facilitates the analysis and synthesis of
the important material presented in a class but also adds a visual aspect to the new
knowledge (Bigge and Stump 1998) and enables recalling (Luckner et al. 2001).
In the course of the present study, while only a few students in the traditional class
questioned their learning; all the students in the strategy group were required to review the
reading material, to question and to participate in summarizing activities about what they
had learnt. It is thought that students active engagement in the learning activities carried
out in class and their use of reading material by means of questioning and summarizing
might have a positive impact on their learning and this in turn can enhance their success in
the course.
Previous studies concerning the effects of strategy instruction on attitude and motivation
have reported mixed results. While some have reported that strategy instruction had positive
impacts on attitude and motivation (Carroll and Leander 2001; Chang and Huang 1999;
Guthrie et al. 2000) others have suggested that strategy instruction did not result in a
significant improvement of the students attitudes and achievement motivation (e.g., De
Corte et al. 2001; Garca and de Caso 2006; Lau and Chan 2007). The present intervention
did not find a statistically significant difference between the strategy and control group
student attitudes and achievement motivation. These findings are in accordance with the
latter studies.
It is realized that physics is not a popular subject among the students and is regarded as
difficult. In traditional classes students are inclined to memorize the formulas for the exams
since they do not learn the concepts in the classroom. Therefore, traditional physics classes
often result in student failures. Consequently, the attitudes of the students towards the
course are, of course, negative. In the psychology literature, interest is defined in terms of
ones general attitude toward a task or the liking of the task. Regardless of other factors,
students interest in the subject matter may affect whether they continue or withdraw from
learning (Hidi 1990).
The present study found similar observations that have been reported in the
previous literature (Lau and Chan 2007). In the current study, the use of strategies
attracted students interest, and it was observed that even students who were not
interested in the course wanted to attend the classes. The students who assumed
responsibility for their own learning were observed to show more effort towards
learning than the students in the traditional class. Creating their own questions and
summarizing the content by means of self-selected visual aids was possibly the cause of
students enjoyment when doing these tasks. Researchers have reported that despite the
fact that intervention did not produce substantial changes in students reading
motivation; they were highly interested in the reading materials and class activities
(Lau and Chan 2007). In addition, their attitude towards the course has improved
positively.
56 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:3962

Academic tasks or works included in the class activities that will attract students
attention are suggested as motivation strategies (Brophy 1987). Stipek (1988) suggested
that defining academic tasks depending on special, short-term objectives would enable
students to associate effort with success. Researchers have found that motivation facilitates
academic engagement, and that in return is related to achievement (Singh et al. 2002).
In this study, the benefits of academic work as required by the strategy instruction
program were explained to students during strategy instruction. Students in the strategy
group were observed to play an active role in the stated learning activities, assumed the
responsibility of self-learning, and showed more effort during the teaching-learning
process with respect to the control group students. It is thought that the reason for
students active participation and efforts in the activities is most probably due to their
belief that when they carry out these activities they will be more successful in the
course. There may be several factors that may account for the present studys results.
The possibility that the strategy group might have experienced novelty and this might
have caused them to exhibit different attitudes should be acknowledged as a possibility
in expressing the differences between the groups. The differences between the groups
may be due to the strategy instruction as well.
There may be alternative explanations for our findings regarding attitude and
achievement motivation. First, a 7-week program in this study might not be long enough
to produce a notable impact in student attitudes and motivation. Little improvement in
attitude and motivation could be due to the fact that these characteristics seem to be very
stable and that they may require special attention and intervention over a longer period of
time. In fact, it was suggested that any change in motivation generally takes place over
several years (Eccles et al. 1998; Pressley 2002) rather than several months. Second, there
is a possibility that students learning experiences outside of this study might have
negatively affected their motivation. Students have expressed their concerns about and
expectations from the school and the course in one-on-one conversations during the
intervention. It was realized that they usually had negative opinions about school life. These
conversations have led the researchers to believe that negative opinions might have
influenced their motivation in the course. Third, the strategy instruction provided by the
researchers may not have been sufficiently powerful to cause changes in students
attitude and achievement motivation, since attitude and motivation may be affected by
students self-evaluations. Students may compare themselves with classmates to form
judgements about their abilities and this may in turn affect their motivation. Because of
their awareness of class-rankings, some students may have been unlikely to show any
changes or improvements in motivation. A more intensive instruction program that had
geared towards developing affective strategies, enabled these students to overcome their
concerns, taken place over a longer period of time, may have resulted in improved
attitude and motivation.

