Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 16, No. 6, 2017

Vol.16, No.
6, 2017
ISSN 1648-3898 /Print/
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
The International Journal of the Scientific Methodical Center “Scientia Educologica”

Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 16, No. 6, 2017
Editorial Board
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/
Editor-in-Chief ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Prof., Dr. Vincentas Lamanauskas Siauliai University, Lithuania
Deputy Editor-in-Chief
Prof., Dr. Andris Broks University of Latvia, Latvia
Deputy Editor-in-Chief
Prof., Dr. Miia Rannikmäe University of Tartu, Estonia
Executive Secretary
Dr. Laima Railienė SMC “Scientia Educologica”, Lithuania
Editors:
Prof., Dr. Boris Aberšek University of Maribor, Slovenia
Prof., Dr. Agnaldo Arroio University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
Prof., Dr. Martin Bilek Charles University, Czech Republic
Dr. Paolo Bussotti University of Udine, Italy
Prof., Dr. Bulent Cavas Dokuz Eylul University, Turkey
Prof., Dr. Hana Čtrnáctová Charles University, Czech Republic
Dr. Peter Demkanin Comenius University, Slovakia
Dr. André du Plessis Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, South Africa
Prof., Dr. Peter Heering University of Flensburg, Germany
Prof., Dr. Jack Holbrook University of Tartu, Estonia
Prof., Dr. Ryszard M. Janiuk Maria Curie Sklodowska University, Poland
Dr. Milan Kubiatko University of Zilina, Slovakia
Dr. Todar Lakhvich Belarusian State Medical University, Republic of Belarus
Prof., Dr. Jari Lavonen University of Helsinki, Finland
Prof., Dr. Rita Makarskaitė-Petkevičienė Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences, Lithuania
Prof., Dr. Aadu Ott Göteborg University, Sweden
Prof., Dr. Paul Pace Malta University, Malta
Prof., Dr. Valfrids Paškevičs Daugavpils University, Latvia
Prof., Dr. Jongwon Park Chonnam National University, Korea
Prof., Dr. Raffaele Pisano Lille 3 University, France
Dr. Pavol Prokop Trnava University, Slovakia
Prof., Dr. Konstantinos Ravanis University of Patras, Greece
Dr. Alona Rauckienė-Michaelsson Klaipėda University, Lithuania
Prof., Dr. Heimo Saarikko Helsinki University, Finland
Dr. Hae-Ae Seo Pusan National University, Korea
Dr. Uladzimir K. Slabin University of Oregon, USA
Prof., Dr. Borislav V. Toshev Sofia University, Bulgaria
Dr. Georgios Tsaparlis University of Ioannina, Greece
Dr. Muhammet Usak Science and Medical Education Research Center, Turkey
A scientific journal JBSE issued by the SMC Scientia Educologica in cooperation with Scientia Socialis, Lithuania, empha-
sizes theoretical, experimental and methodical studies in the field of science education. JBSE is an international academ-
ic journal. In order to maintain the high standards appropriate to such a journal, all contributions received are submitted
for anonymous review by two experts, additionally to review by the Editor. The decision of the Editor on the acceptance
of articles is final and no correspondence can be entered into on reasons for rejection of a submitted contribution.
Published since 2002 Address:

The journal is published bimonthly. SMC “Scientia Educologica”
IF: 0.479 (2016) Donelaičio Street 29, LT-78115 Siauliai, Lithuania
H Index: 10 (2016) E-mail: mail.jbse@gmail.com
SJR: 0.302 (2016) Phone: +370 687 95668
ICDS: 10.6 (2016) Home page: http://www.scientiasocialis.lt/jbse/
ICV: 143.26 (2015)
ISSN 1648–3898 (Print) © SMC „Scientia Educologica“ & Scientia Socialis, Lithuania,
The Associated Member of Lithuanian Scientific Society,
ISSN 2538–7138 (Online) European Society for the History of Science (ESHS) and ICASE
The articles appearing in this journal are indexed/abstracted in British Education Index
(http://www.leeds.ac.uk/bei/bei.htm), Copernicus Index (http://journals.indexcopernicus.com), The Asian
Education Index (http://www.asian-education-index.com/sciences_index.php), EBSCO: Academic Search Premier
830 (http://search.ebscohost.com), Social Scisearch (Thomson Reuters) (http://science.thomsonreuters.com/index.html),
Journal Citation Reports / Social Sciences Edition (Thomson Reuters)
(http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/scientific/Journal_Citation_Reports),
and SCOPUS (http://www.scopus.com)
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ CONTENTS
CONTENTS
Editorial
STUDENT RESEARCH: ACQUIRING KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE NATURE

AND PROCESS OF SCIENCE
Todar Lakhvich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832
Articles
A THEORY-BASED INSTRUMENT TO EVALUATE MOTIVATIONAL TRIGGERS PERCEIVED BY

STUDENTS IN STEM CAREER-RELATED SCENARIOS
Tormi Kotkas, Jack Holbrook, Miia Rannikmäe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836
EXPLORING LOWER-SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS’ IMAGES AND OPINIONS
OF THE BIOLOGIST
Daihu Yang, Minghui Zhou . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855
VALIDATION OF THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS TOWARD SUITABILITY OF EDUCATIONAL
SOFTWARE FOR CHEMISTRY EDUCATION: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN USERS AND NONUSERS
Kateřina Chroustová, Martin Bílek, Andrej Šorgo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENROLMENT IN BIOLOGY, HIV/AIDS KNOWLEDGE AND
RELATED BEHAVIOUR AMONG SOUTH AFRICAN SCHOOLGIRLS
Lindelani Mnguni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 898
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE THREE LEVELS OF INQUIRY IN IMPROVING TEACHER TRAINING
STUDENTS’ SCIENCE PROCESS SKILLS
I Putu Artayasa, Herawati Susilo, Umie Lestari, Sri Endah Indriwati . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 908
UNPACKING THE SOUTH AFRICAN PHYSICS-EXAMINATION QUESTIONS ACCORDING TO
BLOOMS’ REVISED TAXONOMY
Abraham Motlhabane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 919
IDENTIFYING AND APPLYING FACTORS CONSIDERED IMPORTANT IN STUDENTS’
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN IN SCIENTIFIC OPEN INQUIRY
Hwoe-gwan Yang, Jongwon Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 932
THE EFFECT OF THE MODIFIED KNOW-WANT-LEARN STRATEGY ON
SIXTH-GRADE STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT IN PHYSICS
Zekri A. M. Zouhor, Ivana Z. Bogdanović, Sonja J. Skuban, Milica V. Pavkov-Hrvojević . . . . . . . . . . . . 946
THE LABORATORY WORK STYLE’S INFLUENCE ON STUDENTS’ COMMUNICATION
Jan Andersson, Margareta Enghag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 958
EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONS USED IN SCIENCE LESSONS AND ARGUMENTATION
LEVELS OF STUDENTS
Ibrahim Erdogan, Ayse Ciftci . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 980
THE EFFECT OF INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING ON GIFTED AND TALENTED STUDENTS’
UNDERSTANDING OF ACIDS-BASES CONCEPTS AND MOTIVATION
Sinem Dinçol Özgür, Ayhan Yılmaz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 994
INNOVATIVE TEACHING/LEARNING METHODS TO IMPROVE SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND
ENGINEERING CLASSROOM CLIMATE AND INTEREST
Majda Fiksl, Andrej Flogie, Boris Aberšek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1009
FEASIBILITY OF CREATIVE EXPLORATION, CREATIVE ELABORATION, CREATIVE MODELING,
PRACTICE SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY, DISCUSSION, REFLECTION (C3PDR) TEACHING MODEL TO
IMPROVE STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY OF JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
Zulkarnaen, Z.A. Imam Supardi, Budi Jatmiko . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1020
Information
INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035
831
STUDENT RESEARCH: ACQUIRING KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE NATURE AND

PROCESS OF SCIENCE
Todar Lakhvich
Belarusian State Medical University, Republic of Belarus
In April of 2017, I was working with the team of FEBS (Federation of European Biochemical Societies)
Education Ambassadors from different European countries and Education Committee members in Université
Paris Descartes. This was a significant event, involving FEBS Constituent Societies, to create a platform at the
Europen level to brainstorm on educational issues across Europe. The discussions focused on what would be
done in order to meet the mission and vision of FEBS on educational issues ̶ to promote education throughout
Europe. Along with the other very important issues (curriculum, inventory of key skills, good practice, etc.)
the working group on learning resources has elaborated short and long term objectives to formation of an
appropriate learning database in the field of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology education. The participants
discussed a lot about the importance of inquiry based approach which includes in particular the conduction,
evaluation and presentation of Student Research.
Plato was the first who defined the education being the way to comprehend the whole of life, and to be
a preparation for another in which education begins again. It coincides with the scientific paradigm in which
the research method affords to study the facts, to confirm the results of previous findings, to solve different
problems and to develop a theory.
The traditional education is based mainly on mastery of content, neglecting the training of inquiring
attitudes. Such system of education is teacher-centered, the students getting the information from a teacher
about the known facts, often “the only correct answer” is proposed. Learning is accomplished through words,
symbols and images (which are also the linguistic components) rather than through active involvement of
students in the processes which regard the situations for their future social and professional environment.
Systematic product- and/or discipline-oriented, rule-based instructive teaching and learning provide the
acquisition of basic knowledge in primary, mostly in secondary and high schools, and still plays an important
role in University education. Some educators persist such a type of education supports the traditions and
prepares students for the next (school) grade level. Even when it’s partially true, in-school success means less
than a system helping a student learn to learn throughout life.
In contrary, process-oriented, self-directed, creative and interdisciplinary learning which is referred to
constructivist paradigms mostly used in academic education, still elements of it are involved in secondary and
high school practice. The inquiry technology is aimed on using and learning content as a means to develop
information-processing and problem-solving skills. Such approach is student centred, they are being the
participants of the projects.
Though inquiry can be done even in lectures, the best results are distinguished in the laboratory or group
work, and in particular within carrying out the student research.
There are a lot of investigations done about the student research, which include both fundamental works
832
(e.g. Peters, 2012; Strayhorn, 2013) and more focused on definite fields of knowledge, e.g. few recent investi-
gations on Student Research in the field of Biomedical Sciences and Geography (Amgad, 2015; Ballamingie,
2013; Slack, 2016).
In Universities students within the Master and PhD programs carry out the real scientific research. The
lower level of education the less research component is included in the academic process. But only the
continuing education with the similar objectives, procedures and technologies on every educational and
career level creates the ideal environment for the formation of individual adaptive competence in learning
and training. In this context, the introduction of the approaches used at higher levels of education (e.g. Uni-
versity technologies for High School, or research methodology for University training) in practice may solve
the problem of psychological, socio-cultural and professional adaptation of students at the further stages
of training and life social activity. In this context the Student Research models the real scientific research. It
provides such an organization of the educational process, in which at each stage, students acquire relevant
knowledge, training and skills through the assimilation of the principles of scientific research.
Student Research is often wrongly associated with laboratory studies. However, on the one hand, not
every laboratory experiment is a study, on the other - similar to originally scientific research, student research
based on the same procedure and includes formulation of research problem, work with literature, design of
experiments (formulating of the aim, conceptual framework and specific questions of research, choice of
methodology and procedure), conducting the experiment itself, data collection followed by their verifying,
analyzing and interpreting, summarizing and finally presenting the results (publishing and conference activ-
ity). Most universities provide the equipment and resources for real scientific research, which is problematic
for high and secondary school. But in both cases students are limited in time, being involved in different
forms of academic activity according to the curriculum. This makes the idea of the “real scientific research”
illusive for most of the students. To resolve this problem, an educator must organize the Student Research in
such a way to take in account all procedural, psychological and didactic aspects of the educational process
(Bratennikova, Vasilevskaja, & Lahvich, 2001):
•• To use only a few elements of research technology: the higher level of education the closest re-
search structure of scientific research;
•• The experiments do not necessarily have to be absolutely innovative, the key point is a subjective
novelty of the research for the students;
•• The research primarily pursues educational and training rather than utilitarian objectives;
•• Mostly modelling, rather than useless transferring the real problem situation of scientific research
in student research, with the exception of expensive equipment and materials;
•• Taking into account the psycho-physiological characteristics of students in a particular age group.
The academic process at medical Universities (Schools) is traditionally practically oriented and includes
only a few elements of scientific technologies. We tried to introduce the more student researches for under-
graduate students (1st – 4th grades) before they would be proposed to enter master and/or PhD program instead
of Medical internship. We have proposed students (mostly from School of Pharmacy) the projects concerning
the search and primary investigation of biological activity of organic substances as potential pharmaceutical
drugs. Molecular docking was the key element of the research project (Kitchen, 2004). The research included
also the literary review and drug analysis (Journals, drug databases), the choice of the possible substrates
(protein databases), the evaluation in silico the model based on a set of substances synthesized earlier and
tested in vivo on biological activity, design of new drug-candidates and the assessment of their activity in
silico. The results obtained were valid and correlated with the data from previous scientific researches and
were presented in student conferences and, finally, published. Student research motivates students to study
professionally oriented topics, trains their skill in the field of pharmaceutical chemistry and molecular biol-
ogy, as well as helping us to find the candidates for entering the Master and PhD programs. And for sure the
models obtained are both beautiful and useful (Lakhvich, 2010)
The experience can be broadened easily to High School. At High School students should acquire not only
specific competencies (i.e. knowledge in specific topics, such as Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics, etc.) but
also nonspecific competencies in life and social skills, like team working, self-management, responsibility (in
terms of attention, critical participation, punctuality, etc.) It’s also important because most undergraduate
students will soon access the Universities. Collaboration between University and High School included the
formation of groups which consisted of University professor and few High School teachers and University
833
and High School students, which are under supervision of University professor and University student work
on scientific topics. In such a group, high school teachers play different roles. On the one hand, he/she again,
acquires as a student the new knowledge. On the other hand, the teacher professionally directs the efforts
of school students using their skills in didactics and social management. In such groups we observe the real
exchange of competencies, professional and life experiences. It looks like phase-transfer catalysis in chemistry
where a specific catalyst having fragments with different functionalities (i.e. hydrophobic and hydrophilic
fragments in quaternary ammonium salts) accelerate the reaction by the migration of a reactant from one
phase into another.
Phase-transfer catalysis give rise to faster reactions, better yields, fewer byproducts, less expensive and/
or dangerous reagents and solvents. Just that is what we may refer to environmentally friendly chemistry.
Student Research and educational research groups also give rise to social integration and faster professional
growth of teachers and professors, as well as better understanding and milder adaptation of students. School
students study topics and acquire skills, from University level, being prepared for University education. Uni-
versity students develop their skills and sustain knowledge by supervising and teaching school students,
adapting for future professional activity (it can include teaching, science, working in an industry which also
requires the competencies of supervising, teaching and team work).
The definition of research can be expressed in a few words which are straightforward and absolutely
inclusive: systematic inquiry that is made public and exposed to collective criticism (Stenhouse, in Rudduck,
1985, p. 120). Thus, the student research may include the same topics and follow the same requirements
as the “normal” scientific research. Master theses’ requirements usually follow the regulations for scientific
papers. There are few examples of Nobel Prize winners who conducted their triumph investigations within
their Master programs. But the rest of students will meet the real scientific research later. Most of them will
join practical projects in their professional activity. But their involvement in student researches will help them
to adapt socially and professionally in future life.
Student researches are supported through the curricular flexibility, advanced degree programs, tuition
policy, financial bonuses, and by the special recognition of students who carry out research. Similar to real
scientific research student projects “seeking through the methodological process to add one’s own body of
knowledge and, hopefully, to that of others, by the discovery of nontrivial facts and insights” (Peters, 2012,
P.8). And all those aspects were discussed at the meeting of FEBS Education Ambassadors and members of
the FEBS Education Committee in Université Paris Descartes in April of 2017. For fast publication of the results
from researches FEBS Open Bio (online-only open access journal for the rapid publication of research articles
in molecular and cellular life sciences in both health and disease) has created Education Section. But the
educational researches in the field must be published in specialized journals. Journal of Baltic Science Edu-
cation kindly invites you to contribute to the result of scientific research which study all the didactic, social
and psychological aspects of Student Research in the field of Science and Education. For sure, we are waiting
the authors would follow both all the requirements of scientific research in the field of Science Education
and the Journal policy.
References
Amgad, M., Tsui, M. M. K., Liptrott, S. J., Shash, E. (2015). Medical student research: An integrated mixed-methods systematic
review and meta-analysis. PLoS one, 10 (6), e0127470.
Ballamingie, P., & Tudin, S. (2013). Publishing graduate student research in geography: The fundamentals. Journal of Geography
in Higher Education, 37 (2), 304-314.
Bratennikova, A. N., Vasilevskaja, E. I., & Lahvich, F. F. (2001). Obuchajushhe-issledovatel’skij princip kak sredstvo realizacii
preemstvennosti pri formirovanii adaptivnyh kompetencij specialist [Teaching-research principle as a means of imple-
menting continuity in the formation of adaptive competences of a specialist]. In, Adaptacija k professional’noj dejatel’nosti
kak psihologo-pedagogicheskaja problema: Mat. mezhd. Konf [Adaptation to professional activity as a psychological and
pedagogical problem]. Baranovichi: BGVPK, 29-33.
Kitchen, D. B., Decornez, H., Furr, J. R., Bajorath, J. (2004). Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: Methods
and applications. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 3 (11), 935–949.
Lakhvich, T. (2010). Beautylity of chemistry visualization: Whether useful can be aesthetic. Problems of Education in the 21st
Century, 19, 46-50.
834
Peters, M. J., Howard, K., & Sharp, M. J. A. (2012). The management of a student research project. Gower Publishing, Ltd..
Rudduck, J. & Hopkins, D. (1985). Research as a basis for teaching: Readings from the work of Lawrence Stenhouse. London:
Heinemann.
Slack, M. K., Martin, J., Worede, L., & Islam, S. (2016). A systematic review of extramural presentations and publications from
pharmacy student research programs. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 80 (6), 100.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2013). Theoretical frameworks in college student research. University Press of America.
Peters, M. J., Howard, K., & Sharp, M. J. A. (2012). The management of a student research project. Gower Publishing, Ltd.
Received: November 11, 2017 Accepted: December 18, 2017
Todar Lakhvich PhD., Associate Professor, Department of Bioorganic Chemistry,

Belarusian State Medical University, Dzerzhinski Ave., 83, 220116
Minsk, Republic of Belarus.
E-mail: lakhvichtt@bsmu.by
Website: https://eng.bsmu.by/
835
A THEORY-BASED INSTRUMENT
TO EVALUATE MOTIVATIONAL
TRIGGERS PERCEIVED BY
ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/
STUDENTS IN STEM CAREER-
RELATED SCENARIOS
Abstract. Students’ lack of motivation in Tormi Kotkas,

learning school science has been recog- Jack Holbrook,
nized as a problem, due to its negative Miia Rannikmäe
impact on students´ STEM-related career
choices. For supporting students´ motiva-
tion to study science, the use of an intro-
duction which sets the scene, sometimes Introduction
called a scenario, has been recommended.
Although scenarios, which introduce STEM- School science subjects are playing an increasing role in guiding stu-
related careers in an everyday life problem
dents towards dealing with issues and concerns confronting everyday life
and in being made aware of future careers. However, students’ motivation
solving context, are seen as useful tools for
to learn through school science and their unwillingness to pursue science-
the teachers, they are not automatically
related careers has been recognized as a problem. Several influencers have
guaranteed to be motivating to students.
been identified, which play a role in promoting students´ aspirations in
The current research aims to develop an science studies and possible science careers (DeWitt & Archer, 2015; Palmer,
empirically tested and validated instrument Burke, & Aubusson, 2017).
to measure the impact of context-based More specifically, from a negative consideration, students´ lack of
scenarios, through evaluating perceived relevance and interest toward science learning at school has been seen as a
motivational triggers such as relevance, concern (Potvin & Hasni, 2014; Sjoberg & Schneider, 2010), because finding
interest and enjoyment by 7th grade stu- a subject interesting and enjoyable is considered to be the most important
dents. An analysis of students´ responses influencers to choosing, or rejecting a subject (Palmer et al., 2017). In fact,
showed that the test scenario was able to Krapp and Prenzel (2011) have drawn attention to the connection between
trigger mostly situational interest toward
students´ lack of interest and poor pedagogical practices such as frequent
lecturing, which do not support the development of students’ awareness
the topic of energetics. Only a small number
about possible careers in STEM-related fields (Vaino, Vaino, Rannikmäe &
of students indicated motivation to take the
Holbrook, 2015). Moreover interest, relevance and enjoyment are seen to
learning of this topic further.
promote motivation to study (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Keller, 1987; 2010).
Keywords: STEM-related careers, STEM Without promoting students’ motivation to study science and without
career-related scenarios, science teaching developing students´ awareness about the possibilities of modern STEM-
materials, motivational triggers, instrument related careers, the problem of lacking specialists is likely to remain (Bybee
evaluation. & McCrae, 2011). This is alarming due to the overall aging trend among
STEM-professionals in European Union countries. The European Commission
(2015) points out that more than 50% of STEM-professionals and associate
professionals are at a senior age (45-64 years) in, for example, Estonia, Lat-
via, Germany and Croatia, which leads to major replacement demands in
STEM-field occupations. This suggests a need for STEM programs to not only
Tormi Kotkas, Jack Holbrook, provide motivational approaches for studies, but also focus on the prospect
Miia Rannikmäe of interesting jobs and careers (Holmegaard, Madsen & Ulriksen, 2014). Thus,
University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia incorporating STEM-career related information into motivational, experiential
and hands-on activities involving teaching-learning materials (TLMs), is con-
836
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ A THEORY-BASED INSTRUMENT TO EVALUATE MOTIVATIONAL TRIGGERS PERCEIVED BY
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 836-854)
sidered to be a possible approach to raising students´ career awareness in STEM-related areas, as well as providing
motivation towards learning science (Michigan Department of Education, 2017).
Although these issues are strongly identified in the research literature, there still seems to be difficulties in
developing TLMs, with initiating scenarios, that have the characteristics of being directly relatable to students, able
to raise students´ interest toward the science topics and enabling students to see the link between the scientific
issue and students´ everyday life, plus also have a perceived meaningful impact on students (Kotkas, Holbrook &
Rannikmäe, 2016).
The aforementioned suggests that it is meaningful to initiate TLMs with a context that students find familiar
and with which they have a sense of relatedness. But in order to see how well do students relate with the context,
students need to be able to indicate the level of impact they perceive through their acquaintance with the context,
such as in a scenario. Evaluation of the motivational triggers perceived by students in scenarios is thus seen as a
useful step forward. However, in order to develop such an instrument, there is a need to consider the interrelating
characteristics of different motivational concepts such as of relevance, interest and enjoyment (often expressed as
like). Therefore it raises the need to deliberate on research literature concerning these theoretical constructs and
their connections with motivation to form solid theoretical base for instrument development.
The current research aims to develop, empirically test and validate an instrument developed to measure the
impact of context presenting scenarios, through evaluating perceived motivational triggers such as relevance,
interest and enjoyment by students.
Theoretical Framework
The Interconnectedness of Interest, Relevance, Enjoyment with Motivation
Interest, enjoyment and relevance are seen as factors influencing motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Keller, 1987;
Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Interest has long been an educational focus (Krapp & Prenzel, 2011), and researchers have
addressed relevance through the question “What makes the learning in school relevant to students´ lives and their
future?” (Stuckey, Hofstein, Mamlok-Naaman, & Eilks, 2013). However, in a science education context, both interest
and relevance still remain a concern, as researchers are continuing to show a decline in students´ involvement in
science studies, with progression through school years (DeWitt & Archer, 2015; Potvin & Hasni, 2014). Students´ low
levels of interest and lack of perceived relevance toward school science are seen as jeopardizing students’ learning
and potential aspirations towards a career in STEM-related fields. Nonetheless, there is a lack of consensus among
research articles on how to address relevance, interest, enjoyment and motivation, especially with respect to con-
nections between these terms in a science education context and the use of these terms as synonyms. Moreover,
enjoyment, as an emotional construct, is often seen as a quiescent component of intrinsic motivation and not
always considered separately from interest (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009).
Interrelating Interest(s) and Enjoyment
Research on interest has mainly focused on how individual differences in interests influence content, or topic
specific preferences and how surrounding factors in learning situations, or learning materials induce situation-
specific interest in the learner (Krapp, Hidi & Renninger, 2014). Differences among interests are specific to individuals
and are known as índividual interests´ (aka ´topic interest´), whereas interest induced by environmental conditions
of a situation is referred to as ´situational interest´ (Krapp, Hidi & Renninger, 1992; 2014). Individual interests are
described as person specific, relatively enduring and including stored knowledge and values linked with posi-
tive emotions (Krapp, Hidi & Renninger, 2014; Renninger, Ewen & Lasher, 2002). Contrary to individual interests,
situational interest tends to be shared among individuals (Krapp, Hidi, Renninger, 2014), and can be triggered by
factors, such as: hands-on activities, cognitive conflict, novelty, food, social interactions, teacher modeling, games
and puzzles, content, biophilia, fantasy, humor and narrative stories (Bergin, 1999).
All students have the potential to become interested, but the direction of interest development is guided by
a learning activity, or study content (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). Therefore, interactions of individual and situational
factors always contribute to the development, or lack, of interest (Bergin, 1999) and are person-situation specific
(Renninger, Ewen & Lasher, 2002). Under the context of a person-object theory of interest (Krapp & Prenzel, 2011),
new learning materials for students aim towards developing a sensation of interest. In this situation, introductory
837
(P. 836-854) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
scenarios in such learning materials are the óbjects´ which, when in contact with students, aim to be perceived
as interesting. The reasons for perceiving introductory scenarios as interesting are student specific and can be
triggered by either individual factors, or by situational factors. Therefore, in classroom settings, teacher needs to
consider not only factors inducing situational interest as these are easier to manipulate, but also students´ individual
interests (Bergin, 1999), or give students opportunities to convert situational interest into individual interests. This
is supported by the claim that situational interest over a period of time and perhaps over several interest induc-
ing experiences, can become an individual interest to a person, although not always and not in every case (Hidi
& Renninger, 2006).
One can appreciate that positive emotions are involved in connection with individual interest. However, posi-
tive feelings, for example ´like´, have been indicated by Iran-Nejad (1987) as arising from different causes compared
with interest. Furthermore, situational interest may or may not include liking (Bergin, 1999). ´Like´ can be considered
as a synonym of énjoyment´ and similarly with ´like´, énjoyment´ is not considered equitable with interest, but as
emerging as a separate emotional construct (Ainley & Ainley, 2011). More specifically, interest can be seen as one
possible reason for students perceiving enjoyment while learning (Krapp & Prenzel, 2011).
Reciprocal Interactions between Knowledge and Interest
Several theorists have considered prior knowledge to affect both situational and individual interest. From
the perspective of situational interest, Berlyne´s theory of curiosity (1960) determines groups of variables, called
ćollative variables´, which direct the potential of something to be interesting due to a comparison of incoming
information with already existing knowledge. Added to this, according to Loewenstein´s information gap theory
(1994), curiosity is induced when gaps in one´s knowledge are perceived.
Similarly to situational interest, a knowledge role has been recognised also in connection with individual
interest. Kintsch (1980) proposes that individual interest (Kintsch used the term ćognitive interest´) is low
when there is little or no prior knowledge, increases as more is known, and decreases again when a perceived
potential to gain new knowledge has subsided. Therefore, this suggests prior knowledge plays a role in deter-
mining situation specific and individual interest. Thus, as long as there is a perceived potential to learn, there is
also a potential for interest development. By connecting prior knowledge or experiences with new information
student gains through interacting with a scenario, has been shown by Wade, Buxton & Kelly (1999), as a factor
to increase interest.
Overlap between Relevance and Interest
Relevance and interest have overlapping properties, but are not considered as identical constructs (Keller,
1987; Stuckey, et al., 2013). This is especially the case in the different interpretations of interest. Kintsch (1980),
while separating cognitive interest from emotional interest related to stories, includes the terms ´meaningfulness´
and ímportance´. These can be considered as components of what can be called personal relevance i.e. why
something is perceived relevant to a specific person. In his article, ´meaningfulness´ is used to describe the fit with
either the reader´s knowledge structure, or text structure and ímportance´ as one of the main determinants of
interest from three aspects: a) text macrostructure, b) task instructions and c) reader´s internal state: parts of the
text with which the reader is more knowledgeable, or appear (cognitively) more important. Additionally, relevance
is incorporated into the distinction between situational and individual interest by Krapp, Hidi & Renninger (1992;
2014). More specifically, in their interest development model, ´personal relevance´ is mentioned as a feature in
´triggering the gaining of situational interest´; ´meaningfulness of a task´ in ´maintaining a situational interest´
phase; ´stored value´ as a characteristic of émerging individual interest´; ´more stored value´ as a characteristic of
´well-developed individual interest´ (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). Derived from this, the value of some activity, or topic
also deepens with interest development. This indicates the importance of perceiving learning tasks as valuable in
supporting well-developed interest. The attempts to promote interest by showing ‘relevance to students´ lives’ have
been shown to be effective, especially with high-school students of low-success expectancies in science (Hulleman
& Harackiewicz, 2009). It is clear that relevance and interest are closely linked and therefore separating these terms
seems to be artificial. Nonetheless, considering these terms as synonyms, is not justified either.
´Relevance´ as a term has several interpretations, varying from whose perspectives (educators´, curriculum
developers´, policy makers´ or students´) it has been a focus (for a further review see Stuckey, et al., 2013). The cur-
838
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 836-854)
rent article focuses on students´ perspectives and covers personal relevance (aka value) from a meaningfulness,
usefulness, importance, familiarity and relatedness (aka connectedness) perspective.
Levitt (2001) presents the perspective of students, by describing personally meaningful science learning,
through the use of the words ímportant´, úseful´ and ´relevant´, which are determined by the needs and interests
of a student. More specifically meaningful science learning is seen to be achieved with future perspectives in mind
i.e. “being independent, being more alert about problems and surroundings and being involved”, and by building
on the knowledge with which students come to school.
Connectedness with students´ everyday life, in order to make learning meaningful, has been identified by
John Dewey (1915) more than one hundred years ago, but is still proving to be appropriate today. Meaningfulness
has been shown to raise interest toward science courses among students and achieve better results (Hulleman &
Harackiewicz, 2009). Additionally, when personal relevance and meaningfulness are perceived associated with a
science topic, students are more likely to feel enjoyment and interest while interacting with science content (Ainley &
Ainley, 2011). Task enjoyment in mathematics classes has been shown to be improved, when students´ short or long
term goals are met within the task (Gaspard, Dicke, Flunger, Brisson, Häfner, Nagengast, Trautwein, 2015). Moreover
incorporating STEM-career information into the teaching of science has been shown to help students perceive the
meaningfulness of school science (Orthner, Jones-Sanpei, Akos, & Rose, 2013). This indicates the important role of
future goals, either for future studies, or careers, or both, in considering science studies as meaningful to students
(Bergin, 1999) and therefore needs to be considered while developing teaching and learning materials (TLMs).
Theory-based Model of Possible Motivational Triggers in a Scenario
Derived from the theoretical overview presented in the current research, an illustrative model is developed
(Figure 1). The model demonstrates motivational triggers – interest, relevance and enjoyment (like) and their pos-
sible interactions. Prior knowledge is seen as a mediator for both perceiving the scenario as interesting and relevant.
More specifically, comparing prior knowledge with incoming information from the scenario and perceiving gaps
in knowledge structure is known to induce interest and curiosity (a in Figure 1) (Berlyne, 1960; Loewenstein, 1994).
While interacting with the scenario, situation specific aspects, for example scenario attributes and also individual
factors, such as the learning topic, influence interest development among students.
Similarly in order to make the scenario meaningful, familiar, and relatable, connection with prior knowledge and
also experiences (b in Figure 1) need to be perceived by students (Dewey, 1915; Levitt, 2001). In order to perceive
Figure 1: Theory-based model of possible motivational triggers perceived, when acquainted with a scenario.
839
(P. 836-854) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
the usefulness of interacting with a scenario, students need to see the practicality of the information in a present-
future dimension (Bergin, 1999; Stuckey et al., 2013). Although the model visually separates interest and relevance,
the authors still recognize their reciprocal interactions (bilateral arrow in Figure 1) in motivation development.
Enjoyment (´like´) is not considered as equitable with interest (Iran-Nejad, 1987), but interest can be one
possible reason to feel enjoyment while learning (Krapp & Prenzel, 2011). This is represented in the model by their
overlapping areas, leaving the possibility for enjoyment to be perceived due to reasons other than interest. For
example, enjoyment while studying can be perceived when practicality, in terms of short or long term goals, is
perceived by students (Ainley & Ainley, 2011; Gaspard, et al., 2015).
Methodology of the Research
General Background
The current research is situated in the context of the EU project ´Promoting Youth Scientific Career Awareness
and Its Attractiveness through Multi-Stakeholder Co-operation´ (MultiCO). This project aims to promote middle
school students´ awareness of and interest in STEM-related careers. This aim is addressed through developing
scenarios, which link science curriculum topics with STEM-related careers and everyday life. A scenario evaluation
instrument is developed to determine characteristics in scenarios, which promote motivation to learn science
topics and follows a design-based research approach, conducted in two phases:
1. Generation of the items and gaining feedback from international experts, teachers and 20 students;
2. Testing the instrument with 143 middle school students and examining the validity and reliability of
an instrument.
Scenario Evaluation Instrument
The scenario evaluation questionnaire enables determination of three motivational triggers: interest, rel-
evance and enjoyment. The instrument is based on a theoretical overview, presented in the current research and
focuses on the following constructs, indicated as effectors of interest, and the perception of relevance, enjoyment
and motivation:
•• knowledge role in affecting interest and perception of relevance;
•• perceived value of gained information for the future career choice or studies;
•• relatedness to the situation described;
•• the impact level in order to determine importance of the context;
•• technical attributes of a scenario that could impact students´ responses;
•• affective reactions such as interest and enjoyment.
The theoretical categorization is shown in table 1.
Table 1. Theoretical categorisation of the instrument items.
Item
Category Subcategory Item
no.
3. Role of knowl- - 1 This scenario enables me to gain new knowledge about the scenario topic.
edge
4 From this scenario, I am able to gain new knowledge about possible career(s).
5 This scenario enables me to understand the responsibilities of the persons in the career position
indicated.
6 This scenario enables me to understand the skills that are necessary in this profession.
28 This scenario makes me want to learn more about the topic.
840
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 836-854)
Item
Category Subcategory Item
no.
4. Perception of Usefulness 2 The knowledge I gain from the scenario may be useful in the future.
relevance
3 I can put knowledge gained from the scenario into practice, to solve problems.
12 I feel my future career may be connected with the topic covered in the scenario.
13 I think my future studies at the gymnasium or university level may be connected to the topic
covered in the scenario.
14 I predict I will need to perform skills, described in the scenario, in my future career.
15 I predict I need to perform science-related skills, described in the scenario, in my future career.
26 I find the information in this scenario valuable to me.
Impact level 7 I find this scenario topic important for me personally.
8 I find this scenario topic important to my family.
9 I find this scenario topic important for appreciating the work of our local community (town, country).
10 I find this scenario topic important for learning school subjects.
11 I find this scenario topic important for the whole world.
Relatedness 16 The scenario describes the science community, to which I relate.
17 The scenario presents a scientific problem, which is socially relevant.
18 The scenario makes it easy for me to relate with the situation described.
5. Scenario attrib- - 19 The scenario is easy to follow.
utes
20 The scenario is easy to understand.
21 I find this scenario enjoyable to watch.
22 I like the format of the scenario.
6. Affective reac- - 25 I find this scenario interesting to me.
tion
27 I like the scenario.
The 28 item questionnaire contains 22, 4-point Likert scale (Johnson & Christensen, 2000) items (1-totally
disagree, 4-totally agree) plus four, 3-point Likert scale (agree, cannot make up my mind, do not agree) items. It is
considered justified to include two different scales in the instrument due to the difference in the generalizability
of the items. Thus items 1-22 (4-point Likert scale) are more specific making it easier to choose either an agree-
ment or disagreement position. On the contrary, items 25-28 give students the possibility to choose a position
between two opposites, because the items are naturally very broad (i.e. I consider the scenario as interesting)
and are considered as difficult for 7th grade students to position themselves. Students may feel interested due to
the information gain and due to the format of the scenario, yet students may have only positive reactions to the
scenario. But students can consider the scenario topic as not interesting, but the format of the scenario as interest-
ing, or vice versa. Students may not be able to choose which determinants of interest are more important, as the
scenario contains several interest triggering factors. The same discussion issue is applicable for items focusing on
overall value, enjoyment and motivation toward the scenario. In order to understand reasons behind students´
choices, a request to reason their perceptions is considered important for data triangulation purposes (Johnson
& Christensen, 2000). The reasoning option for items 25-28 was added after gaining advice from international sci-
ence education research experts.
Two additional items were included (items 23 and 24) to determine students´ self-perception of their knowl-
edge related to the topic and careers covered in the scenario because prior knowledge was seen to affect interest
and perception of relevance.
Instrument validation in the first phase of design process was conducted by two experienced international
science education researchers and four experienced science teachers (all practicing teachers for over five years).
The piloting was conducted with 20 seventh grade students, who were not part of the main research sample, in
order to determine the understandability of the items for students.
841
(P. 836-854) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Sample
Data were obtained from seventh grade (13-15 years old, median age 14) students from four different Estonian
public schools by purposive sampling (N=143; boys- 72, girls- 71), who were participating in a longitudinal European
Commission Horizon 2020 project. The sample size was restricted with schools participating in a longitudinal study,
with the aim to determine the effect of implementing STEM-career introducing, everyday life related scenarios on
middle school students´ motivation to pursue STEM-related careers.
Testing of the Scenario Evaluation Instrument
In order to test the instrument, a scenario aiming to be relevant, interesting and enjoyable, was developed.
The contexts for the scenario, chosen from the fields of EU strategic priorities (European Commission, 2010), in
this case – renewable energy sources, was a story of a family, in which the father was concerned about increases
in the monthly electricity bill. He blamed his teenage children, who were constantly using their smart devices. In
trying to find a solution, he was thinking about installing solar panels on the roof of his house. Thus, in order to find
out whether solar panels were beneficial for his household, he contacted a friend, who was an electrical engineer.
During the scenario two other occupations- environmental protection specialist and materials scientist- were
introduced, providing information about the responsibilities and competences needed for those occupations.
The scenario, presented in a video format (Figure 2), was 11 minutes long and ended with a suggested solution
by trying to make small solar panels to charge smartphones in a sustainable way. Students evaluated the scenario
with the questionnaire directly after seeing it and it took approximately 10-15 minutes to complete.
Figure 2: An example of the scenario (in Estonian).
Data Analysis

The first step of the analysis was to confirm, or reject the theory-based hypothetical categorization of the
items. The construct validity was tested by using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with Amos software. In order
to evaluate the goodness of fit, the comparative fit index (CFI), root-mean-square-error-of-approximation (RMSEA)
and normed chi-square (χ2/df ) were taken into account. Depending on the sample size (N=143) and the number
of items (n=26) under analysis it was suggested by Hair, Black, Babin and Anderson (2010) that CFI index, which
varies from 0-1, values of 0.95 or higher showed a good model fit, for RMSEA a value less than 0.08 showed a good
model fit on the population data and according to Kline (2011) normed chi-square (χ2/df ) values ranging from
1.0 - 3 were recommended.
The second step was to determine the underlying structure and internal validity of the instrument, by imple-
menting exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with a principal axis factoring (PAF) extraction method and by applying
promax rotation. The promax rotation was chosen due to its property of allowing the factors to be correlated. This
was considered as theoretically justified due to the overlapping properties of relevance, interest, enjoyment. The
KMO test of sampling adequacy was used to ensure the appropriateness of the data for factor analysis, where an
index above .80 indicated that the sampling was adequate (Kaiser, 1974). In order to determine the number of fac-
tors present, the Kaiser-Guttman rule of standard eigenvalue of greater than 1 criterion was applied (Kaiser, 1960).
842
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 836-854)
After EFA analysis, internal consistency of the construct was determined by calculating Cronbach´s α firstly
for each factor independently, followed by the overall instrument consistency calculations. In order to analyze
the numerical data, 3-point scale items were transformed into 4-point scale. The exploratory factor analysis was
conducted with IBM SPSS version 22.
The third step was to analyse students´ responses for reasoning perception of relevance, motivation, enjoyment
and interest toward the scenario by using qualitative content analysis with a summative approach. This methodology
was applied, due to its nature of exploring the usage of certain concepts in students´ responses (Hsieh & Shannon,
2005). Initial coding was based on the data, therefore inductive coding was applied (Johnson & Christensen, 2000).
The coding and inductive categories were developed by one researcher in the following sequence:
1. The coding units, in this case reasoning for perceptions of interest, relevance, enjoyment and motiva-
tion, were annotated (Kurasaki, 2000) with the formation of initial codes.
2. Initial codes were categorized and category descriptions were developed. The category descriptions
were developed based on students´ responses.
3. Responses were grouped under developed code categories.
4. Grouping of 10% answers under developed code categories for reasoning relevance, motivation,
enjoyment and interest (14 responses in each), was conducted by a second researcher.
In order to check inter-coder reliability, the coherence percentage was calculated, resulting in 86% coherence
between two researchers.
Results of the Research
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Figure 3 gives an overview of the six-factor hypothetical theory-based model with standardized factor
loadings and correlations among factors provided by Amos. It can be seen, that the standardized factor loadings
vary from .33 to .86. According to Hair et al. (2010) in order to provide construct validity, standardized loadings
needs to be over .50 and ideally over .70. It can be seen that six items out of 26 do not meet the criterion of exceed-
ing .50 factor loading and only nine items exceed .70 factor loading.
Additionally, the fit of the model was assessed with three different indices and resulted with RMSEA=.10;
CFI=.72 and χ2/df=2.42. RMSEA, CFI indices and p-value of χ2 test <.0001 do not meet the values representing a
good model fit. Both the standardized factor loadings and goodness of fit indices do not support the hypothesized
model, and therefore a new model needed to be identified.
843
(P. 836-854) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Figure 3: CFA of theory-based hypothetical model.