Conclusion

This study provides some evidence for positive effects of using strategy instruction
(questioning, summarizing, and graphic organizers) on student teachers physics achieve-
ment. Explicit learning strategy instruction was more effective than traditional instruction in
improving physics achievement of the participating students. Student characteristics such as
attitude towards the course and achievement motivation were observed to be more positive
in the strategy group than the traditional class; however, the difference was not statistically
Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:3962 57

significant. These results suggest that use of questioning and summarizing (i.e.
summarizing with GOs) strategies may improve student teachers physics achievement,
attitude towards the course, and achievement motivation.
In light of the results of the present study, teachers and/or educators who do not include
strategy applications in their programs because of time constraints but want to improve the
effectiveness of their instructions, may review the potential benefits of strategy instruction.
The fact that the study was carried out within a regular teaching program has limitations
on this study. Students questioning and summarizing sheets could not be given immediate
feedback due to the limited time which was spared for physics in the curriculum. Another
limitation was the fact that the allotted four classes were split into two blocks of two-classes
and took place on different days of the week. Redesigning the course schedule in such a
way to enable immediate feedback to students may enhance the effects of strategy
instruction on the quality of the students work.
The fact that this study was about learning strategies (that have cognitive and
matecognitive nature) selected from elaboration and organizational categories in a physics
class and that prospective teachers who will teach the students in the future took part in the
study added more significance to it. Further studies on this topic may examine (a) the
longer term-instruction effects of these strategies and whether it would be more effective to
teach these strategies in a longer period of time, (b) whether these strategies would be more
effective individually, and (c) the effects of different instructional approaches (such as
problem-based vs. traditional whole class instruction) on student use of strategy and their
affective charateristics.

Appendix A

The Scale of Attitudes Towards Physics (SAP)

Dear Students,
This scale was prepared to measure students attitudes towards physics. For the validity
of this research, specifying your personal ideas has special importance. For each item
below, please mark your choice by checking the appropriate box. Thank you for
participation in this study.

What is the applicability level of the Highly Applicable Neutral Inapplicable Highly
following to you? Applicable Inapplicable
1. I am afraid of physics courses.
2. I am interested in everything related
to physics.
3. Physics courses are enjoyable for me.
4. I dont like physics courses.
5. I study physics willingly.
6. Physics courses are boring for me.
7. I tend to avoid physics.
8. Studying physics relaxes me.
9. I spend my free time doing activities
related to physics.
10. If I had the chance, I would take the
physics course off of the curriculum.
58 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:3962

11. The most interesting of the courses is

physics.
12. I would be happy if the physics class
hours were reduced.
13. The physics course is a forced study
for me.
14. I am usually not aware of how fast
time passes in physics class.
15. I am interested in the books related
to physics.
16. Answering a question or solving a
problem related to physics gives me
comfort.
17. If I had the option, I would select
another course instead of physics.
18 I think physics is important.
19. Learning the things related to physics
is boring.
20. I am usually busy with something else
in the physics classes.
21. I follow new developments in physics.
22. Even hearing the term physics
bothers me.
23. I think the physics course is necessary.
24. I pay no attention to the money which
I spent for physics books.
25. I feel happier in physics classes than
the other classes.
26. I do not have any enthusiasm for
physics class.
27. Among all the courses I like physics
best.
28. Physics scares me.
29. I enjoy listening to conversations
related to physics.
30. I lose my confidence in physics lectures.
31. I attend physics classes unwillingly.
32. I am not interested in physics except
for when I am in class.
33. The things I learn in the physics
course make my daily life easier.
34. I pay no attention to the time I spend
in physics classes.
35. I think that the time allocated for
physics course is not enough.
36. I think that physics should not be a
compulsory course.
37. I think physics is a course that needs
to be learned.
38. I never wish to study physics.
39. Physics is one of my favorite courses.
40. The more I learn physics, the more my
desire to learn physics increases.
Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:3962 59

Appendix B

Achievement Motivation Scale (AMS)

Dear Students,
This scale was prepared to measure students achievement motivation. For the validity of
this research, specifying your personal opinions has special importance. For each item
below, please indicate how frequently you did each activity by checking the appropriate
box. Thank you for your participation in this study.

What is the applicability level of the Highly Applicable Neutral Inapplicable Highly
following to you at school as a student? Applicable Inapplicable
1. When I am not successful in a course,
I am alienated from that course.
2. I usually finish the tasks I work on.
3. Whatever I do, I try to do my best.
4. When I am unsuccessful, I study
persistently.
5. I study too much.
6. I attend all the classes whether
attandence is obligatory or not.
7. If I want, I can study a lot.
8. I never start doing a new piece of
homework before I finish the
previous one.
9. I dont like to be successful at easy
topics which everybody can easily
do at school.
10. I like to be successful at school.
11. I only study my lessons during
midterm periods.
12. I feel good when I am successful
at school.
13. I want the content of the lessons to
be full and satisfactory.
14. Wasting class time disturbs me.
15. Having higher grades or not is in
my power.
16. I like to answer difficult questions in
the exams.
17. I feel anxious when I cannot finish
my homework.
18. I like to study.
19. I feel bored when I start to study.
20. It is enough for me to have a
satisfactory grade to pass the course.
21. I dont try to learn more than what
is taught in the class.
22. I begin to study immediately after
the class is over.
23. I want to live without being
compelled to study.
60 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:3962