Note: χ2=687.62; df=284; χ2/df=2.42; χ2 p value= <.0001; RMSEA=.10; CFI=.72. Only first word of the theoretical categorization pre-
sented in table 1 is shown.
Exploratory Factor Analysis
Before conducting exploratory factor analysis, KMO and Bartlett´s test of sphericity was conducted, result-
ing with sampling adequacy of .80 and Bartlett´s test as significant (χ2=1560.41, p<.001). This indicated that the
sample was suitable for such EFA. Application of the standard eigenvalue of greater than 1 criterion resulted with
a six factor solution with the total variance explained as 51.34%. The factor loadings were between .45 and .92
and Cronbach´s α of all 26 items was .90, which is considered as acceptable level (Bryman, 2001). According to
(DeVellis, 2003) Cronbach´s α with values above .80 is considered as “very good” and .70 to .80 as “respectable”,
.60 to .69 as “undesirable to minimally acceptable”. Internal consistency analysis of each factor separately resulted
with values mostly over .85, which shows that the developed instrument is internally consistent. Nonetheless, the
844
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 836-854)
factor named as ´Social value` resulted with the minimally acceptable α value of .66. The item distribution among
factors is shown in table 2.
The principal axis factoring resulted with a six-factor solution as was the initial hypothesized model. Nev-
ertheless, the item distribution among factors differed. More specifically, item distribution, based on students´
responses combined knowledge and its value for personal level-related items into one factor (named as ´learning
value´). The items, which referred to the future, form the second factor (named as ´vocational value´). It was found
that items, which referred to relatedness and perceived impact level outside close relationships, like on a local or
global community level, tended to group together. Similar to the initial hypothetical model, items about liking and
interest formed a joint factor named áffective reaction´ and items about scenario attributes formed a solid factor.
The principal axis factoring (PAF) analysis separates two factors that include only two items (Ćareer aware-
ness´; ´Like and interest´). Both of these factors have factor loadings on a practical significant level, meaning that
over 50% of the variance is accounted for by the factor (Hair et al., 2010). Based on the results obtained from PAF,
it is found justified to keep all initial items and to further analyze the data according to the categories in table 2.
Table 2. Principal axis factoring analysis of the instrument with promax rotation.
Factor name Factor description Items Factor loadings α
Learning value Learning value factor includes items with the common 1 .53
nominator of knowledge: possibility to learn; its value for
2 .74
the future and for close relationships including information
value for the student personally. Item (It) 2: The knowledge 3 .67
I gain from the scenario may be useful in the future; It 4:
4 .45
From this scenario I am able to gain new knowledge about
possible career(s). 7 .63 .80
8 .48
10 .50
26 .55
Vocational value Vocational value factor includes items, which imply a fu- 12 .77
ture career, students´ present opinions of relatedness to
13 .71
the community of a possible future career, and what skills
are necessary to be performed for a possible career. Ad- 14 .61
ditionally whether a student is already willing to make an
15 .81
effort to learn with the future in mind. It 12: I feel that my .85
future career may be connected with the topic covered in 16 .65
the scenario. It 28: The scenario makes me want to learn
more about the topic.
28 .64
Scenario attributes Scenario attributes factor contains items about the techni- 19 .74
cal aspects that can impact students´ opinion about the
20 .83
scenario. It 19: The scenario is easy to follow. It 22: I like
the format of the scenario. 21 .63 .82
22 .73
Career awareness Career awareness factor contains two items connected 5 .85
with understanding the responsibilities and skills of de-
scribed occupations in the scenario. It 5: The scenario
enables me to understand the responsibilities of the per-
.83
sons in the career positions indicated; It 6: The scenario
enables me to understand the skills that are necessary in 6 .81
these professions.
Like and interest This factor includes items about interest and like toward 25 .92
the scenario. It 25: I find this scenario interesting; It 27: I
liked the scenario. .81
27 .73
845
(P. 836-854) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Factor name Factor description Items Factor loadings α
Social value Social value factor includes the items, which indicate a 18 .59
societal value, either on a local, or a global level. The situ-
17 .53
ation may or may not be relatable to the student. It 11: I
find this scenario topic important for the whole world. It 11 .62 .66
17: The scenario represents a scientific problem which is
socially relevant.
9 .49
Analysis of Likert-type Item Responses
The results of the scenario evaluation are presented in table 3. The majority of the items in the questionnaire
are on a 4-point scale (except 25, 26, 27, 28), giving a scale average of 2.5. All averages that exceed 2.5 are considered
as a positive tendency and below that, considered as a negative tendency. One can see that students consider the
information gained about energetics topic relevant (Cat.1, M=2.83, SD=0.46). The majority of students did value
the knowledge for their future and for learning school subjects and considered the information gained from the
scenario as valuable for them.
Nonetheless, students struggled to see the practical value of the scenario, as they did not consider energetics
as their future field of occupation (Cat. 2, M=2.30, SD=0.59). Still students did see the need to perform skills that
were described in the scenario. However, the scenario did not motivate students enough to make students learn
more about energetics (M=2.05; SD=1.08).
Students did value highly technical attributes of the scenario (Cat. 3, M=3.08, SD=0.60), which means that
students valued the video format; it was seen as easy to follow and understandable. Additionally, students valued
the career awareness aspect of the scenario (Cat. 4, M=3.21, SD=0.52), and students could see the social relevance
of the scenario topic (Cat. 5, M=3.03, SD=0.48). All in all, students liked the scenario and considered it as interest-
ing (Cat. 6, M=3.08, SD=0.90). This can be linked with students´ mediocre prior knowledge about the topic and
relating careers (items 23 and 24).
Table 3. The results of the scenario evaluation.
M SD
Category Item no. Item Per item Per cat. Per item Per cat.
1. Learning 1 This scenario enables me to gain new knowledge about 3.31 0.51 0.45
value the scenarios´ topic.
2 The knowledge I gain from the scenario may be useful in 3.22 0.59
the future.
3 I can put knowledge gained from the scenario into prac- 2.89 0.62
tice, to solve problems.
4 From this scenario, I am able to gain new knowledge 2.94 0.7
about possible career(s). 2.85 (N=137)
7 I find this scenario topic important for me personally. 2.44 0.67
8 I find this scenario topic important to my family. 2.51 0.7
10 I find this scenario topic important for learning school 2.70 0.73
subjects.
26 I find the information in this scenario valuable to me. 0.13 0.7 (1.05)
(2.70)
846
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 836-854)
M SD
Category Item no. Item Per item Per cat. Per item Per cat.
2. Vocational 12 I feel my future career may be connected with the topic 2.29 0.71 0.59
value covered in the scenario.
13 I think my future studies at the gymnasium or university 2.42 0.71

level may be connected to the topic covered in the
scenario.
14 I predict I will need to perform skills, described in the 2.54 2.30 0.81
scenario, in my future career. (N=135)
15 I predict I need to perform science-related skills de- 2.36 0.75
scribed in the scenario, in my future career.
16 The scenario describes the science community, to which 2.18 0.65
I relate.
28 The scenario makes me want to learn more about the -0.30 (2.05) 0.72
topic. (1.08)
3. Scenario 19 The scenario is easy to follow. 3.03 0.75 0.60
attributes
20 The scenario is easy to understand. 3.25 0.64
3.08 (N=135)
21 The find this scenario enjoyable. 3.04 0.71
22 I like the format of the scenario. 3.01 0.80
4. Career 5 This scenario enables me to understand the responsibili- 3.34 0.62 0.57
awareness ties of the persons in the career position indicated.
3.34 (N=140)
6 This scenario enables me to understand the skills that 3.33 0.62
are necessary in this profession.
5. Social value 9 I find this scenario topic important for appreciating the 3.01 0.60 0.48
work of our local community (town, country).
11 I find this scenario topic important for the whole world. 3.22 0.79
17 The scenario presents a scientific problem, which is 3.23 3.03 (N=137) 0.58
socially relevant.
18 The scenario makes it easy for me to relate with the 2.63 0.75
situation described.
6. Like and 25 I find this scenario interesting to me. 0.31 0.66 0.90
interest (2.96) (0.99)
3.08 (N=142)
27 I liked the scenario. 0.46 0.64
(3.20) (0.96)
23* I know (…?) about the career described. 0.99 (N=142) 0.40
24* I know (…?) about the topic in the scenario. 1.10 (N=140) 0.39
Note: For items 25, 26, 27, 28 the numbers in brackets refer to mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) after 3-point scale transforma-
tion into 4-point scale; *Background knowledge items. Scale defined for items 23, 24 as: 0- nothing, 1- a little, 2- a lot.
Students´ Reasoning for Perceiving Relevance, Interest, Enjoyment and Motivation
In order to find out how students reason their perception of relevance, interest, like (enjoyment) and motiva-
tion toward the scenario, the questionnaire contained request to explain their perceptions. For overview purposes,
students´ responses were divided between developed categories, which can be seen in appendix.
The analysis of the results showed that, for the majority of students, relevance is linked with the practical value
of the scenario, either now, in near or far future (N=59) using words such as: “When I grow up…”, “In the future”, “I
presume I need…”. …, 16 students reasoned relevance or its absence with personal aspects such as importance for
847
(P. 836-854) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
themselves or family. For 18 students, relevance was connected with gaining new knowledge. Only a small number
of students (N=5) connected relevance with interest.
For the majority of students, motivation was linked with topic interest (N=57) and words such as: “I am not
interested in these topics”, “I have been interested in this topic since…” were used. Additionally, the practical use either
for now, in the near or far future was the reason for 23 students: “I believe I need this in the future”; I would like to make
a solar panel by myself”; “I will not use it for my future profession”; “My family could use…” Therefore interest toward
the topic played a big role in motivating students to learn.
In reasoning, why they liked or disliked (enjoyed) the scenario, the majority of students related this with sce-
nario attributes (N=55). For example, students used the following wordings: “It was developed in an interesting way
and made me think”; “It was easily understandable”; “easy to watch”; “Explained /discussed difficult problem/topic in
an easy way.” For a large proportion of students, interest influenced whether they liked the scenario or not (N=23).
Similarly to reasoning likeability (enjoyment), for the biggest proportion of students (N=51), linked interest
toward the scenario with scenario attributes. Students use the wordings such as: “It was interesting, because I did not
have to read and it had voiceover”; “… contained a problem, that I don´t think about in everyday life [novelty aspect];
“It was presented through life-related examples and it made it easier to understand.” Nonetheless, topic interest, or its
absence, was mentioned by 23 students as the reason for considering the scenario as interesting or not.
Discussion
There are several factors that influence students´ interest, enjoyment and perception of relevance toward
learning science. In the current article, a scenario about solar energy and relating occupations was used in an at-
tempt to induce motivation through interest, enjoyment and relevance. In order to assess how students perceived
the scenario, a scenario evaluation questionnaire was developed, tested and validated.
Initially, the hypothesized theory-based model did not represent a good model fit with confirmatory factor
analysis and therefore exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was carried out. The EFA analysis, applying Kaiser-Guttman
rule of standard eigenvalue greater than 1, resulted in a solid six factor solution, which proved to be internally valid.
The number of factors matched the hypothetical model, although the item distribution was different. This indicated
that the context of asking about relevance, interest, enjoyment and motivation was the primary focus for students.
Two factors included the same items, as anticipated in the hypothetical categorisation of items, that is, ´scenario
attributes´ and áffective reaction´. The ´scenario attributes´ category included the items that mostly addressed
situational interest influencing factors. The analysis of students´ answers showed support for this claim, because,
for majority of students´, perception of interest and enjoyment was related to technical aspects of the scenario.
Therefore, it supported the claim of Ainley & Ainley (2011) that interest and enjoyment occurred as complementary
functions, but emerged as separate emotion constructs.
Students did indicate high level of interest and enjoyment towards the scenario (Cat. 6, M=3.08, SD=0.90).
This could be explained by the results showing that students´ prior knowledge about solar energy and relating
occupations was mediocre, which indicated the possibility to perceive curiosity (Berlyne, 1960; Loewenstein, 1994)
and interest (Kintsch, 1980) towards the scenario. Additionally, students valued highly the learning possibility, both
about the scenario topic and related occupations, the usefulness and practicality of gained knowledge for their
future, for school subjects and for themselves personally (Cat.1, M=2.83; SD=0.46). This indicated that the scenario
met the goal of being perceived as meaningful by linking students´ prior knowledge to the topic to be learned
(Levitt, 2001) and therefore supported the results of Hulleman & Harackiewicz (2009).
The format of the scenario and technical attributes, such as the understandability of the scenario, were highly
valued by the students (Cat. 3, M=3.08, SD=0,60), which was also linked with interest development (Hidi & Ren-
ninger, 2006) and supported the perception of meaningfulness to the students (Levitt, 2001; Dewey, 1915). The
effect of technical attributes, such as novelty, could also be detected in students’ responses as to why they (dis)liked
or were (not) interested in the scenario. If a student indicated that the scenario made him or her think, then holes
in the knowledge schema had been detected between incoming information and the prior knowledge structure
(Bergin, 1999) and this induced curiosity and interest (Loewenstein, 1994). The results of both Likert-type items
and student reasonings indicated that the technical attributes influenced students’ perception of both interest
and enjoyment of the learning activity and therefore needed to be taken into consideration, when developing
TLMs. This was especially important in science teaching, which was often accused of being too difficult and not
connected with real-life (Krapp & Prenzel, 2011; Osborne & Dillon, 2008).
848
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 836-854)
Students considered the alternative energy topic as highly relevant socially (Cat. 5, M=3.03; SD=0.48). None-
theless, only a couple of students brought out the environment protection aspect in reasoning the perception of
relevance and this topic was not considered as personally relevant by the majority of students (item 7, M=2.44;
SD=0.67). This result could be considered as alarming from a sustainable development perspective, due to the fact
that students would be expected to undertake decisions about fuel and energy sources in the future. When not
considering alternative energy sources as personally important topics, such beliefs would impact on their actions
(Levitt, 2001) and affect the consuming habits they face in their independent lives.
Items with a common denominator - future careers, formed the second factor (´vocational value´), which also
included items that measured motivation to learn further about energetics topics. The results showed that for the
majority of students, the scenario was not able to induce motivation for further learning of energetics. According
to Ryan & Deci (2000), people behaved in an intrinsically motivated way in the presence of inherent interest and
enjoyment. As the results of the current study showed, the majority of students were not interested in the energetics
topic and the scenario was not enough, on its own, to develop individual interest, which in turn did not motivate
students enough to learn this topic further.
Students mainly reasoned their (lack of ) motivation associated with interest in the topic. Already as young as
the 7th grade, students (in Estonia 13 years old in average) analyzed incoming information from an individual inter-
est standpoint. Nonetheless, the majority of students did indicate a situational interest occurrence, by considering
the scenario as different from the usual learning situation. Additionally, the current research results showed that
this age group of students did analyze the learning task and the incoming information value from a practicality
perspective for their future studies, or career choices and for their independent lives. This emphasized the need
to describe future value to the students, who might not perceive it by themselves, due to their lack of experiences
and knowledge.
The current analysis showed that it was not justified to equate interest and relevance, as they were induced
by different reasons, at least when students were faced with a scenario about real-life and socially relevant science
topic, such as renewable energy. Relevance was seen as connected with perceiving the scenario as valuable for
the future, but in the case of interest, students considered the scenario as interesting, mostly due to technical at-
tributes, such as the format and the novelty effect. It could be concluded that students indicated the occurrence
of situational interest.
When STEM career- and everyday life-related scenarios are used, then it is possible to support the development
of individual interest towards studying science. This approach, therefore, supports students´ interest in pursuing
a career in this field, as interest in students of middle school age has been shown to be an influential factor in
determining career choice in STEM-related fields (DeWitt & Archer, 2015).
Conclusions
Scenarios are often used as scene setting introductions for linking curriculum topics with everyday life, to
support students´ motivation to study science. Nonetheless motivation to learn science topics is not automati-
cally guaranteed to be induced by interacting with the scenario. The current research described the development,
testing and validation of a new instrument, usable for evaluating motivational triggers in scenarios. As a result,
the scenario evaluation instrument, containing 26 Likert-type items, distributed among 6 factors and supported
with request to reason perceptions of relevance, interest, enjoyment, motivation and two background questions
about prior knowledge, was successfully developed.
It was found that students did indicate situational interest toward the scenario, which contained STEM-career
related information. Additionally, the science topic of energetics was contextualized in the scenario through stu-
dents´ life-related issues, considered important for helping students to perceive meaningfulness of their studies.
Students did consider the scenario valuable from learning perspective.
It was also found for the majority of students when asked to reason why they felt interested, or why they
considered the topic valuable for themselves, relevance and interest stemmed from different factors. Therefore it
was justified to include relevance and interest items in research instrument separately.
The majority of students indicated low levels of motivation toward studying energetics topics further, al-
though the scenario was considered as enjoyable and interesting. This was found to be connected with students´
individual interest difference and the majority of students did not consider the energetics topic to be connected
with their future career prospects.
849
(P. 836-854) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
The results showed that seventh grade students value gaining information about possible STEM-related ca-
reers and responsibilities in that field highly. Therefore it is recommended to incorporate promotion of students´
awareness of occupations related with science into science teaching.
Although the current research showed positive results concerning perception of meaningfulness, interest and
enjoyment toward the scenario, there is a need to be aware of the limitations. More specifically the sample was not
representative to the whole Estonian 7th graders´ population and was purposefully chosen. Therefore large scale
research was needed to support the results. Additionally this research represented the results after implementa-
tion of the first scenario of a TLM, out of 4 planned TLMs, in a longitudinal study. Therefore, the long term effects
of implementing STEM career- and everyday life-related TLMs were still to be determined.
Acknowledgements
This research has been supported by European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program funded
project MultiCO.
References
Ainley, M., & Ainley, J. (2011). Student engagement with science in early adolescence: The contribution of enjoyment to
studentsćontinuing interest in learning about science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 4-12.
Bergin, D. A. (1999). Influences on classroom interest. Educational Psychologist, 92(3), 87-98.
Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiousity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bybee, R., & McCrae, B. (2011). Scientific literacy and student attitudes: Perspectives from PISA 2006 science. International Journal
of Science Education, 33(1), 7-26.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behaviour.
Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dewey, J. (1915). The School and Society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
DeWitt, J., & Archer, L. (2015). Who aspires to a science career? A comparison of survey responses from primary and secondary
school students. International Journal of Science Education, 37(13), 2170-2192.
European Commission. (2010). COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION. EUROPE 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and
inclusive growth. Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission. (2015). Does the EU need more STEM-graduates? Final Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union.
Gaspard, H., Dicke, A.-L., Flunger, B., Brisson, B., Häfner, I., Nagengast, B.,Trautwein, U. (2015). Fostering adolescents´ value beliefs
for mathematics with a relevance intervention in the classroom. Developmental Psychology, 51(9), 1226-1240.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. B. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson.
Hidi, S., & Renniger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111-127.
Holmegaard, H. T., Madsen, L. M., & Ulriksen, L. (2014). A journey of negotiation and belonging: understanding students’ transi-
tions to science and engineering in higher education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9(3), 755–786.
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
Hulleman, C. H., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes. Science, 326,
1410-1412.
Iran-Nejad, A. (1987). Cognitive and affective causes of interest and liking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(2), 120-130.
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2000). Educational Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon.
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20,
141–151.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factor simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.
Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of motivational design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3),
2-10.
Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational Design for Learning and Performance. New York: Springer.
Kintsch, W. (1980). Learning from text, levels of comprehension, or: why anyone would read a story anyway. Poetics, 9, 87-98.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York; London: Guilford Press.
Kotkas, T., Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2016). Identifying characteristics of science teaching/learning materials promoting
students’ intrinsic relevance. Science Education International, 27(2), 194-216.
Krapp, A., & Prenzel, M. (2011). Research on interest in science: Theories, methods, and findings. International Journal of Science
Education, 33(1), 27-50.
Krapp, A., Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2014). Interest, learning and development. In K. A. Renninger, A. Krapp, & S. Hidi (Eds.), The
Role of interest in learning and development (pp. 3-27). New York: Psychology Press.
Kurasaki, K. S. (2000). Intercoder reliability for validating conclusions drawn from open-ended interview data. Field Methods,
12(3), 179-194.
850
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 836-854)
Levitt, K. E. (2001). An analysis of elementary teachers´ beliefs regarding the teaching and learning of science. Science Education,
86, 1-22.
Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiousity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 75-98.
Michigan Department of Education. (2017). Career Awareness/Exploration. Retrieved April 2017, from http://www.michigan.gov/
mde/0,4615,7-140-28753_38924_52164-220902--,00.html.
Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination
theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 133-144.
Orthner, D. K., Jones-Sanpei, H., Akos, P., & Rose, R. A. (2013). Improving middle school student engagement through career-
relevant instruction in the Core Curriculum. The Journal of Educational Research, 106, 27-38.
Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe. London: King´s College .
Palmer, T.-A., Burke, P. F., & Aubusson, P. (2017). Why school students choose and reject science: a study of the factors that students
consider when selecting subjects. International Journal of Science Education, 39(6), 645-662.
Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2014). Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and technology at K-12 levels: a systematic review
of 12 years of educational research. Studies in Science Education, 50(1), 85-129.
Sjoberg, S., & Schreiner, C. (2010). The ROSE project. An overview and key findings. University of Oslo.
Stuckey, M., Hofstein, A., Malmok-Naaman, R., & Eilks, I. (2013). The meaning of ´relevance´ in science education and its implica-
tions for the science curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 49(1), 1-34.
Wade, S. E., Buxton, W. M., & Kelly, M. (1999). Using think-alouds to examine reader- text interest. Reading Research Quarterly,
34(2), 194-216.
Vaino, T., Vaino, K., Rannikmäe, M., & Holbrook, J. (2015). Factors explaining gymnasium students´ technology related career
orientations. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 14(6), 706-722.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
25, 68-81.
Appendix
Distribution of Students´ Reasoning Responses for Scenario Evaluation
Table 1. Inductive categories for Relevance reasoning

Category Subcategory Description and samples No. of students
using this rea-
soning
1. WOA (Without - No answer written
22
answer)
2. WOE (Without - Answer lacks explanation
9
explanation)
3. Value 3.1 Practical value Students´ response contains the implications to practical use
or value either now, in near or far future. Examples of stu-
dents responses under this category: “When I grow up…”, 59
“In the future”, “I presume I need…”, “In my future profes-
sion…”, “I could use” etc.
3.2 Intrinsic value Student indicates value to him/herself or to his/her family
(close relationships). Examples of students responses under
this category: “… not connected with myself personally”, “I 16
don´t know my families´ budget…”, “valuable to me…”, “Our
families´…”, “I have solar panels on our …”.
3.3 Knowledge Student reasons relevance with knowledge gain and impor-
value tance of knowledge. Examples of students´ responses under
this category: “Everyone should know about…”, “the infor- 18
mation is valuable to raise mine and others knowledge…”,
“gave information, “I can get to know…”, “I know now”.
3.4 Global value Student reasons relevance from global standpoint. Examples
of students´ responses under this category: “Nature protec-
2
tion is important”; “it is important for the world”, “it is important
for our environment”, “we all wish to save”.
4. Interest 4.1 Topic interest Student reasons relevance/lack of relevance through topic
interest. Examples of students´ responses under this catego-
5
ry: “I am not interested in these topics”, “it was interesting”, “it
does not interest me much”, “it was boring”.
851
(P. 836-854) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
5. Multiple rea- - Students´ response combines several previous categories.

sons in one an- 16
swer
Table 2. Inductive categories for Motivation reasoning
No. of students
Category Subcategory Description and samples using this rea-
soning
1. WOA (With- - No answer written.

15
out answer)
2. WOE (With- - Answer lacks explanation.
out explana- 14
tion)
3. Value 3.1 Practical value Students´ response contains the implications to practical use or
value either now, in near or far future. Examples of students re-
sponses under this category: “When I grow up…”, “In the future”, 23
“I presume I need…”, “In my future profession…”, “I could use”
etc.
3.2 Knowledge/ Student reasons motivation/lack of motivation with knowledge/
information value information appreciation. Examples of students´ responses un-
der this category: “I have made some research on the topic by
10
myself and it makes me want to learn more”; “I do not know about
the topic…”; “It gave new information about…, and it could be
useful” “I would like to gather some more information”.
4. Interest 4.1 Topic interest Student reasons motivation/lack of motivation through topic in-
terest. Examples of students´ responses under this category: “I
am not interested in these topics”, “I have been interested in this 57
topic since…”; “not my topic”; “this topic does not excite me”; “I
wish not to learn this topic”.
4.2 Motivation Student reasons motivation/lack of motivation with the following
reasoned with just wording in his/her reason: “It was boring”, “It was/wasn´t interest-
4
interest/ lack of ing”, “Not interested”.
interest
5.Scenario - Student reasons motivation/lack of motivation with scenario
related reason- characteristics. Examples of students´ responses under this cat-
ing egory: “Scenario was easy to understand and made topic more 6
interesting”; “I didn´t like the scenario, and professions were not
made interesting enough”; “It was different”.
5. Multiple - Students´ response combines several previous categories.
reasons in one 16
answer
6. Multiple - Students´ response combines several previous categories. For
reasons in one example: there is a combination of cat. 5 and 4.2. 8
answer
7. Other 7.1 Rebellion/ Student reasons their answer with: “I´m not that easy to get influ-
ignorance enced by one story”; “If the following videos are the same, then
5
not”; “Maybe I´ll look at it in the future”; “I´m too lazy to study
further”; I don´t really want to”.
7.2 Difficulty/ lack Student reasons their answer with: “It does not fit with my skills”.
1
of skills
852
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 836-854)
Table 3. Inductive categorization of Enjoyment (Like) reasoning
No. of students
Category Subcategory Description and samples using this
reasoning
1. WOA (Without - No answer written

22
answer)
2. WOE (Without - Answer lacks explanation
9
explanation)
3. Value 3.1 Knowledge Student reasons like with knowledge gain and importance
value of knowledge. Student uses following wording in his/her rea-
son: “Because I got new knowledge”; “It gave new information 5
about…”; “It was very informative”; “It is important to talk about
career opportunities to students”
3.2 Practical value Students´ response contains the implications to practical use
or value either now, in near or far future. Examples of students´
9
responses under this category: ”It might be useful in the future,
when I´m buying a house”
4. Interest 4.1 Like reasoned Student indicates like to him/herself by using following wording
with just interest/ in his/her reason: “It was boring at times”; “It was interesting”. 29
lack of interest
4.2 Topic interest Student reasons like/lack of like through topic interest. Student
uses following wording in his/her reason: “I am not interested in
3
this topic at the moment”, “I´m not really interested in electricity
topic”; “It covered interesting topic”.
5. Scenario re- - Student reasons like/dislike with scenario characteristics.
lated reason Examples of students´ responses under this category: “It was
developed interestingly and made me think”; “It was easily un- 55
derstandable”; “easy to watch”; “Explained /discussed difficult
problem/topic in an easy way”;
reasons in one 17
answer
7. Emotional - Student indicates like to him/herself by using following wording
2
response in his/her reason: “Because it was cool”; “It was nice”.
Table 4. Inductive categorization of Interest reasoning
No. of students
reasoning
1. WOA (With- - No answer written

14
out answer)
2. WOE (With- - Answer lacks explanation; or says that wasn´t paying attention
out explana- (why missing). 15
tion)
3. Value 3.1 Knowledge value Student reasons interest with knowledge gain and importance
of knowledge. Student uses following wording in his/her rea-
16
son: “It gave new knowledge about the field”, “I got to know
about the professions”.
3.2 Global value Student reasons interest from global relevance standpoint.
Examples of students´ responses under this category: “Be-
cause in reality we are running out of unrecoverable resources
4
and we need to get energy from somewhere” (World related);
“Because getting energy from the sun is very beneficial and it
would solve a lot of problems in the world”.
853
(P. 836-854) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
No. of students
reasoning
3.3 Intrinsic value Student indicates interest to him/herself or to his/her family

(close relationships). Examples of students responses under
1
this category: “My dad is planning to insert solar panels to our
home” (Family related)
4. Topic inter- Student reasons interest/lack of interest due to the topic. Stu-
est dent uses following wording in his/her reason: “I´m still too
23
young and I´m not interested in these topics”; “I´m just not in-
terested in this topic”.
5. Scenario - Student reasons interest/lack of interest with scenario charac-
related reason teristics. Examples of students´ responses under this catego-
ry: “It was interesting, because I did not have to read and it had
51
voiceover”; “… contained a problem, that I don´t think about in
everyday life (novelty aspect); “It was presented through life-
related examples and it made it easier to understand”.
reasons in one 19
answer
Received: June 01, 2017 Accepted: September 12, 2017
Tormi Kotkas MSc, Doctoral Student, Junior Researcher, University of Tartu,

Vanemuise 46, Tartu, Estonia.
E-mail: tormi.kotkas@ut.ee
Website: https://www.ut.ee/en
Miia Rannikmäe PhD, Professor, University of Tartu, Vanemuise 46, Tartu, Estonia.
E-mail: miia.rannikmae@ut.ee
Jack Holbrook PhD, Visiting Professor, University of Tartu, Vanemuise 46, Tartu, Estonia.
E-mail: jack.holbrook@ut.ee
854
EXPLORING LOWER-
SECONDARY SCHOOL
STUDENTS’ IMAGES AND ISSN 1648-3898 /Print/
OPINIONS OF THE BIOLOGIST ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/
Daihu Yang, Abstract. In the past decades much

Minghui Zhou research on the image of the scientist has
been conducted, but the image of the
specific scientist who does biological work,
namely, the biologist, is under researched.
Without this aspect of research school
Introduction biology education may operate nowhere
near to promoting the growth of students’
Students gradually shape their images and opinions of the biologist as appropriate image of the biologist. Draw-
a result of cumulative learning and accumulation of biology and biologist- ing on previous approach, this research pre-
related knowledge and information from inside and outside school. For sents students’ images of the biologist by
lower-secondary school students, school is one of important venues that administering a Draw Biologist Test (DBT)
shape their images and opinions of the biologist. In school the discourse to 121 lower-secondary school students
about biology and biologist can play out through interactions with peers, from the 7th, 8th and 9th grades. Findings
teachers and textbook content in class instruction and activities, and thereby indicate that when compared with the im-
framing students’ images and opinions of the biologist. Thus, the image of ages elsewhere, the lower-secondary school
the biologist is closely coupled with their knowledge, information of and students exhibit similar patterns regarding
attitudes toward the biologist acquired in school biology education. If the im- gender, teamwork and general attitude,
ages and opinions of the biologist come into being, it can subsequently enact but tend to include more descriptors of
in students’ subject learning in positive or negative ways. Related research white lab coat, tidy hairstyle, microscope,
suggests, superficial, ambiguous and inaccurate images, if unfortunately other ethnicities, serious looking, practi-
formed, will translate into impairment in appreciation of, attitudes towards cal activities and indoor contexts, fewer
and engagement in subject learning (Boylan, Hill, Wallace, & Wheeler, 1992; descriptors of knowledge and technology
Finson, Beaver, & Cramond, 1995; Krajkovich & Smith, 1982, Scherz & Oren, symbols and less gloomy side of biological
2006). The formed image of the biologist and related biological subject learn- work. It is suggested that school biology
ing mutually interplay. Positive image of the biologist is likely to positively education should mitigate the gendered
promote and enact in subject learning, while negative image may hinder. image of the biologist, duly expose students
Basing on the significance of such interplay, school biology education should to more theoretical and outdoor biological
know what the image of the biologist is being held in students’ minds during activities, value cooperation and collabora-
and after biological subject learning. tion as well as transform students’ positive
attitude into future engagements.
Literature Review Key words: lower-secondary school, Draw
Biologist Test, image of biologist, educa-
In the past decades science education community saw a flurry of re- tional implications.
search documenting the images of the scientist (Chambers, 1983; Finson,
2002; Koren & Bar, 2009; Newton & Newton, 1998; Schibeci & Sorensen, 1983;
She 1995; Song & Kim 1999; Zhai, Jocz, & Tan, 2014). The seminal work by Mead
and Metraux (1957) shows that the typical image of the scientist primarily Daihu Yang, Minghui Zhou
points to a male wearing a lab coat with chemistry instruments. Chambers Hefei Normal University, China
(1983) found socioeconomic and gender impacted images of the scientist.
Later, Newton and Newton (1998) revealed the relatively high frequency of
855
EXPLORING LOWER-SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS’ IMAGES AND OPINIONS OF THE ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/
BIOLOGIST
(P. 855-872) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
beards and baldness in students’ drawings. Fung’s (2002) research discloses that research symbols, knowledge
symbols and technology symbols in students’ drawings are mainly related to laboratory equipment, books, shelves
or stationery and computers. In Maoldomhnaigh and Hunt’s (1988), Song and Kim’s (1999) and Turkmen’s (2008)
research, the respective Irish, Korean and Turkish students are found exhibiting a strong gender-oriented image of
the scientist, predominantly being males. Mead and Metraux’s (1957) and Turkmen’s (2008) results show that the
scientist is middle aged or elderly. The facial expression of the scientist at work can be described as less smiling in
Hebrew students’ drawings (Pazit & Varda, 2009).
However, the above research mainly centers on how the image of the scientist (general scientist), but the
image of the specific scientist who does the sub-categorized biological work, namely the biologist, has not been
placed under the spotlight. If the general scientist is disintegrated into various constituent specific scientists, the
trouble will be pronounced that past research is not bothered by the thought of whether the images of the general
scientist contribute to the understanding of the biologist. Considering that biological courses in secondary educa-
tion in respectable number of countries are actually disciplined as a separate subject, much previous research (e.g.
Chambers, 1983; Maoldomhnaigh and Hunt, 1988; She, 1998; Song and Kim, 1999) on the images of the general
scientist can not necessarily equal to how the biologist is imaged. Given that past literature regarding the scientist’s
images cannot be informative of the biologist, it entails an exploration of how the biologist is imaged and viewed
by lower-secondary school students.
Research Problem
An exploration of lower-secondary school students’ image of the biologist enables us to understand how stu-
dents see the biologist and to know the differences between the images of the biologist and the general scientist
as well as problems about the images of the biologist, thereby both science and biology educator can tweak their
practices accordingly to promote the formation of appropriate images and opinions of the biologist if necessary.
To this end, a Draw Biologist Test (DBT) for measuring students’ images of the biologist was developed in order to
address the questions as follows:
1. What are the images of the biologist being held by the Chinese lower-secondary school students?
2. What are the differences between the images of the biologist in this research and the images of the
general scientist in previous literature?
3. What are the problems regarding the images possessed by the Chinese lower-secondary school students
and their implications for biology education practitioners?
Methodology of Research
This research was involved with qualitative and quantitative approaches (Creswell, 2003) to explore students’
images of the biologist. The qualitative approach includes group interviews and an open-ended instrument of
Draw Biologist Test (DBT) which was administered to students to obtain multiple indicators and descriptors of
their drawn biologists. The quantitative approach relates to the calculation of the numbers and frequencies of the
indicators and descriptors in order to mosaic the prominent image of the biologist with the high frequencies of
indicators and descriptors. This research was carried out in the autumn semester, 2016.
Instrument
A number of instruments were employed in the literature on scientist’s images. Mead and Metraux (1957)
adopted the instrument of writing to elicit perceptions of scientists from high school students. Krajkovich and Smith
(1982), Reis and Galvao (2004), Samaras, Bonoti and Christidou (2012) and Schibeci (2006) probed the students’
images of the scientist by the means of interviews and questionnaire. Dikmenli (2010) employed a qualitative in-
strument of free word-association for stereotypical images of the scientist. Chambers’ (1983) Draw-A-Scientist Test
(DAST) is, perhaps, the most popular qualitative instrument to examine scientists’ images. In the DAST, participants
are invited to “draw a scientist at work.” Then, drawings are evaluated in terms of a number of indicators and de-
scriptors. Drawing is a popular qualitative technique (Ahi, 2017; Aronsson & Andersson, 1996; Chang, 2005; Ehrlen,
2009; Fung, 2002; Silver & Rushton, 2008) in that it advantages in presenting features of a person that may hardly
be accurately described by language or texts and less being constrained by researchers’ predetermined constructs.
856
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ EXPLORING LOWER-SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS’ IMAGES AND OPINIONS OF THE
BIOLOGIST
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 855-872)
The instrument in this research is framed from Chambers’ (1983) Draw-a-Scientist Test which has been widely
used with good reliability and validity since much research have validated the persistence of typical indicators (e.g.
Buldu, 2006; Losh, Wilke, & Pop, 2008; Samaras, Bonoti, & Christidou, 2012). The adapted instrument was referred
to as Draw Biologist Test (DBT). A checklist was adapted from previous research (Finson, Beaver, & Cramond, 1995;
Christidou, Hatzinikita, & Samaras, 2012) to design a scoring rubric. The other frequently shown-up indicators and
descriptors during our pilot were also added in the checklist. The indicators and categories in the checklist are as
follows: (1) wear (objects worn), (2) facial physical features (facial hair and hairstyle), (3) gender, (4) ethnic background
and age, (5) research symbols, knowledge symbols, technology symbols and captions (mainly involving laboratory
instruments, books, products of modern technology and supplemented descriptions), (6) working background,
(7) activities, and (8) teamwork and facial expression.
As some descriptors, for example age, could hardly be accurately judged simply by looking at their drawings,
six question items were attached to the DBT for clarification, including “please identify the gender of your drawn
biologist!”, “please identify the ethnicity of your drawn biologist!”, “please assert the age range of the biologist!”,
“Please detail the types of the objects worn on the biologist!”, “please describe the background and activities of
the biologist!” and “please state the facial expressions of the biologist!”.
Follow-up group interviews were conducted after drawing for supplementary information about the indica-
tors, overall attitude and career intention. The interviews contained five semi- structured questions including “can
you explain why you draw such gender and age of the biologist?”, “what motivates you to draw the ethnicity of
the biologist?”, “can you tell why you draw such types of clothes and other worn objects ?”, “can you tell why your
drawing includes such background and activities?” and “what are the implications of the biologist’s facial expres-
sion?” as well as two open-ended questions including “what are your overall attitudes toward the biologist? and
why? ” and “do you want to pursue a biological careers and why?” The information from these instruments can
largely secure the validity of this research.
Participants
China’s basic and secondary education system is generally characterized by the 6-3-3 format, that is, six-year
primary schooling, three-year lower-secondary schooling and three-year senior high schooling. The participants
in this research aged about 13 to 15 years old and are composed of 56 females and 65 males from three classes in
a state-funded lower-secondary school. There are 43 students from grade 7, 41 from grade 8 and 37 from grade 9
respectively. Although the limited demographic groups of students may affect the representativeness, this research
can reasonably reflect the prominent features of the biologist in small scale.
Procedure