24. I try to do my best when carrying out

the tasks I assumed.
25. Having lower grades makes me sad.
26. I always want to get the highest
possible grade.
27. I do not want to make any mistakes
in the exams.
28. I try hard to answer very difficult
questions.
29. I prefer simple topics to be taught
instead of difficult ones.
30. I go over my class notes even if
there is not an exam.
31. Besides homework, I do some extra
work even if the teacher does not
ask for it.
32. I try to understand the lectures.
33. I try to gain the teachers favour.
34. Not being able to obtain higher
grades makes me sad.
35. If I havent finished my homework,
I dont feel comfortable.

References

Amer, A. A. (1994). The effect of knowledge-map and underlining training on the reading comprehension of
scientific texts. English for Specific Purposes, 13(1), 3545.
Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., & Ostertag, J. (1987). Does text structure/summarization instruction
facilitate learning from expository text? Reading Research Quarterly, 22(3), 331346.
Austin, L. B., & Shore, B. M. (1995). Using concept mapping for assessment in physics. Physics Education,
30(1), 4145.
Ayaduray, J., & Jacobs, G. M. (1997). Can learner strategy instruction succeed? The case of higher order
questions and elaborated responses. System, 25(4), 56170.
Bean, T. W., & Steenwyk, F. L. (1984). The effect of three forms of summarization instruction on sixth
graders summary writing and comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16(4), 297306.
Bigge, J. L., & Stump, C. S. (1998). Curriculum, assessment, and instruction for students with disabilities.
Belmont: Wadsworth.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York:
David McKay.
Boothby, P. R., & Alvermann, D. E. (1984). A classroom training study: the effects of graphic organizer
instruction on fourth graders comprehension. Reading World, 23(4), 325339.
Brophy, J. (1987). Synthesis of research on strategies for motivating students to learn. Educational
Leadership, 45(2), 4048.
Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C., & Day, J. (1981). Learning to learn: on training students to learn from texts.
Educational Researcher, 10(2), 1421.
Carroll, L., & Leander, S. (2001). Improving student motivation through the use of active learning strategies.
(ED455961). Retrieved December 6, 2003, from http://www.eric.ed.gov.
Chang, S. F., & Huang, S. C. (1999). Language learning motivation and language learning strategies of
Taiwanese EFL students. (ED428561). Retrieved December 6, 2003, from http://www.eric.ed.gov.
Ciardiello, A. V. (1998). Did you ask a good question today? Alternative cognitive and metacognitive
strategies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42(3), 210219.
Cordero-Ponce, W. L. (2000). Summarization instruction: effects on foreign language comprehension and
summarization of expository texts. Reading Research and Instruction, 39(4), 329350.
Cuccio-Schirripa, S., & Steiner, H. E. (2000). Enhancement and analysis of science question level for middle
school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 210224.
Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:3962 61