Prior to being administered to the DBT, the students were instructed that what they had drawn or written in
the DBT was confidential and that they should feel free to draw. Then the students were provided a blank paper
of A4 size with a title of “draw biologist at work”. To avoid possible vagueness, they were required to answer the
attached question items regarding their drawings in written form. The students took one to three days to finish the
DBT. In the collecting phase, some reported that their DBTs had not been fully completed due to the take-up of the
time by various after-class activities and scholastic homework. Hence, some returned DBTs were found being not
well done. After removing those lost, blank and largely uncompleted, 93 relatively well-responded DBTs (31 from
grade 7, 40 from grade 8 and 22 from grade 9) were obtained. The well-responded rate is 77%.
After the drawing activities, the author took two weeks to conduct follow-up group interviews based on their
drawings with all the students from the three grade levels. All interviewees consented that notes of conversation
content could be taken. Interviews mainly centered on the information that cannot be obtained by the drawing,
including students’ underlying motivations for the indicators of gender, age, ethnicity, worn objects, background,
activities and facial expressions as well as students’ perceptions of overall attitudes and career intentions.
Analysis of the Drawings
The students’ drawings were scored in accordance with the above mentioned checklist of descriptors and
indicators (see Tables 1-7) in the following manner.
857
BIOLOGIST
(P. 855-872) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
If a drawn descriptor of the respective indicators is found, one score will be inscribed. For instance, for the wear
indicator, each of us will carefully look for any descriptor that is worn by the drawn biologist in individual drawings
and score them. If multiple examples of a descriptor are found, only one score will be inscribed. For instance, if
a drawing presents more than one cap, it will be scored as having one. Similarly, the descriptors of the research,
knowledge and tool symbols will be scored as one even if multiple examples are presented. For instance, if a drawing
contains a book, one score will be awarded to the knowledge symbol. If multiple examples (for example, two pencils
and/or two books) are presented, they will be still scored as one. If a drawing is found with a textual description, it
will be scored as having one caption. Multiple textual descriptions in a drawing will be still scored as one caption.
During the analysis, some drawn objects were found too vague and illegible to be recognizable. These
unrecognizable objects will be ignored if no written explanations for them are available. If an object is absent or
unrecognizable in a drawing, but it can be identified in the attached written explanations, the object will be sorted
into their respective indicators and be scored as having one. For the information regarding students’ perceptions
of overall attitude and career intentions, a content analysis and categorization of their responses regarding these
aspects (see Table 8). Three categories were identified for the content analysis of overall attitude including “posi-
tive”, “negative” and “neutral” and three for career intentions including “having an intention”, “having no intention”
and “uncertainly”.
To secure good reliability, the analysis was independently conducted by the authors and the inter-rater
agreement reached 93%. Discrepancies arising from the analysis were settled through discussion. When scoring
the drawings, each descriptor and indicator was scored either 1 or 0 depending on the presence or absence of the
descriptor and indicator. The total number and frequency of each descriptor is determined by summing all the
scores from each grade (see Tables 1-7). The summed scores of indicators in their drawings indicate the extent to
which stereotypic image of the biologist is framed in the students’ minds. A high score of descriptor suggests a
highly stereotypical image, whereas a low count signals less stereotypical one.
Results of Research
Wear
The descriptors of the wear indicator include hat, cap, eyeglass, mask and different types of clothes (Table 1).
The type of worn clothes is of relevance with the settings, the clothes other than lab coat are more coupled with
lab-independent settings like jungle, home and islands. Of these descriptors, the most frequently emerged one
is “lab coat” (60.2%), followed by “suit” (18.3%) and “other undeterminable casuals” (14.0%). Figure 1 shows a lab
coat worn by a young biologist in a lab. “Eyeglass” enjoys the second highest presence (30.1%). Other descriptors
account for a small portion. When asked why to draw such descriptors, typical responses were that the biologist
should wear a lab coat to keep themselves from being stained when doing experiments in the lab, and that wear-
ing eyeglasses was indicative of the biologist reading much, learnedness and erudition.
Table 1. The descriptor of wear indicator by grade level (number and percentage, N (%)).
Descriptor Grade 7(N=31) Grade 8(N=40) Grade 9(N=22) Total (N= 93)
Other undeterminable
3(9.7) 7(9.7) 3(9.7) 13(14.0)
casuals
Lab coat
20(64.5) 25(62.5) 11(50.0) 56(60.2)
Shirt
2(6.5) 1(2.5) 1(4.5) 4(4.3)
Protective clothing
0(0.0) 0(0.0) 1(4.5) 1(1.1)
Suit
6(19.4) 6(15.0) 5(22.7) 17(18.3)
Sweater
1(3.2) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
858
BIOLOGIST
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 855-872)
Wind coat
0(0.0) 0(0.0) 1(4.5) 1(1.1)
Leather clothes
0(0.0) 1(2.5) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
Hat
1(3.2) 3(7.5) 1(4.5) 5(5.4)
Cap
2(6.5) 2(5.0) 0(0.0) 4(4.3)
Eyeglass
10(32.3) 11(27.5) 7(33.3) 28(30.1)
Mask
1(3.2) 2(5.0) 0(0.0) 3(3.2)
Leather shoes 0 (0.0) 1 (2.5) 0 (0.0) 1 (1.1)
Figure 1: A drawn young biologist in white lab coat.
Facial Physical Features
The descriptors of facial features relate to facial hair and various hairstyles. As shown in Table 2, the most com-
monly drawn descriptor by the students is “tidy hair” (43%). The next is “long hair” (see Figure 1 or 2), which appears
in 23.7% of the students’ drawings. The third highest is “standing hair” (11.8%). The percentage of facial hair is 8.6%.
Other descriptors are marginal. Some students reasoned for drawing the facial features such as:
“The biologist, as a learned and respectable person, ought to present with a nice appearance in the public; thus, the
facial physical features of the biologist should be tidy and cleanly shaved.”
“The standing hair indicates that the drawn biologist is very cool.”
“The female biologist will look pleasant with long hair.”
Table 2. The descriptor of facial physical feature, ethnicity and age indicators (number and percentage, N (%)).
Facial hair (beard / 2(6.5%) 1(2.5) 5(22.7) 8(8.6)

moustache/ sideburns)
Tidy hair 15(48.4) 17(42.5) 8(36.4) 40(43.0)
Standing hair 0(0.0) 5(12.5) 6(27.3) 11(11.8)
859
BIOLOGIST
(P. 855-872) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Messy hair 1(3.2) 2(5.0) 1(4.5) 4(4.3)
Braid 1(3.2) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
Bald 2(6.5) 2(5.0) 2(9.1) 6(6.5)
Ponytail 2(6.5) 1(2.5) 0(0.0) 3(3.2)
Curled hair 2(6.5) 1(2.5) 1(4.5) 4(4.3)
Long Hair 8(25.8) 11(27.5) 3(13.6) 22(23.7)
Han Chinese 24(77.4) 32(80.0) 15(68.2) 71(76.3)
Foreign white 7(22.6) 6(15.0) 6(27.3) 19(20.4)
Chinese minority 1(3.2) 2(5.0) 1(4.5) 4(4.3)
20s 14(45.2) 22(55.0) 8(36.4) 44(47.3)
30s 13(41.9) 8(20.0) 9(40.9) 30(32.3)
40s 3(9.7) 8(20.0) 3(13.6) 14(15.1)
50s 1(3.2) 1(2.5) 1(4.5) 3(3.2)
Above 60 1(3.2) 1(2.5) 1(4.5) 3(3.2)
Figure 2: A female biologist with long hair is experimenting.
Ethnic Background and Аge
Around 76% of the drawn biologists’ ethnic backgrounds are chiefly Han Chinese (Table 2). The most popular
motivation for drawing a Han Chinese is the patriotism and their familiarity with Chinese biologists, as sizable
students articulated:
“How can biological work be without a Chinese, drawing a Chinese biologist will honor our country”
860
BIOLOGIST
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 855-872)
“I am a Chinese, thus naturally I draw a Chinese biologist.”

“I only know Chinese biologists.”
Followed by Chinese minority (4.3%), foreign white (20.4%) is the second predominant ethnicity (see Figure
3). This is in part due to the students’ exposure to the outperformance of foreign biologists in the media and their
textbooks. Those students presenting a foreign white stated:
“In the history, the successful foreign biologists are more famous and attained than the Chinese counterparts.”
“Foreign biologists are more careful and rigorous in doing things, and so are their attitudes to work.”
“Foreign biological technologies are more advanced and there are more research institutions that can facilitate bio-
logical research in foreign countries.”
“I am inspired by the image of a western biologist in the biology textbook.”
“I sometime watch BBC documentaries. I suppose that the biologist should look like what these videos present.”
The biologist in 20s pervades in 47.3% of drawings, followed by the one in 30s (32.3%) (Table 2). The students
argued that biological research was a long march necessitating strong stamen. Thus, they associated biological
work with the biologist in such age range who is more capable of sustaining the highly physically and mentally
demanding biological research.
Figure 3: A drawn foreign white biologist in his 40s.
Drawn Biologists’ Gender
It can be drawn from Table 3 that over 65% of the students portrayed a male biologist and nearly 35% did a
female biologist (see Figure 1 or 2) who was mainly produced by the girl students. Female biologist is less likely
to be drawn by the upper level students—about 42% in grade 7, 40% in grade 8, and dipping to 18.1% in grade
9. Girl students nearly drew five times more female biologists than boy students did. Overall, the number of the
drawn male biologists outnumbers the drawn female biologists almost two times.
Table 3. The drawn biologist’ s gender indicator by grade level and student gender (number and percentage,
N (%)).
Grade 7(N=31) Grade 8(N=40) Grade 9(N=22) Total (N= 93)

Descriptor
Boy Girl Boy Girl Boy Girl Boy Girl
Male
12(38.7) 7(22.6) 14(35.0) 10(25.0) 11(50.0) 7(31.8) 37(39.8) 24(25.8)
biologist
Female
3(9.7) 10(32.3) 2(5.0) 14(35.0) 1(4.5) 3(13.6) 6(6.5) 27(29.0)
biologist
861
BIOLOGIST
(P. 855-872) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Research, Knowledge, Technology Symbols and Captions
As shown in Table 4, various lab instruments such as test tube, microscope, bottles, breakers were depicted
by the students (74.2%) as the descriptors of research symbol (see Figure 4). The common response for drawing
these indicators is that the biologist should do various indoor practical and analytical experiments and observa-
tions which necessitate these lab instruments, typically the microscope. About 19% and 14% of students’ drawings
present the descriptors of captions and knowledge symbols respectively. The captions are mainly biology-related,
for example, “plant and insects’ specimens” or “protecting living organism”. The descriptors of knowledge symbol
mainly relate to graphic molecular model, books, pencils or blackboard. The descriptors of technology symbol
were produced by the least number of students (4.3%).
Table 4. Research, knowledge, technology symbols and captions (number and percentage, N (%)).
Indicator Grade 7(N=31) Grade 8(N=40) Grade 9(N=22) Total (N= 93)
Research Symbols
(test tube, flask, microscope, measuring cylinder, balance, magnifier, 29(93.5) 26(65.0) 14(63.6) 69(74.2)
bottles, breakers, scalpel, light reflector or funnel)
Knowledge Symbols
5(16.1) 4(10.0) 4(18.2) 13(14.0)
(graphic molecular model, books, pencils or blackboard)
Technology Symbols
1(3.2) 2(5.0) 1(4.5) 4(4.3)
(computer)
Relevant captions
(plant and insect specimen, protecting living organism, biology is very
important, plant taxonomy, forms of animal movements, butterfly speci-
4(12.9) 9(22.5) 5(22.7) 18(19.4)
mens, African rhinos, Windows XP, products for lab experimenting,
Casimir Fabre, national biological lab, be quiet, specimens, observa-
tion diary, poacher, gene, studying grass or danger and don’t touch)
Figure 4: A microscope, descriptor of research symbol, was depicted in a lab room.
Working Background
Table 5 strongly suggests that the three-level students’ popular image of the working background of the
biologist is lab room bound, and with 65.5% depicting the biologist in such a context. This is similar to Mead and
Metraux’s (1957) result suggestive of the scientist’s workplace being limited to indoor labs. The other various work-
ing backgrounds do not take up much portion. More indoor than outdoor settings were drawn by the students.
862
BIOLOGIST
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 855-872)
Notably, the students may take the biology teacher as a biologist rather than an educator as a handful of students
(4.3%) drew the classroom as the biologist’s working background. A marginal number of cases (2.2%) appear to
draw portraits with a blank background in which neither contextualized background nor textual explanations
regarding the background are available.
Table 5. The descriptors of working background indicator by grade level (number and percentage, N (%)).
Lab room 26(83.9) 20(50.0) 15(68.2) 61(65.5)
Office 0(0.0) 2(5.0) 1(4.5) 3(3.2)
Classroom 1(3.2) 2(5.0) 1(4.5) 4(4.3)
Home 2(6.5) 1(2.5) 0(0.0) 3(3.2)
Zoo 0(0.0) 1(2.5) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
Forrest or Jungle 0(0.0) 3(7.5) 0(0.0) 3(3.2)
Prairie 1(3.2) 3(7.5) 2(9.1) 6(6.5)
Unidentifiable outdoor context 1(3.2) 2(5.0) 0(0.0) 3(3.2)
Grassland 0(0.0) 2(5.0) 1(4.5) 3(3.2)
Panda reservation 0(0.0) 1(2.5) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
Oceanarium 0(0.0) 1(2.5) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
Desert 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 1(4.5) 1(1.1)
Galapagos Islands 0(0.0) 1(2.5) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
Blank background 0(0.0) 1(2.5) 1(4.5) 2(2.2)
Activities
“Experimenting” (see Figure 2) and “observing” (23.7%, 12.9%) are the two major activities (Table 6). Other
activities are marginal and very diverse, largely embodying the practical side of biological work. The students’
descriptions of the activities of the biologist vary:
“The biologist is observing animals and plants.”

“He is taking notes of the biological experiment.”
“He is fully lost in reading literature”
“He is investigating in Africa to figure out how to protect the rhinos from poachers.”
Some drawings reveal the sedentary and theoretical side of activities like “sitting and pondering over problems
or reading books”. A few activities are generic and unspecified, for example, “doing research” which is less informa-
tive of the specific content of the activity.
863
BIOLOGIST
(P. 855-872) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Table 6. The descriptors of activities indicator by grade level (number and percentage, N (%)).
Experimenting (unspecified) 5(16.1) 9(22.5) 8(36.4) 22(23.7)
Observing
(cells, plants, seeds or insects and 3(9.7) 7(17.5) 2(9.1) 12(12.9)
etc.)
Studying animal specimens 0(0.0) 1(2.5) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
Collecting samples 0(0.0) 1(2.5) 1(4.5) 2(2.2)
Teaching 1(3.2) 2(5.0) 1(4.5) 4(4.3)
Studying dogs 0(0.0) 1(2.5) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
Taxonomizing plants 0(0.0) 1(2.5) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
Writing a paper 0(0.0) 1(2.5) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
Recording findings 0(0.0) 1(2.5) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
Collecting DNA of endangered

0(0.0) 1(2.5) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
species
Preparing an important experiment 1(3.2) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
Studying fungi 1(3.2) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
Disassembling cells 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 1(4.5) 1(1.1)
Studying or reading
0(0.0) 1(2.5) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
(literature or books)
Investigating Darwin’s finches 0(0.0) 1(2.5) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
Recording fish behaviors 0(0.0) 1(2.5) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
Organizing data 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 1(4.5) 1(1.1)
Pondering over problems 2(6.5) 0(0.0) 2(9.1) 4(4.3)
Doing research 3(9.7) 2(5.0) 0(0.0) 5(5.4)
Studying cells of rhinos 1(3.2) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
Studying specimens 1(3.2) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
Conducting Penicillin test 1(3.2) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
Checking lab instruments 1(3.2) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
Anatomizing a dead animal 1(3.2) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
Protecting endangered animals 1(3.2) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
864
BIOLOGIST
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 855-872)
Observing through microscope 3(9.7) 1(2.5) 1(4.5) 5(5.4)
Making notes of experiments 1(3.2) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
Examining the contamination in the

1(3.2) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
Staphylococcus culture medium
Studying animal behaviors 1(3.2) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
Protecting rhinos from poachers 0(0.0) 1(2.5) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
Studying gene mutation 0(0.0) 1(2.5) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
Extracting a mouse’s DNA 0(0.0) 1(2.5) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
Studying the impacts of light on sea

0(0.0) 1(2.5) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
turtles
Feeding a panda 0(0.0) 1(2.5) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
Writing an experimental report 1(3.2) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
Studying an onion’s cells 0(0.0) 1(2.5) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
Watching out the experiment 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 1(4.5) 1(1.1)
Studying grasses
0(0.0) 0(0.0) 1(4.5) 1(1.1)
Studying cells 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 1(4.5) 1(1.1)
Collecting plant or animal speci-

0(0.0) 0(0.0) 2(9.1) 2(2.2)
mens
Sucking iodine with a dropper 1(3.2) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
Making insect specimens 0(0.0) 1(2.5) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
Formulating a medicament 1(3.2) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
Formulating an agent 0(0.0) 1(2.5) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
Looking up literature 0(0.0) 1(2.5) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
Teamwork and Facial Expression
A vast number of the three-level students (97.8%) portrayed the biologist as working alone (Table 7), typi-
cally experimenting or observing alone. Two biologists teaming up together were depicted only in 2.2% of their
drawings. The students reasoned that when working alone the biologist would not be disturbed and could be
fully devoted to studying problems. This may suggest that biological work is perceived as a solitary activity rather
than a collaborative one that entails teamwork.
The indicator of facial expression enables us to assess the emotions and feelings of the biologist at work. Ac-
cording to the students’ drawings and responses, the most common facial expression depicted (33.3%) is “serious”,
which implies that the biologists drawn are tackling tasks seriously and rigorously (Table 7). “Smiling or happy”,
the second most common facial expression depicted, was portrayed in 32.3% of the students’ drawings, suggest-
ing that the drawn biologist has solved a problem or discovered something significant. “Neutral” being the third
865
BIOLOGIST
(P. 855-872) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
most common facial expression appears in 12.9% of the students’ drawings, indicating that the facial expression
is emotionless. The attentive facial expression (11.8%) was often displayed through drawing the biologist lost in
observing or studying a phenomenon or problem (see Figure 5), while the facial expression of “perplexed” (5.4%)
was demonstrated by drawing a biologist with a puzzled face solving tricky or thorny problems.
Table 7. The descriptors of teamwork and facial expression indicators (number and percentage, N (%)).
Indicator and Descriptor Grade 7(N=31) Grade 8(N=40) Grade 9(N=22) Total (N= 93)
Teamwork Work alone 29(93.5) 40(100) 22(100) 91(97.8)
Work cooperatively 2(6.5) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 2(2.2)
Facial expression Smiling or happy 9(29.0) 14(35.0) 7(31.8) 30(32.3)
Perplexed 2(6.5) 3(7.5) 0(0.0) 5(5.4)
Neutral (emotionless) 3(9.6) 4(10.0) 5(22.7) 12(12.9)
Attentive 6(19.4) 4(10.0) 1(4.5) 11(11.8)
Excited 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 1(4.5) 1(1.1)
Dejected or sad 1(3.2) 2(5.0) 0(0.0) 3(3.2)
Serious 10(32.2) 13(32.5) 8(36.4) 31(33.3)
Figure 5: A biologist, with an attentive facial expression, is observing through a microscope.
Overall Attitude toward the Biologist and Intention for a Biological Career
A majority of the students (63.4%) hold a positive attitude toward the biologist (Table 8), as exemplified by
some students’ remarks:
“Biologists’ contributions to our lives and the mankind will make our country pride and honored.”
“Biologists invent many drugs to improve people’s health.”
“Biologists can help raise our awareness of the graveness of environmental problems and protect engendered species.”
A relatively large percentage of students (35.5%) hold neutral attitude toward the biologist, meaning that they
866
BIOLOGIST
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 855-872)
have no idea of the biologist or mixed positive and negative attitudes, as indicated by some students’ statements
that while the biologist brings blessings to the mankind they also inflict the mankind by vice inventions. Only one
case (1.1%) articulates a negative attitude towards the biologist, claiming that the biologist gives rise to security
issues in the world with invented bio-weapons.
With respect to their intention for becoming a biologist, it is regrettable that the students (62.4%) disfavoring
a biological path outnumber those (37.6%) favoring. Those disfavoring a biological career expressed their various
opinions such as:
“I am not doing very well in my school biology.”

“I like physics and not interested in biology.”
“A biological career will mean there is no free time for my private life. I don’t want to lose freedom.”
“I have a phobia of insects and bugs, and becoming a biologist is a mission impossible for me.”
“The tedious and hard biological work does not suit me!”
The students preferring a biologist career justified diversely like:
“I love the content of biology and it is congenial to me.”

“Doing biological work can serve my country and my well- done work will make my country pride.”
“I am willing to engage in a biological career because it enables me to explore exotic animals and plants all over the
world.”
“Biological work can enable me to see the interesting micro-world that is invisible to naked eyes.”
Table 8. Overall attitude and career intention (number and percentage, N (%)).
Item Grade 7(N=31) Grade 8(N=40) Grade 9(N=22) Total (N= 93)
Positive 18(58.1) 26(65.0) 15(68.2) 59(63.4)
General attitude toward

Negative 1(3.2) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)
the biologist
Neutral 12(38.7) 14(35.0) 7(31.8) 33(35.5)
Intention for a biological Yes 14(45.2) 9(22.5) 10(45.5) 35(37.6)

career
No 15(48.4) 30(75.0) 11(50.0) 58(62.4)
Uncertainly 2(6.5) 1(2.5) 1(4.5) 4(4.3)
Discussion
Using a projective drawing test, this research attempted to zoom in students’ image of the biologist. Both
qualitative and quantitative differences regarding the images between the Chinese students and those else-
where emerge.
For the wear indicator, most of the students hold the image of white lab coat which is also found in Mead
and Metraux’s (1957), Koren and Bar’s (2009), Painter, Jones, Tretter and Kubasko’s (2006) research. However, the
Chinese students’ stereotypical image regarding lab coat is especially stronger. The presence of white lab coat is
substantially greater than in the previous literature, for example, only 20% of Turkish students and around 5% of
the Korean students drew lab coat (Leblebicioglu, Metin, Yardimci, & Cetin, 2011; Song & Kim, 1999). Song and
Kim (1999) referred the low presence of lab coat to the less common practical work in Korean schools. But this
correlation is not confirmed by our research. In the same vein, the hands-on practical work in Chinese schools
is also very limited. The Chinese students nonetheless drew more lab coats than Korean counterparts, suggest-
ing that the white lab coat is more deeply imprinted and rooted in these Chinese students’ minds than their
counterparts in other countries. In the Chinese culture, a person wearing eyeglasses is to some degree linked
867
BIOLOGIST
(P. 855-872) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
with erudition and learnedness. As such, the relatively high presence of eyeglasses is observed as the students
endowed the biologist with these qualities.
The students’ drawings do not appear such hair style like strange hair or crazy hair as described in Togrol’s
(2013) and Song and Kim’s (1999) research. The drawings depicting the biologist as having messy hair are less than
those in Avraamidou’s (2013) research. Rather, tidy hair is relatively common and far more than that presented
by Hebrew and Arabic students (Rubin, Bar, & Cohen, 2003). The higher frequency of female hair style like long
hair than elsewhere cannot translate into the students’ preference for this hairstyle as a whole. This phenomenon
results from more girl than boy students’ completion of the DBTs since girl students prefer to draw female biolo-
gist with long hair. The students present far less the facial hair of beard, moustache and long sideburns than the
Turkish, Arabic and Greek students do (Christidou, Hatzinikita, & Samaras, 2012; Leblebicioglu, Metin, Yardimci, &
Cetin, 2011; Rubin, Bar, & Cohen, 2003). A beard in the Arabic culture is viewed as a respected feature (Rubin, Bar,
& Cohen, 2003). Interestingly, on the contrary, the Chinese students regarded beard, long sideburn and untidy
hair as unfavorable. This signals that the framing of the images thereof is of relevance with their own culture.
The image on ethnic background shows that most students perceive the ethnicity of the biologist as being
Han Chinese. This result is out of Chinese education traditionally placing a high premium on moral education of
which the moral theme is to cultivate a devotion to the nation or a sense of national pride. The patriotism and
their more familiarity with Chinese biologists drive the students to think that drawing a biologist with Chinese
nationality would honor the country. This justification is rarely documented. The biologist of Chinese minority
origin is more under presented than foreign white. However, the students seem a bit more inclusive than Turk-
ish students regarding ethnic minority representation. In Turkmen’s (2008) research, none of Turkish students’
drawings presents ethnicities other than Turk. The Chinese students’ inclusion of other ethnicities can be referred
to their exposure to the more knowledge of foreign biologists in the media, their textbooks and foreign biolo-
gists’ good performance. For those drawing foreign white, they tended to think foreign biologists and biological
research do better than their Chinese counterparts both in the history and at present. This demonstrates the
Chinese students’ ambivalence toward the ethnic issue. On the one hand, their patriotism motivated them to
draw the biologist with Han Chinese origin; on the other hand, their admission to the underperformance of the
Chinese biologist drove them to include the foreign biologist in their drawings.
As for the age, the Chinese students perceive of the biologist much younger than those found in the previ-
ous literature in which the scientist is usually considered as being elderly or middle aged (35–55 years) because
of more experiences (Avraamidou, 2013). Otherwise, the Chinese students place stamina over experiences as
they associate the relatively young age of 20s and 30s with more capability of sustaining the demanding bio-
logical work.
The strong inclination for the male biologist in their drawings suggests their image of biology being chiefly
reserved for males. This parallels Vockell and Lobonc’s (1981), Kelly and Smail’s (1986), Song and Kim’s (1999),
Losh’s (2010), Christidou, Hatzinikita and Samaras’ (2012) and Togrol’s (2013) research. Girl and boy students are
more prone to drawing the gender of the biologist same with their own (Matthews, 1996). This is confirmed
by our research. Boy students tended to draw more male biologists, while girl students inclined to draw more
female biologists. But differently, none of the drawings in our research presents the female biologist in an in-
ferior role as found in Christidou, Hatzinikita and Samaras’ (2012) and Medina, Middleton and Orihuela’s (2011)
research. The female biologist, mainly produced by the girl students, is depicted working independently. The
overall percentage of the female biologist is declining with the grade level ascending, suggesting that the upper
grade level students are more likely to perceive the biologist as masculine. Such strong gendered image of the
biologist may jeopardize girl students’ later choice of biological work and dishearten them from engaging in
a biological career. However, girls’ choice of career can indeed be changed after being exposed to female role
models (Fox, Tobin, & Brody, 1981; Huber & Burton, 1995; Jones & Wheatly, 1988). It may be viable that school
biology could introduce models of female biologists to engage girl students.
Research symbols and captions are relatively common in their drawings. Unlike the predominant chemical
equipment found in Rubin, Bar and Cohen’s (2003) research, the depicted biologists are frequently accompanied
by a microscope, differing quite from the scientist who is depicted being accompanied by chemical instruments
typical of test tubes and beakers (Ozel, 2012; She, 1995), indicating that microscope is a strong stereotypical im-
age distinctive and tied to the biologist. In certain cases, the students’ drawings are supplemented by captions
relevant to their activities. Rather than the most common caption of “inventor” or “teacher” in Fung’s (2002) re-
search, the added captions in our research can be more indicative of the nature and activity of biological work as
868
BIOLOGIST
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 855-872)
well as the testimony to and explanation of the drawn. For instance, the presentation of the name of the famous
French biologist, Casimir Fabre, signifies entomologic research. In general, the distribution of the symbols in our
research resembles Fung’s (2002) research in which the frequency of research symbols is also high. However, the
Chinese students drew less knowledge and technology symbols than their Hong Kong and Greek counterparts
(Christidou, Hatzinikita, & Samaras, 2012; Fung, 2002). The Chinese students are less likely to be aware of the
role of modern products such as computer in biological work than their counterparts elsewhere (for instance,
Hong Kong students produce robots, more computers, infra-red eyeglasses and etc.), suggesting that biological
work is viewed as conventional and classic. The previous research by Chambers (1983), She (1998) and Jarvis
(1996) indicate that a far greater number of symbols is identified with grade level (or student age) ascending.
However, our research seems not to collaborate with their findings. The number of symbols produced by the
Chinese students does not exhibit such trend. Moreover, secrecy and mythical symbols found as stereotypical
images in the former research (Finson, 2002) are also not identified in the present research.
Lab room is the most common working background threading through most of the students’ drawings,
suggesting their stereotypical image of biological work is indoor-related. This result distinctly deviates from
that of the Greek students favoring outdoor settings (Christidou, Hatzinikita, & Samaras, 2012). The drawn biolo-
gists in our research set in other outdoor contexts such as jungle and prairie are quite sporadic. Interestingly,
basement, prevalent in American students’ drawings (Farland, 2009), is not found in any student’s drawing as
a background. In general, the students are less likely to perceive biological work as being outdoor-related. An
interesting point astray from the earlier literature is classroom setting, indicating the Chinese students take the
biology teacher as the biologist while the Greek students not considering the teacher as the scientist (Christidou,
Hatzinikita, & Samaras, 2012).
The students’ responses reveal that the activities are diverse and highly concentrated. The two most com-
mon activities of “experimenting” and “observing” do not share much commonality with Farland’s (2003) and
Ozel’s (2012) research of the scientist that unveil American students’ preference for portraying the activities
about scientific process skills such as observing and measuring and Turkish students’ tendency for plotting the
activities relating to inventing and designing a new material. The Chinese students are more likely to present the
practical aspect of scientific research (such as experimenting) than the Greek students (Christidou, Hatzinikita,
& Samaras, 2012). The theoretical aspect of research (such as studying literature) is relatively under presented
by the Chinese students.
Rather than the title of “draw a biologist” which may hint the students to draw a single person, the title of
“draw biologist”, which will not circumscribe the number of the drawn biologist, was adopted. Despite of this,
the drawn biologist is still mostly working alone. Only a tiny number of the students drew two biologists work-
ing collaboratively. In this respect, the Chinese students are similar to the Turkish and Greek students whose
drawings also predominantly depict a solitary scientist (Christidou, Hatzinikita, & Samaras, 2012; Togrol, 2013).
The Chinese students barely conceive of collaboration, teamwork and mutual assistances among peers being
intrinsic and inherent in biological work.
As regards the emotions, the major facial expression of the biologist is “smiling or happy” and “serious”, sug-
gesting that the biologist might be deemed as enjoying their work or doing work rigorously. In contrast to the
mad or less smiling emotions in the previous research (Haynes, 2003; Weingart, Muhl, & Pansegrau, 2003), the
occurrence of positive emotions like “smiling or happy” is higher in the Chinese students’ drawings, indicating
the less gloomy side of biological work.
The general attitude toward the biologist is predominantly positive. This positiveness can be traced from
the recognition of biologists’ contributions to the nation, the mankind and environment. Several researchers
note that young people’s positive attitude towards a scientist might considerably contract a later interest and
will highly possibly translate into a related career (Buldu, 2006; Mason, Kahle, & Gardner, 1991; Song and Kim,
1999; Woodward & Woodward, 1998). However, this seems to be defied by our research. Disappointedly, the
high percentage of positive attitudes toward the biologist does not naturally and necessarily convert into a high
favor for a possible biological career. The reason can be attributed to their perceptions of the profession being
demanding, low attainment in school biology, boringness, phobia and low salary. This might indicate more efforts
needed to correct the students’ misperceptions, to provide more positive information on biological work, and to
transform students’ positive attitudes into actual actions so as to warrant students’ future engagement in biology.
869
BIOLOGIST
(P. 855-872) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Conclusions
By mosaicking the frequent show-up indicators and descriptors, the Chinese students’ prominent image of
the biologist can be described as follows:
“The biologist is a young Han Chinese male man with a tidy hairstyle and smiling/serious looking, wearing a lab coat
with a microscope beside and experimenting or observing alone in a lab room.”
The findings indicate that the Chinese students’ images of the biologist share both similarities and dissimilari-
ties with those of the scientist and those in countries or regions elsewhere. In contrast to those in Geek, Turkey,
Hong Kong, South Korean and the U.S., the Chinese students exhibit similar patterns regarding gender, teamwork
and general attitude. However, it appears that the Chinese students included more descriptors of lab coat, tidy
hairstyle, microscope, other ethnicities, serious looking, practical aspects of biological activities and indoor lab-
related contexts, and fewer descriptors of knowledge and technology symbols and gloomy side of biological work
than those in other countries and regions. Noteworthily, the connotations for drawing some indicators between
the Chinese students and their counterparts differ. For instance, although there appears the gendered image, the
Chinese students do not conceive of the female biologist in an inferior role as found in the former research. The
mixed sense of national pride and Chinese biologists’ underperformance, rarely found, acts as a contradictory
dichotomy for the inclusion of their own and other ethnicities.
This above prominent image indicates that the students have some problems with their perceptions of the
biologist, and it implies that school practitioners still need to combat the gendered image of the biologist, duly
expose students to more theoretical and outdoor biological activities rather than a single indoor lab room, help
students appreciate cooperative and collaborative in biological work as well as convert students’ positive attitudes
into an actual engagement for a biology-related career.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the 7th, 8th, and 9th grade teenage students from Hefei No.46 Secondary School
for sparing their precious time to participate in the DBT as well as to Hefei Normal University for funding this re-
search (Grant No. 2015jsjy05).
References
Ahi, B. (2017). The world of plants in children’s drawings color preferences and the effect of age and gender on these preferences.
Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16 (1), 32-42.
Aronsson, K., & Andersson, S. (1996). Social scaling in children’s drawings of classroom life: a cultural comparative analysis of
social scaling in Africa and Sweden. British Journal of Developmental Psychology,14 (3),301-314.
Avraamidou, L. (2013). Superheroes and supervillains: reconstructing the mad-scientist stereotype in school science, Research
in Science & Technological Education, 31 (1), 90-115.
Boylan, C.R., Hill, D.M., Wallace, A.R., & Wheeler, A.E. (1992). Beyond stereotypes. Science Education, 76(5), 465-476.
Buldu, M. (2006). Young children’s perceptions of scientists: A preliminary study. Educational Research, 48 (1), 121-132.
Chang, N. (2005). Children’s drawings; science inquiry and beyond. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 6 (1), 104-106.
Chambers, D.W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: the draw-a-scientist test. Science Education, 67(2), 255-265.
Christidou, V., Hatzinikita, V., & Samaras, G. (2012). The image of scientific researchers and their activity in Greek adolescents’
drawings. Public Understanding of Science, 21 (5), 626-647.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage publication.
Dikmenli, M. (2010). Undergraduate biology students’ representations of science and the scientist. College Student Journal, 44
(2), 579–588.
Ehrlen, K. (2009). Drawings as representations of children’s conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 31 (1), 41- 57.
Farland, D. (2009). How does culture shape students’ perceptions of scientists? cross-national comparative study of American
and Chinese elementary students. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21 (4), 23-42.
Finson, K. D. (2002). Drawing a scientist: what do we do and do not know after fifty years of drawings. School Science and Math-
ematics, 102 (7), 335-345.
Finson, K. D., Beaver, J. B., & Cramond, B. L. (1995). Development and field test of a checklist for the Draw-a-Scientist Test. School
Science and Mathematics, 95 (4), 195-205.
870
BIOLOGIST
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 855-872)
Fox, L. H., Tobin, D., & Brody, L. (1981). Career development of gifted and talented women. Journal of Career Education, 7 (4), 289-298.
Fung, Y. Y. H. (2002). A comparative study of primary and secondary school students’ images of scientists. Research in Science &
Technological Education, 20 (2), 199-213.
Haynes, R. (2003). From alchemy to artificial intelligence: stereotypes of the scientist in western literature. Public Understanding
of Science, 12(3), 243-53.
Huber, R. A., & Burton, G. M. (1995). What do students think scientists look like? School Science and Mathematics, 95 (7), 371-376.
Jarvis, T. (1996). Examining and extending young children’s views of science and scientists. In L.H.Parker, L. J. Rennie, & B. J. Fraser
(Eds.), Gender, Science and Mathematics: shortening the shadow (pp. 29-40). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publisher.
Jones, M. G., & Wheatly, J. (1988). Factors influencing the entry of women into science and related fields. Science Education, 72
(2), 27-42.
Kelly, A., & Smail, B. (1986). Sex stereotypes and attitudes to science among eleven-year-old children. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 56 (2), 158-168.
Koren, P., & Bar, V. (2009). Pupils’ image of ‘the scientists’ among two communities in Israel: A comparative study. International
Journal of Science Education, 31 (18), 2485–2509.
Krajkovich, J. G., & Smith, J. K. (1982). The development of the image of science and scientists scale. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 19 (1), 39-44.
Leblebicioglu, G., Metin, D., Yardimci, E., & Cetin, P. S. (2011). The effect of informal and formal interaction between scientists and
children at a science camp on their images of scientists. Science Education International, 22 (3), 158-174.
Losh, S. C. (2010). Stereotypes about scientists over time among US adults: 1983 and 2001. Public Understanding of Science, 19
(3), 372-382.
Losh, S. C., Wilke, R., & Pop, M. (2008). Some methodological issues with ‘‘Draw a Scientist Tests’’ among young children. Interna-
tional Journal of Science Education, 30 (6), 773–792.
Maoldomhnaigh, M. O., & Hunt, A. (1988). Some factors affecting the image of the scientist drawn by older primary school
students. Research in Science & Technological Education, 6 (2), 159-166.
Mason, C. L., Kahle, J. B., & Gardner, A. L. (1991). Draw-A-Scientist test: Future implications. School Science and Mathematics, 91
(5), 193-198.
Matthews, B. (1996). Drawing scientists. Gender and Education, 8 (2), 231-243.
Mead, M., & Metraux, R. (1957). Image of the scientist among high school students: a pilot study. Science, 126 (3270), 384-390.
Medina, W., Middleton, K., & Orihuela, W. (2011). Using the DAST-C to explore Colombian and Bolivian students’ images of sci-
entists. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9 (3), 657-690.
Newton, L. D., & Newton, D. P. (1998). Primary children’s conceptions of science and the scientist: Is the impact of a national cur-
riculum breaking down the stereotype? International Journal of Science Education, 20 (9), 1137-1149.
Ozel, M. (2012). Children’s images of scientists: Does grade level make a difference. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12
(4), 3187-3198.
Painter, J., Jones, M. G., Tretter, T. R., & Kubasko, D. (2006). Pulling back the curtain: Uncovering and changing students’ percep-
tions of scientists. School Science and Mathematics, 106 (4), 181-190.
Pazit, K., & Varda, B. (2009). Pupils’ image of ‘the scientist’ among two communities in Israel: A comparative study. International
Journal of Science Education, 31 (18), 2485-2509.
Reis, P., & Galvao, C. (2004). Socio-scientific controversies and students’ conceptions about scientists. International Journal of
Science Education, 26 (13), 1621–1633.
Rubin, E., Bar, V., & Cohen, A. (2003). The images of scientists and science among Hebrew- and Arabic-speaking pre-service
teachers in Israel. International Journal of Science Education, 25 (7), 821-846.
Samaras, G., Bonoti, F., & Christidou, V. (2012). Exploring children’s perceptions of scientists through drawings and interviews.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 1541-1546.
Scherz, Z., & Oren, M. (2006). How to change students’ images of science and technology. Science Education, 90 (6), 965-985.
Schibeci, R. A. (2006). Student images of scientists: What are they? Do they matter? Teaching Science, 52 (2), 12–16.
Schibeci, R.A., & Sorensen, I. (1983). Elementary school children’s perceptions of scientists. School Science and Mathematics,
83(1), 14-20.
She, H. C. (1995). Elementary and middle school students’ image of science and scientists related to current science textbooks
in Taiwan. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4 (4), 283-294.
She, H. C. (1998). Gender and grade level differences in Taiwan students’ stereotypes of science and scientists. Research in Science
& Technological Education, 16 (2), 125-135.
Silver, A., & Rushton, B. S. (2008). Primary-school children’s attitudes towards science, engineering and technology and their images
of scientists and engineers. Education 3-13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 36 (1), 51-67.
Song, J., & Kim, K.S. (1999). How Korean students see scientists: the images of the scientist. International Journal of Science Educa-
tion, 21(9), 957-977.
Sumrall, W. J. (1995). Reasons for the perceived images of scientists by race and gender of students in grades 1–7. School Science
and Mathematics, 95 (2), 83–90.
Togrol, A. Y. (2013). Turkish students’ images of scientists. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12 (3), 289-298.
Turkmen, H. (2008). Turkish primary students’ perceptions about scientist and what factors affecting the image of the scientists.
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4 (1), 55-61.
871
BIOLOGIST
(P. 855-872) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Vockell, E. L., & Lobonc, S. (1981). Sex-role stereotyping by high school females in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
18 (3), 209-219.
Weingart, P., Muhl, C., & Pansegrau, P. (2003). Of power maniacs and unethical geniuses: Science and scientists in fiction film.
Public Understanding of Science, 12 (3), 279-287.
Woodward, C., & Woodward, N. (1998). Welsh primary school leavers’ perception of science. Research in Science and Technological
Education, 16 (1), 43-52.
Zhai, J., Jocz, J. A., & Tan, A. L. (2014). ‘Am I like a scientist?’: Primary children’s images of doing science in school. International
Received: June 25, 2017 Accepted: September 22, 2017
Daihu Yang Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Biological Sciences, Hefei Normal