De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., & Van De Ven, A. (2001). Improving text comprehension strategies in upper primary
school children: a design experiment. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(4), 531559.
DiCecco, V. M., & Gleason, M. M. (2002). Using graphic organizers to attain relational knowledge from
expository text. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(4), 306320.
Dye, G. (2000). Graphic organizers to the rescue! Helping students link-and-remember information. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 32(3), 7277.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg
(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed.,
pp. 10171095). New York: Wiley.
Ellez, M. (1999). Faculty members stressors and achievement motivation. Dissertation, Dokuz Eyll
University, Turkey.
Friend, R. (2000/2001). Teaching summarization as a content area reading strategy. Journal of Adolescent &
Adult Literacy, 44(4), 320329.
Friend, R. (2001). Effects of strategy instruction on summary writing of college students. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 26(1), 324.
Garca, J. N., & de Caso, A. M. (2006). Changes in writing self-efficacy and writing products and processes
through specific training in the self-efficacy beliefs of students with learning disabilities. Learning
Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal., 4(2), 127.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & VonSecker, C. (2000). Effects of integrated instruction on motivation and
strategy use in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 331341.
Hamman, D. (1998). Preservice teachers value for learning-strategy instruction. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 66(3), 209221.
Harper, K., Etkina, E., & Lin, Y. (2003). Encouraging and analyzing student questions in a large physics
course: meaningful patterns for instructors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(8), 776791.
Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational
Research, 60(4), 549571.
Huffman, L. E., & Spires, H. A. (1994). Effects of explicit instruction in notetaking on sixth graders lecture
comprehension and attitudes toward notetaking. Reading Improvement, 31(2), 7276.
Jonassen, D. H. (1985). Learning strategies: a new educational technology. Programmed Learning and
Educational Technology Journal, 22(1), 2534.
King, A. (1991). Effects of training in strategic questioning on childrens problem-solving performance.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 307317.
King, A. (1992a). Facilitating elaborative learning through guided student-generated questioning.
Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 111126.
King, A. (1992b). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and notetaking-review as strategies for
learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 303323.
Koch, A., & Eckstein, S. G. (1991). Improvement of reading comprehension of physics texts by students
question formulation. International Journal of Science Education, 13(4), 473486.
Koch, A. (2001). Training in metacognition and comprehension of physics texts. Science Education, 85(6),
758768.
Lau, K., & Chan, D. W. (2007). The effects of cognitive strategy instruction on Chinese reading
comprehension among Hong Kong low achieving students. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 20(8), 833857.
Luckner, J., Bowen, S., & Carter, K. (2001). Visual teaching strategies for students who are deaf or hard of
hearing. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(3), 3844.
Maher, S. (2000). Teachers and students perceptions of the impact of content literacy strategy instruction on
teaching and learning. Dissertation, University of North Texas, USA.
Malone, L. D., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1992). Reading comprehension instruction: summarization and
self-monitoring training for students with learning disabilities. Except Child, 58(3), 270279.
Marchand-Martella, N. E., Miller, T. L., & MacQueen, C. (1998). Graphic organizers. Teaching PreK-8, 28,
4648.
Marzano, R., Gaddy, B. B., & Dean, C. (2000). What works in classroom instruction. Aurora: Mid-continent
Research for Education and Learning.
Montague, M., & Bos, C. S. (1986). The effect of cognitive strategy training on verbal math problem solving
performance of learning disabled adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19(1), 2633.
Palinscar, A. S., Ransom, K., & Derber, S. (1989). Collaborative research and development of reciprocal
teaching. Educational Leadership, 46(4), 3740.
Pankratius, W. J. (1990). Building an organized knowledge base: concept mapping and achievement in
secondary school physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(4), 315333.
Pressley, M. (2002). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. New York: Guilford.
62 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:3962

Protheroe, N. (2002). More learning strategies for deeper student learning. The Education Digest, 68(4), 2528.
Raphael, T. E. (1986). Teaching question answer relationships, revisited. The Reading Teacher, 39(6), 516522.
Rhoder, C. (2002). Mindful reading: strategy training that facilitates transfer. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 45(6), 498512.
Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: a review of the
intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181221.
Rouet, J. F., Vidal-Abarca, E., Erboul, A. B., & Millogo, V. (2001). Effects of information search tasks on the
comprehension of instructional text. Discourse Processes, 31(2), 163186.
Serway, R. A., & Beichner, R. J. (2000). Physics for scientists and engineers with modern physics 2 (5th ed.).
USA: Saunders College.
Simpson, M. L., & Nist, S. L. (2000). An update on strategic learning: its more than textbook reading
strategies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43(6), 528541.
Singh, K., Granville, M., & Dika, S. (2002). Mathematics and science achievement: effects of motivation,
interest, and academic achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(6), 323332.
Sirias, D. (2002). Using graphic organizers to improve the teaching of business statistics. Journal of
Education for Business, 78(1), 3337.
Somuncuolu, Y., & Yldrm, A. (1999). Relationships between achievement goal orientations and use of
learning strategies. Journal of Educational Research, 92(5), 267278.
Stevens, J. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Stipek, D. (1988). Motivation to learn: From theory to practice. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Swanson, P. N., & De La Paz, S. (1998). Teaching effective comprehension strategies to students with
learning and reading disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 33(4), 209226.
Turkish Ministry of National Education. (1992). Retrieved December 6, 2003, from http://www.ttkb.gov.tr.
Vaidya, S. R. (1999). Metacognitive learning strategies for students with learning disabilities. Education, 120
(1), 186190.
Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic.
Vertenten, K. (2002). Learning to learn physics: The implementation of process-oriented instruction in the
first year of higher education. Dissertation, Universitaire Instelling Antwerpen, Belgium.
Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 315327). New York: Macmillan.
White, R., & Gunstone, R. (2000). Probing understanding. London and New York: Falmer.
Wittrock, M. C. (1986). Students thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on
teaching (pp. 297313). New York: MacMillan.
Zieneddine, A., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2001). Doing the right thing versus doing the right thing right:
concept mapping in a freshmen physics laboratory. European Journal of Physics, 22(5), 501511.