University, Hefei, Anhui, China.
E-mail: yungdhu@163.com
Minghui Zhou MSc, PhD Student, Faculty of Biological Sciences, Hefei Normal
University, Hefei, Anhui, China.
E-mail: zhmhui@yeah.net
872
VALIDATION OF THEORETICAL
CONSTRUCTS TOWARD
SUITABILITY OF EDUCATIONAL ISSN 1648-3898 /Print/
SOFTWARE FOR CHEMISTRY ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/
EDUCATION: DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN USERS AND
NONUSERS
Abstract. The aim of this research was to
empirically validate constructs for evalua-
tion of teachers’ attitudes toward usage of
Kateřina Chroustová, educational software in chemistry teach-
ing. Questionnaire with items transformed
Martin Bílek,
from UTAUT (Unified theory of acceptance
Andrej Šorgo and use of technology) and other technol-
ogy acceptance theories were filled in by
556 Czech chemistry teachers. All con-
structs passed recommended .7 thresholds
of Cronbach’s alpha so they can be used in
acceptability researches before and after
Introduction introduction of educational software or
building models. However, analyses of
Information and communication technologies (ICT) are significantly effect sizes show that there are not only
changing methods and content of education (Januszewski & Molenda, differences between users and all nonusers
2008; Oliver, 2002). The question of utilization of ICT´s potential in educa- generally, but also prove differences be-
tion is considered in many researches. Some of them target integration of tween various types of nonusers. Nonusers
ICT generally (e.g. Bingimlas, 2009; Pelgrum, 2001; Wang, 2008), and the were established as a) those who had used
others target integration of various technologies and applications particu- educational software and abandoned it; b)
larly. Among the others, technologies such as interactive whiteboards were those who do not use educational software,
considered (Slay, Siebörger, & Hodgkinson-Williams, 2008; Smith, Higgins, but are planning to use it in the future,
Wall, & Miller, 2005) as well as mobile technologies (Martin & Ertzberger, and c) those who do not use educational
2013; Motiwalla, 2007; Rau, Gao, & Wu, 2008), 3D printing (Kostakis, Niaros, software and have no intentions to use
& Giotitsas, 2015), virtual reality (Merchant, Goetz, Cifuentes, Keeney-Ken- it. An unexpected finding reveals that
nicutt, & Davis, 2014), and data acquisition systems (Milner-Bolotin, 2012). differences among subgroups of nonus-
The other stream of researches is concentrated on attitudes, opinions and ers can be even larger than between users
believes of teachers and students toward application of various technolo- and nonusers, especially the group c) is an
gies in education (Hennessy, Ruthven, & Brindley, 2005; Prestridge, 2012; outstanding group. Consequently, factors
Slabin, 2013; Šumak & Šorgo, 2016; Šumak, Pušnik, Heričko, & Šorgo, 2017; and their influence on the acceptance and
Türel & Johnson, 2012; Záhorec, Hašková, & Bílek, 2014). This research is use of educational software in chemistry
focusing on educational software as tools delivering educational content teaching should be explored for each group
(see the definition below). separately.
Implementation of ICT into education brings a promise of improving
Keywords: chemistry education, educa-
instruction and can encourage positive attitude towards chemistry, which
tion software, technology acceptance.
is relatively unpopular among pupils in the Czech Republic (Kubiatko,
Balatova, Fancovicova, & Prokop, 2017). It definitely depends on teachers Kateřina Chroustová
if this potential is fully developed (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Niederhauser University of Hradec Králové,
& Stoddart, 2001). The same also applies to educational software: without Czech Republic
Martin Bílek
teachers’ acceptance and classroom application of educational software, Charles University, Czech Republic
its potential cannot be fully developed (Chroustová, Bílek, & Šorgo, 2015). Andrej Šorgo
However, with rapid development of ICT and exponential growth of number University of Maribor, Slovenia
873
VALIDATION OF THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS TOWARD SUITABILITY OF EDUCATIONAL ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/
(P. 873-897) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
of available applications, teachers experience new workloads and responsibilities because they have become
responsible for selecting appropriate software and reaching competencies for reasonable utilization of educa-
tional software (Yucel & Cevik, 2010).
In this research, factors affecting the use and acceptance of educational software are validated. Constructs
affecting the use and acceptance of educational software were adopted mainly from Unified Theory of Accep-
tance and Use of Technology (UTAUT; Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003). The present research was com-
menced due to the fact that in the Czech Republic the acceptance and usage of educational software in specific
educational context were not explored thoroughly (Chroustová et al., 2015).
Educational Software
Educational (or instructional1) software (hereafter ES) is predetermined for teaching and self‑learning by us-
ing educational technology, and is often defined as technology with learning as the end product (Januszewski &
Molenda, 2008, p.15). In such a way, it is distinguished from many non‑educational aspects of the use of technol-
ogy in education, such as office software, presentation tools, data acquisition systems, etc. In science education
ES is referred to as the use of drill and practice software (Kuiper & de Pater-Sneep, 2014), tutorial software (Kara
& Yeşilyurt, 2008), problem-solving software (Funkhouser & Richard Dennis, 1992), computer educational games
(Moreno-Ger, Burgos, Martínez-Ortiz, Sierra, & Fernández-Manjón, 2008), or instructional games (Huang, Johnson, &
Han, 2013), interactive textbooks (Viau & Larivée, 1993), simulations (Rutten, Van Joolingen, & Van der Veen, 2012),
computer (microcomputer) assisted real and virtual laboratory (Balamuralithara & Woods, 2009), integrated learning
systems (Wood, Underwood, & Avis, 1999), virtual learning environment (Piccoli, Ahmad, & Ives, 2001) and others.
The term overlaps with terms of computer-based instruction (Kulik & Kulik, 1991) and computer assisted in-
struction (Levin, Glass, & Meister, 1987). However, the term differs from other terms above by not mentioning the
technology it utilizes in education, so generally it can be used also as a part of mobile learning (Motiwalla, 2007) and
other instructional technologies, e.g. virtual reality (Byrne & Furness, 1994) or augmented reality (Wu, Lee, Chang,
& Liang, 2013). ES is a computer program able to at least partially replace the teacher; it teaches pupils, it practices
with them and it tests them. This type of software can be called “teacher (tutor)” figuratively from the classification
of Taylor (1980) about the usage of computers in education. In the Czech translation the terms didactical software
or didactical program are also used instead of educational software. The reason lies in the understanding and use
of the word didactic in a sense of the “art of teaching” (Comenius, 1907) among Czech teachers. Historically the term
(educational) program relates to early introduction of the use of the term programmed learning (Skinner, 2013).
Research Focus
Previous researches dealing with acceptance, usage and implementation of technology in education mostly
follow the theories which focus on acceptance technology in everyday life, i.e. Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA;
Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), Technology Acceptance Model (TAM; Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989), Theory of Planned
Behaviour (TPB; Ajzen, 1991), Task Technology Fit (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995) or Unified Theory of Acceptance
and Use of Technology (UTAUT; Venkatesh et al., 2003). Some researchers also consider other theories such as
Diffusion of Innovations Theory (Rogers, 2003), Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986) and Motivational Model
(Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1992) in a sense of other factors affecting human behaviours. A review of researches
showed that TAM is the most used theory in e-learning acceptance research (Šumak, Heričko, & Pušnik, 2011). This
conclusion was confirmed by another research (Abdullah & Ward, 2016) focusing on the development of General
Extended Technology Acceptance Model for E‑Learning (GETAMEL). Same as Abdullah & Ward (2016) other research
extended TAM model about additional factors that can affect users’ behaviour towards the use of technologies
in education (e.g. Arenas-Gaitán, Ramírez-Correa, & Rondán-Cataluña, 2011; Persico, Manca, & Pozzi, 2014), or re-
searches using combinations of TAM model with other theories (e.g. Lee, 2010; Teo, 2011). Because of the lack of
researches focused directly on educational software, the present research investigates also researches focusing
on e-learning technology, whose acceptance and usage are influenced by the factors that should be close to the
factors influencing similar educational technology, i.e. educational software.
1 Educational software and instructional software are interchangeable terms, same as educational technology and instructional technology
are nowadays interchangeable (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008, p. 277).
874
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ VALIDATION OF THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS TOWARD SUITABILITY OF EDUCATIONAL
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 873-897)
Review articles (Abdullah & Ward, 2016; Šumak et al., 2011) focusing on e-learning also have shown that
most of previous researches were concerned with students or learners’ acceptance, attitude and use of e-learning
technology or e-learning systems as end users of the technology. However, the most important factor of imple-
mentation of modern technology into education are teachers. Without teachers students would use educational
technology only in in a few isolated cases based on their own interest. For these reasons, it is necessary to explore
the factors, which influence implementation of education software from the perspective of teachers first (Lambic,
2014; Yuen & Ma, 2008).
The research focused on the usage of ICT by teachers in education generally. (Teo, 2011) confirms that
Perceived Usefulness (PU), Attitude towards Use (ATU) and Facilitating Conditions (FC) have direct influences on
Behavioral Intention to Use (BIU) technology, Perceived Ease of Use (PEU) and Subjective Norm (SN) influence BIU
to use technology indirectly (PEU via ATU, SN via PU), so PU has stronger effect than SN. In other words, when
teachers consider technology to be useful and more efficient in comparison with other means, or have a positive
attitude to it, their intention to use such a technology will significantly increase. Also, the support of teachers by
management and supportive environment have a greater effect on their intention to use technology in education
than teachers’ beliefs about opinions of important persons (Teo, 2011). The effect sizes of perceived ease of use and
perceived usefulness of attitude towards the use of technology (precisely e-learning) were also found significant
in meta-analyses of previous researches (Šumak et al., 2011), showing that ATU and PU has the greatest influence
on BIU of e-learning in teachers’ perspective.
It is understandable that teachers’ tendency to use e-learning environments is encouraged by their percep-
tions of the added value of usage of technology (Mahdizadeh, Biemans, & Mulder, 2008) and this encouragement
can be transferred to any other technology. However, the added value of new technology can depend on the way
teachers use it in a classroom. According to Eng (2005), teachers implement ICT into education in three phases:
the first phase depends on its manager and deals with the creation of amassing infrastructure; in the second phase
technology is used by teachers in the same way they already perform teaching-learning processes, so there is not
much added value of technology; in the last phase teachers change their teaching process according to possibili-
ties of new technology and its innovative use.
Although it is obvious that ICT infrastructure is a prerequisite for its usage in teaching process; it is not a guar-
antor of frequency or efficiency of its usage in teaching process (Gil‑Flores, Rodríguez-Santero, & Torres-Gordillo,
2017; Persico et al., 2014).
To fulfil the research aim the following research questions were set:
1. Are chosen constructs valid for evaluation of teachers’ attitudes toward usage (USE) of educational
software in chemistry teaching?
2. Are there differences between users and nonusers of educational software?
3. Are there differences between different types within a group of nonusers?
Theoretical Construct Affecting Acceptance and Usage of Educational Software
Performance Expectancy
Performance Expectancy (PE) is a degree of persuasion that use of the system helps users to achieve im-
provement of job performance (Venkatesh et al., 2003). In this research, PE stands for the teacher’s belief that
the use of ES will contribute to their teaching performance (Šumak & Šorgo, 2016).
Effort Expectancy
Effort Expectancy (EE) is the degree of simplicity associated with the use of the system (Venkatesh et al., 2003).
In this research, EE stands for the teacher’s belief that the use of ES will be easy and understandable for them.
Social Influence
Social Influence (SI) is the degree of persuasion that important people for the users believe that he or she
should use this new system (Venkatesh et al., 2003). In this research, SI stands for the teacher’s important people
according to their personal point of view (family, friends) or according to their work (colleagues, pupils, parents
of pupils, management).
875
(P. 873-897) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Personal Innovativeness in IT
Personal Innovativeness in IT (PIIT) is the willingness of a person to try out any new information technol-
ogy (Agarwal & Prasad, 1998). In this case, it stands for teachers, who will try out and implement new ICT in
their lessons. This factor can be a strong predictor of BI to use an ES and the actual use of ICT applications in
chemistry lessons.
Facilitating Conditions
Facilitating Conditions (FC) is the degree of persuasion of the user that there is an organizational and
technical infrastructure to support the use of the system (Venkatesh et al., 2003). In this research, FC stands
for the teacher’s belief that their school has adequate facilities and conditions to use ES in chemistry teaching.
According to the UTAUT model (Venkatesh et al., 2003) it is supposed that FC is a predictor of the actual use of
ES in chemistry teaching.
Attitude towards Using
The Attitude towards Using (ATU) is an individual’s overall affective reaction to the use of a system, which
includes the feelings of favourableness or unfavourableness towards this behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). In this re-
search, ATU comprises feelings towards using ES in chemistry teaching. It is considered that ATU is a predictor of
behavioural intention to use and the actual use of ES in chemistry teaching. It can be influenced by motivation,
which includes reasons why teachers use ES in chemistry teaching.
Perceived Pedagogical Impact
Perceived Pedagogical Impact (PPI) represents teacher’s belief that the usage of ES in chemistry teaching
will have impact on education in this research. This belief can affect ATU and USE.
Behavioural Intention
Behavioural Intention (BI) indicates how hard people are willing to try to perform the behaviour (Ajzen,
1991). It is a person’s perceived likelihood or subjective probability of performance of behaviour. In this case, BI
indicates a teacher’s belief that they will use ES in chemistry teaching. BI is a strong predictor of the use accord-
ing the UTAUT model (Venkatesh et al., 2003).
In order to obtain answers to research questions about validity of constructs exploring factors affecting
use of educational software online, survey was administered to the Czech chemistry teachers from elementary
and secondary school in a timeframe four months from the end of November 2016 to the end of March 2017.
Sample of Research
In the Czech Republic there are approximately 2,250 primary schools with the second stage and 1,300
grammar schools and secondary technical schools together according to the Register of Schools of the Minis-
try of Education, Youth and Sports (MŠMT, © 2017). Population of chemistry teachers of the Czech Republic is
approximately between 6,000 to 6,500 people; assuming that there are on average 1.2 chemistry teachers per
school at primary schools and on average 2.5 chemistry teachers per school at secondary schools. The sample
size in the confidence level of 95% and error level of 5% is at least 363 persons for random sampling calculated
using SRSC (CustomInsight, © 2017) and according to the rule of thumb for this type of exploratory research
(Kline, 2011) sample, more than 200 participants is necessary. It was not possible to provide random sampling, so
the purposive sample (Teddlie, 2007) was used. The questionnaire was addressed to the teachers from all avail-
able schools with the focus on schools, where chemistry is taught as a general-education subject (i.e. primary
876
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 873-897)
schools and grammar schools). Data collecting was ended when 550 responses were passed, which represents
approximately about 8.5 % of the chemistry teacher population. Demographic characteristics of the sample are
presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the sample.
Item N Frequency %
Your gender 556
Male 92 16.8
Female 457 83.2
Your age 555
Less than 25 years 2 0.4
25 – 34 years 97 17.5
35 – 44 years 172 31.0
45 – 54 years 169 30.5
More than 54 years 115 20.7
What is your university educational background? 556
Education of chemistry for the lower secondary education 103 18.5
Education of chemistry for the upper secondary education 136 24.5
Education of chemistry for 5th to 12th year (lower and upper secondary education) 142 25.5
Professional chemistry with pedagogical minimum 92 16.5
Professional chemistry without pedagogical minimum 5 0.9
Chemistry focused on education 9 1.6
Other (please specify): 69 12.4
Your current status 556
Teacher (with teaching qualifications) 532 95.7
Teacher complementing teaching qualifications 15 2.7
What is the length of your teaching practice? 556
Less than 1 year 16 2.9
1– 5 years 62 11.2
6 – 25 years 329 59.2
More than 25 years 149 26.8
Your primary work place 555
The 2 stage of primary school

nd
365 65.8
Grammar school 131 23.6
Secondary technical school 55 9.9
State what your second (or. another) teaching qualified subject is. (Open Question)
877
(P. 873-897) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Item N Frequency %
State what subjects you are teaching at you primary work place. (Open Question)
Do you have opportunity make familiar with educational software?

556
(Multiple Answer Questions)
No 216 38.8
Yes, during university education 55 9.9
Yes, during additional education for teachers 139 25.0
Yes, during self-study or self-interest 217 39.0
Do you use educational software? 556
Yes 183 32.9
Have tried and abandoned 23 4.1
No and I do not plan it 138 24.8
No, but I plan to 212 38.1
Instrument and Procedures
Instrument development
The questionnaire was developed and administered through the open source application 1KA (https://
www.1ka.si/). The questionnaire was branched by respondents’ answers about their use of educational software:
for users it contained 97 items, for non-users 79 items and for former users 104 items. These items were divided
into three categories: 1) demographic statements about the teachers; 2) items used as measures for the theoretical
constructs (see Appendix A and Appendix B); 3) additional question depending on the usage of educational software.
Demographic statements (1) contain items about teachers’ gender, age, working status, length of teaching
experience, primary work place, qualified and taught subjects, earlier experience with educational software, use
of educational software in chemistry education, etc. (see Table 1). The theoretical constructs (2) were operational-
ized according to the items that were used for estimating technology acceptance (Agarwal & Prasad, 1998; Šumak
& Šorgo, 2016; Šumak et al., 2017; Venkatesh et al., 2003) and adapted to the context of educational software. The
items for constructs measuring were established as a 7-point Likert scale with choices between defined extreme
from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7). Seven-point scale was our choice in order to increase scale sen-
sitivity following recommendation of Finstad (2010) “that 7‑point Likert items provide a more accurate measure
of a participant’s true evaluation and are more appropriate for electronically-distributed and otherwise unsuper-
vised usability questionnaires” (p. 104). According to Šumak & Šorgo (2016), some of the items were worded with
negation (e.g. ATU1, FC3). The additional items (3) were also divided into three categories: a) for users’ questions
concerning the frequency of use, the inclusion of educational software in chemistry teaching; b) for non-users the
reasons why they do not use educational software, c) for former users combination of a) and b).
Validation of the instruments
In the first phase, the questionnaire was translated from originally English statements to Czech language. The
previous translation of the questionnaire adapting statements for measure acceptance and usage of interactive
whiteboards (Šumak & Šorgo, 2016) was followed. To improve the translation, three experts in the field of chemistry
education were asked to check the content of the questionnaire, its meaningfulness, clarity and relevance of its
items. After that, the questionnaire was sent to 20 Czech teachers, who were asked to fill in the questionnaire, add
comments and write down their perceptions and recommendations. Thanks to their feedback, the wording was
878
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 873-897)
refined. After that, data collection was started and reliability coefficient was checked after receiving of 100 complete
responses. The result of the statistical analysis proves satisfying reliability for measurement items as well (Cronbach’s
α was .94 for model items), so the sampling continued.
Sampling process
The sampling was started by selection of primary and secondary schools in each region of the Czech Republic,
which is divided in 13 regions and Prague. The list of schools was taken from the Register of Schools of the Ministry
of Education, Youth and Sports (MŠMT, 2016). Schools without chemistry subject were excluded from the sample,
e.g. primary schools only with the first stage, or special and vocational schools. In the selected schools where it was
possible to identify names, affiliations and e-mails from school websites, all teachers qualified to teach chemistry
were addressed directly. If it was not possible to obtain direct contacts, school directors or their deputies were
asked to forward the link with the questionnaire to chemistry teachers. Altogether, the questionnaire was sent
directly to 1,390 teachers of chemistry and to 1,116 directors or their deputies from 2,266 primary schools and
to 1,159 teachers and 135 directors or their deputies from 423 secondary schools (mainly grammar schools). To
sum up, 2,549 chemistry teachers directly and 1,294 schools indirectly were addressed; summative, an attempt
to contact teachers from 2,689 schools was made. Each person was sent a polite e-mail asking them to fill up the
questionnaire available online on the application 1KA. After 10 days from the first addressing, a reminder was sent
to them. After four months of the data collection, the process ended. 1,792 teachers entered the introduction of
online questionnaire, 1,348 of them started answering the questionnaire, and 564 completed responses and 459
partially completed responses were received. After analysing the completed questionnaires, 8 non-valid responses
were excluded, so the final data analysis was performed on 556 completed questionnaires.
Data Analysis
The data from 1Ka survey system were exported as an Excel file. After initial checking, the cleared data were
transferred to IBM SPSS 24 statistical package. A data analysis was followed by standard statistical procedures for
such a type of exploratory research (Field, 2009). Due to the non-normal distribution of some answers, nonpara-
metric statistics was chosen.
Differences between users and nonusers
Among different personal characteristics and traits (Table 1), the only actual use of educational software was
considered in the research. Other internal and external factors, such as gender, can influence decision to apply
software or not, however, from the point of a student, what matters is the application of a software, regardless its
obstacles or personal views of a teacher. While division of teachers into users (UT1) and nonusers (UT2, UT3, UT4) is
obvious, differences within group of nonusers can be hidden and difficult to determine. Nonusers can be divided
in at least three different subgroups, recognized on a basis of answers of respondents to the question: “Do you use
educational software?” These groups are: a) former users, i.e. UT2 (the answer “Have tried and abandoned”); b) non-
planning nonusers, i.e. UT3 (the answer “No and I do not plan it”); c) planning nonusers, i.e. UT4 (answer “No, but I
plan to”). The effect size r was calculated according to recommendations in Field (2009). Interpretation of effect
sizes is based on Cohen’s guidelines (Cohen, 1988), where r < .1 stands for non-significant (ns), .1 ≤ r < .3 stands for
small effect (S), .3 ≤ r < .5 stands for medium effect (M) and r ≥ .5 stands for large effect (L).
879
(P. 873-897) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Results of Research
Reliabilities of the Constructs
Table 2. Differences in scale reliabilities of constructs reported as Cronbach’s alpha.
Code Item All users UT1 UT2 UT3 UT4
PE Performance Expectancy
(PE1, PE2, PE3) .91 .92 .85 .86 .86
EE Effort Expectancy
(EE1, EE2, EE3(R)) .87 .84 .91 .85 .87
FC Facilitating Conditions
(FC1, FC2, FC3) .74 .69 .74 .68 .70
SI Social Influence
(SC1, SC2, SC3, SC4, SC5, SC6, SC7, SC8) .89 .88 .73 .86 .86
ATU Attitude towards Using a
(ATU1 (R), ATU2, ATU3, ATU4, ATU5 (R), ATU6 (R)) .82 .78 .75 .65 .73
BI Behavioural Intention
(BI1, BI2, BI3) .98 .95 .95 .95 .94
USE Use
(USE1, USE2, USE3) .89 .81 .64 .87 .79
PIIT Personal Innovativeness in IT
(PIIT1, PIIT2, PIIT3, PIIT4 (R)) .89 .88 .93 .84 .88
M Motivation
(M1, M2, M3, M4, M5) .88 .81 .87 .84 .84
PPI Perceived Pedagogical Impact
(PPI1, PPI2, PPI3, PPI4, PPI5, PPI6, PPI7, PPI8) .93 .89 .90 .94 .92
Note. a. ATU: with deletion of ATU5 (R), alphas raise to .88, .86, .79, .77 and .83 respectively.
From the Cronbach’s alphas presented in Table 2, can be concluded that all chosen constructs in the case of
all users pass the threshold level of .7, so they can be applied in follow up or similar researches of this type. In the
case of individual calculations for each user type, it was found, that in some cases alphas fall in a range between
.6 and .7, however, by some authors this is still an acceptable alpha level in exploratory researches (Field, 2009).
Cronbach’s alpha of all chosen constructs together is .96, showing that all constructs combined or separated can
be used in follow up researches. All constructs are unidimensional, based on PCA Analysis with Direct Oblimin
rotation (data not shown).
Frequency Distribution of the Answers Forming Constructs
From the frequency distribution of the answers (see Appendix C) and particularly from modes, it was possible
to recognize that chosen constructs have different power to facilitate extreme responses (strongly agree: modes 6
and 7 or strongly disagree: modes 1 and 2). However, in some other constructs results tend to accumulate around
neutral values (modes 3, 4, 5). The biggest match is in ATU1 when 72.7 % of current users (UT1) answered that
they strongly disagree (1) with the statement “Using educational software is a bad idea in chemistry teaching”. It is
unique because another big match has 61.2 % (BI2) and 60.1 % (BI3) in strongly agreement from current users (UT1)
followed by 55.8 % and 55.1% in same items (BI2 and BI3) but differently from in this case it is strongly disagree
(1) of non-planning nonusers (UT3). Other modes have lower than 50 % of responses. To sum up, responses of
current users (UT1) are mostly in modes 6 and 7 (PE1, EE2, all items from FC, SI5, SI6, ATU2–ATU4, all items from BI,
USE2, USE3, M1, M3, M4, PP1–PPI4), when mode of 1 and 2 appear at mostly former users (UT2) and non-planning
nonusers (UT3) in items as SI1–SI3 for both groups, all items from BI for UT3, PP1–PPI3 for UT2 and so on. Differ-
880
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 873-897)
ences between groups are exceeded in item ATU5 “Educational software should be the only supplement of chemistry
teaching,” where all user types have mode 6 (UT2, UT3, UT4) or 5 (UT1), which can be explained by a realistic and
rational view of teachers to the use of the EC in chemistry teaching.
Statistical Differences in Constructs among Users and Nonusers
Table 4. Differences in constructs between users and type of nonusers
Diff Diff Diff Diff Diff Diff

UT1 – UT2a UT1 – UT3a UT1 – UT4a UT2 – UT3a UT2 – UT4a UT3 – UT4a
Codes r Int r Int r Int r Int r Int r Int

PE1 .20 S .59 L .20 S .27 S .08 ns .50 M
PE2 .35 M .56 L .19 S .00 ns .25 S .43 M
PE3 .35 M .56 L .18 S .01 ns .25 S .43 M
EE1 .14 S .33 M .07 ns .08 ns .08 ns .26 S
EE2 .13 S .40 M .13 S .15 S .04 ns .28 S
EE3 (R) .07 ns .29 S .15 S .12 S .02 ns .14 S
FC1 .16 S .48 M .30 M .13 S .00 ns .21 S
FC2 .18 S .43 M .23 S .11 S .05 ns .23 S
FC3 .07 ns .34 M .13 S .30 M .14 S .20 S
SI1 .28 S .47 M .22 S .01 ns .16 S .30 S
SI2 .35 M .51 L .25 S .02 ns .22 S .33 M
SI3 .27 S .46 M .16 S .04 ns .17 S .31 M
SI4 .17 S .33 M .09 ns .03 ns .12 S .26 S
SI5 .18 S .37 M .16 S .05 ns .08 ns .21 S
SI6 .21 S .41 M .22 S .06 ns .10 ns .24 S
SI7 .28 S .47 M .17 S .02 ns .18 S .34 M
SI8 .22 S .32 M .00 ns .02 ns .20 S .30 M
ATU1 (R) .26 S .59 L .27 S .14 S .13 S .42 M
ATU2 .20 S .59 L .16 S .20 S .10 S .47 M
ATU3 .27 S .56 L .11 S .13 S .19 S .47 M
ATU4 .31 M .63 L .21 S .09 ns .19 S .48 M
ATU5 (R) .19 S .20 S .20 S .07 ns .06 ns .01 ns
ATU6 (R) .25 S .58 L .24 S .10 S .13 S .42 M
BI1 .44 M .81 L .60 L .27 S .16 S .55 L
BI2 .45 M .83 L .67 L .31 M .09 ns .54 L
BI3 .46 M .83 L .67 L .27 S .13 S .54 L
USE1 .48 M .61 L .27 S .22 S .41 M .45 M
USE2 .48 M .66 L .28 S .12 S .41 M .53 L
USE3 .40 M .57 L .12 S .14 S .35 M .49 M
PIIT1 .11 S .39 M .11 S .09 ns .06 ns .29 S
PIIT2 .13 S .37 M .16 S .08 ns .04 ns .21 S
PIIT3 .17 S .41 M .13 S .07 ns .09 ns .27 S
PIIT4 (R) .15 S .37 M .24 S .09 ns .01 ns .15 S
M1 .27 S .54 L .13 S .07 ns .21 S .46 M
M2 .16 S .42 M .14 S .09 ns .10 ns .33 M
881
(P. 873-897) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Diff Diff Diff Diff Diff Diff

UT1 – UT2a UT1 – UT3a UT1 – UT4a UT2 – UT3a UT2 – UT4a UT3 – UT4a
M3 .23 S .47 M .13 S .04 ns .16 S .40 M

M4 .19 S .57 L .14 S .15 S .14 S .50 L
M5 .12 S .47 M .01 ns .18 S .11 S .50 M
PPI1 .12 S .46 M .20 S .17 S .01 ns .29 S
PPI2 .15 S .45 M .13 S .16 S .08 ns .37 M
PPI3 .23 S .39 M .13 S .03 ns .16 S .28 S
PPI4 .26 S .29 S .02 ns .07 ns .24 S .28 S
PPI5 .21 S .47 M .15 S .15 S .11 S .35 M
PPI6 .29 S .47 M .16 S .01 ns .20 S .33 M
PPI7 .12 S .37 M .01 ns .08 ns .11 S .38 M
PPI8 .14 S .37 M .03 ns
.08 ns .13 S .36 M
Note: a. n1(UT1) = 183, n2(UT2) = 23, n3(UT3) = 138, n(UT4) = 212, N12 = 206, N13 = 321, N14 = 395, N23 = 161, N24 = 235, N34 = 350; r < .1 stands for
non-significant (ns), .1 ≤ r < .3 stands for small effect (S), .3 ≤ r < .5 stands for medium effect (M) and r > .5 stands for large effect (L)
Based on values of effect sizes presented in Table 4, can be concluded that nonusers are not a homogenous
group (for more detail see Appendix D). Generally, the greatest difference between types of nonusers is between
nonusers, who do not plan use of ES (UT3) and nonusers, who plan it (UT4). Differences in those types fall in some
cases even in a large rank, mostly in BI and statement that they have to feel they have to use ES. Cases with a medium
rank appear in constructs such as PE, SI, ATU, USE, M and PPI. Difference between other types of nonusers, i.e. UT2
and UT3 and UT2 and UT4 is mostly small or none. With the exception of a medium rank in USE in comparison of
UT2 and UT4, which is not a great surprise when UT2 abandoned usage of ES and UT4 and are planning to use it in
future. In comparison of different types of nonusers with users the greatest difference was found between users
and nonusers UT3, effect sizes fall in a large rank in constructs PE, ATU, BI, USE and M, in a medium rank in other
constructs only with the exception of statements EE3 (R) and PPI4.
Discussion
The aim of this research was to empirically validate chosen constructs for evaluation of teachers’ attitudes
toward usage of educational software (ES) in chemistry education in the Czech Republic and to search for differ-
ences between types of users. The research was attended by a representative from all predictive groups: current
users, former users, non-planning nonusers and planning nonusers. However, the group of former users has strongly
fewer representatives than other groups, which could cause deviations in the results.
Results of descriptive analyses demonstrate that current users believe ES improves their teaching performance.
Planning nonusers are also inclined to think that ES would help them improve their teaching, but not as strongly as
users. While current users and non-planning nonusers disagree more or choose neutral attitude with the exception
of the statement “I find educational software useful in chemistry education”, the former users agree with it more. This
exception indicates that they abandoned usage of ES for a different reason than its usefulness.
In the case of Effort Expectancy, all groups declare that they have not or would not have problem to work with
ES, but for obvious reasons current and former users are surer with that while nonusers are closer to the neutral
statement. Similarly, users and current users agree that they have sufficient equipment, knowledge and support,
while the answers of other nonusers are close to the normal distribution. In combination with their Personal Inno-
vativeness in IT, those results show, that each group has almost uniform representation from innovators to laggards
(Rogers, 2003), but non‑planning nonusers are slightly shifted towards the laggards.
Regarding the other people’s expectation of teachers’ usage of ES in any group feels pressure from their closer
people, colleges or students´ parents. Generally, users and planning nonusers have more support from school
management and school than former users and non‑planning nonusers. Interesting is the result concerning the
expectation of a student – current users and planning nonusers believe that their students expect from them the
882
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 873-897)
use of ES. In the case of planning nonusers, it can mean that one of their motives to use ES in future follows the
conviction of student expectation. Results also show that non-planning nonusers have not intrinsic motivation to
use ES; similar approach can be observed in the case of former users, while planning nonusers and users are more
motivated. Based on this result is expected that intrinsic motivation will be an important factor to the acceptance
of ES. This is confirmed by the results (Hrtoňová, Kohout, Rohlíková, & Zounek, 2015) when the intrinsic motivation
is considered as the decisive factor for the acceptance of e‑learning course by teachers.
Other interesting results are dealing with teachers’ attitude towards ES; all groups have positive or neutral at-
titude with some differences: current users have strongest belief in the added value of ES usage in chemistry teach-
ing, they most enjoy and like ES usage; planning nonusers have similar attitudes. Former users and non-planning
nonusers are on a scale closer to the neutral part, but what is important is that they have not strongly negative
attitudes toward ES. This fact implicates that teachers do not condemn the usage of ES because of the negative
attitude, but from other reasons. More positive attitude than was expected can be caused by their awareness with
possible advantages of the usage of ES in education. When comparing their beliefs in pedagogical impact of ES
was found out that current users, former users and planning nonusers are rather convinced about pedagogical
impact of ES on education than non-planning nonusers, whose distribution of answers is similar to kurtosis normal
distribution, i.e. they have most answers in the neutral point of the scale.
The greatest differences between groups are in Behavioural Intention to use (BI) and use as such (USE) of
ES, where each group has a different distribution of answers mostly in agreement with their classification in the
group. However, taking into consideration that they were grouped on the basis of their statement, in a few cases
deviations in these items of Behavioural Intention from their own identification can be found. This fact needs to
be considered in further statistical processing, for example when building a behavioural model for each group of
users or nonusers.
Analyses of the effect size show that the above described differences are between users and all non-users
generally. Similar results can be observed in (Šumak & Šorgo, 2016) where the difference between pre-adopters and
post-adopters in relation to acceptance and use of interactive whiteboards by teachers was proven. Results of this
research also demonstrate differences between various types of nonusers. The first finer dividing of type of users
was applied in (Šumak et. al., 2017) who deal with prospective, existing, and former users and establish different
structural models for each user type. This research goes even further in the division of users into groups. Results
confirm that between subgroups of nonusers are differences, so factors and their influence on the acceptance and
the use of ES in chemistry teaching should be explored for each group separately. Based on the findings of the
research, the following suggestion is to establish four structural models describing teachers’ intention to use ES
through the factors affecting their intention to use ES and ES using itself, one model for each type of the user. The
development of four different models will make it possible to precisely target the factors, which affect teachers’
acceptance and use of ES in chemistry education. Based on those models, ways to encourage teachers in usage of
this technology in education could be determined.
This research has some limitations that should be taken into consideration. Although thanks to the distribu-
tion to all primary and grammar schools, all teachers have the opportunity to participate in the research; it cannot
be guaranteed if the addressed directors or their deputies delivered the information about this research to the
teachers. Similarly, in the case of direct addressing of the teacher, the participation of the research was based on
their voluntary decision. This research was attended mostly by expert teachers with an appropriate qualification
for this profession, so they should have the greatest insight into their field and the results can be extended to other
experts. The next limitation is related to the fact that questionnaire was addressed only to Czech teachers. It was
because of different teachers’ experience and condition of education, related to cultural and geographic differences.
The research can be repeated also in other countries in the European Union to expand the scope of this research.
Conclusions
This research was focused on detection of differences between users and subgroups of non-users of educational
software. From the results it can be revealed, that the individual constructs of our study do have the appropriate
statistical properties, so they can be applied in search for answers about suitability of educational software for
chemistry education, and potential pitfalls when trying to introduce it in regular practice. Results confirm that
between subgroups of nonusers exist differences in constructs (namely Facilitating Conditions, Attitude towards
Using, Behavioral Intention, Use, Motivation and Perceived Pedagogical Impact), which was expected. The unex-
883
(P. 873-897) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
pected finding was that differences among different types of nonusers can be even larger than between users and
nonusers. An especially outstanding group are those who do not use educational software and do not plan to use
it in the future. In comparison with each other there can be observed several similarities in some cases: current
users and planning nonusers both believe in the beneficial effect of usage of educational software in general, and
former users are more like non‑planning nonusers, but the results of former users are influenced by their previous
experience working with educational software which non‑planning nonusers do not have.
The results demonstrate the necessity of developing separate models addressing different levels of software
usage among teachers. So, consequent factors and their influence on the acceptance and the use of educational
software in chemistry education should be explored for each group separately if someone has intentions to suc-
cessfully expand the use of educational software to sceptics.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to teachers who kindly agreed to participate in the research. The authors further
thank for the financial support. The authors acknowledge the financial support from the Specific research project
n. 2102/2016 of Faculty of Science, University of Hradec Kralove and the Slovenian Research Agency (research core
funding No. P2 – 0057, Information systems).
References
Abdullah, F., & Ward, R. (2016). Developing a general extended technology acceptance model for e‑learning (GETAMEL) by
analysing commonly used external factors. Computers in Human Behaviour, 56, 238-256.
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information
technology. Information Systems Research, 9 (2), 204-215.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50 (2), 179-211.
Arenas-Gaitán, J., Ramírez-Correa, P. E., & Rondán-Cataluña, F. J. (2011). Cross - cultural analysis of the use and perceptions of
web based learning systems. Computers & Education, 57 (2), 1762-1774.
Balamuralithara, B., & Woods, P. C. (2009). Virtual laboratories in engineering education: The simulation lab and remote lab. Com-
puter Applications in Engineering Education, 17 (1), 108-118.
Bandura A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bingimlas, K. A. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: A review of the
literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5 (3), 235-245.
Byrne, C., & Furness, T. A. (1994, January). Virtual reality and education. In Wright, June L., & Benzie, David (Eds.). Exploring a new
partnership: children, teachers, and technology: proceedings of the IFIP WG3.5 International Working Conference on Exploring
a New Partnership, Children, Teachers, and Technology, Philadelphia, PA, U.S.A., 26 June-1 July 1994 (pp. 181-189). New York:
Elsevier.
Chroustová, K., Bílek, M., & Šorgo, A. (2015). Development of the research tool to identify factors affecting the use of chemistry
educational software. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 68 (6), 6-21.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (Second edition). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-
ates. Retrieved from https://books.google.cz/books.
Comenius, J. A. (1907). The Great Didactic of John Amos Comenius (Keatinge, M. V., Ed.). London: Adam and Charles Black.
CustomInsight (© 2017). Survey random sample calculator. 360 degree feedback, employee engagement surveys, employee satisfac-
tion – CustomInsight. Retrieved from http://www.custominsight.com/articles/random-sample-calculator.asp.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical
models. Management Science, 35 (8), 982-1003.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 22 (14), 1111-1132.
Eng, T. S. (2005). The impact of ICT on learning: A review of research. International Education Journal, 6 (5), 635-650.
Finstad, K. (2010). Response interpolation and scale sensitivity: Evidence against 5-point scales. Journal of Usability Studies, 5
(3), 104-110.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley Retrieved from http://people.umass.edu/aizen/f&a1975.html.
Funkhouser, C., & Richard Dennis, J. (1992). The effects of problem-solving software on problem-solving ability. Journal of Research
on Computing in Education, 24 (3), 338-347.
Gil-Flores, J., Rodríguez-Santero, J., & Torres-Gordillo, J. J. (2017). Factors that explain the use of ICT in secondary-education
classrooms: The role of teacher characteristics and school infrastructure. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 441-449.
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19 (2), 213-236.
Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K., & Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subject teaching: commitment,
constraints, caution, and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37 (2), 155‑192.
884
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 873-897)
Hrtoňová, N., Kohout, J., Rohlíková, L., & Zounek, J. (2015). Factors influencing acceptance of e-learning by teachers in the Czech
Republic. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 873-879.
Huang, W. D., Johnson, T. E., & Han, S. H. C. (2013). Impact of online instructional game features on college students’ perceived
motivational support and cognitive investment: A structural equation modeling study. The Internet and Higher Educa-
tion, 17 (1), 58-68.
Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (Eds.). (2008). Educational technology: A definition with commentary. New York: Routledge.
Kara, Y., & Yeşilyurt, S. (2008). Comparing the impacts of tutorial and edutainment software programs on students’ achievements,
misconceptions, and attitudes towards biology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17 (1), 32-41.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Convergence of structural equation modelling and multilevel modelling. In M. Williams & W. P. Vogt (Eds.),
Handbook of methodological innovation in social research methods (pp. 562‑589). London: Sage.
Kostakis, V., Niaros, V., & Giotitsas, C. (2015). Open source 3D printing as a means of learning: An educational experiment in two
high schools in Greece. Telematics and Informatics, 32 (1), 118‑128.
Kubiatko, M., Balatova, K., Fancovicova, J., & Prokop, P. (2017). Pupils’ Attitudes toward Chemistry in Two Types of Czech Schools.
EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13 (6), 2539-2552.
Kuiper, E., & de Pater-Sneep, M. (2014). Student perceptions of drill-and-practice mathematics software in primary educa-
tion. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26 (2), 215-236.
Kulik, C. L. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Be-
havior, 7 (1), 75-94.
Lambic, D. (2014). Factors influencing future teachers’ adoption of educational software use in classroom. Croatian Journal of
Education, 16 (3), 815-846.
Lee, M. C. (2010). Explaining and predicting users’ continuance intention toward e-learning: An extension of the expectation–
confirmation model. Computers & Education, 54 (2), 506-516.
Levin, H. M., Glass, G. V., & Meister, G. R. (1987). Cost-effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction. Evaluation Review, 11 (1), 50-72.
Mahdizadeh, H., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2008). Determining factors of the use of e-learning environments by university teach-
ers. Computers & Education, 51 (1), 142-154.
Martin, F., & Ertzberger, J. (2013). Here and now mobile learning: An experimental study on the use of mobile technology. Com-
puters & Education, 68, 76-85.
Merchant, Z., Goetz, E. T., Cifuentes, L., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., & Davis, T. J. (2014). Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction
on students’ learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 70, 29-40.
Milner-Bolotin, M. (2012). Increasing interactivity and authenticity of chemistry instruction through data acquisition systems
and other technologies. Journal of Chemical Education, 89 (4), 477-481.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers
College Record, 108 (6), 1017.
Moreno-Ger, P., Burgos, D., Martínez-Ortiz, I., Sierra, J. L., & Fernández-Manjón, B. (2008). Educational game design for online
education. Computers in Human Behaviour, 24 (6), 2530-2540.
Motiwalla, L. F. (2007). Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation. Computers & Education, 49 (3), 581-596.
MŠMT (© 2017). Statistická ročenka školství [Statistical Yearbook of Education]. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports. Retrieved
from http://toiler.uiv.cz/rocenka/rocenka.asp.
Niederhauser, D. S., & Stoddart, T. (2001). Teachers’ instructional perspectives and use of educational software. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 17(1), 15-31.
Oliver, R. (2002). The role of ICT in higher education for the 21st century: ICT as a change agent for education. In Proceedings of
the Higher Education for the 21st Century Conference, Curtin. Miri, Australia: Curtin University.
Pelgrum, W. J. (2001). Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: Results from a worldwide educational assessment. Com-
puters & Education, 37 (2), 163-178.
Persico, D., Manca, S., & Pozzi, F. (2014). Adapting the technology acceptance model to evaluate the innovative potential of e-
learning systems. Computers in Human Behaviour, 30, 614-622.
Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R., & Ives, B. (2001). Web-based virtual learning environments: A research framework and a preliminary as-
sessment of effectiveness in basic IT skills training. MIS Quarterly, 25 (4), 401-426.
Prestridge, S. (2012). The beliefs behind the teacher that influences their ICT practices. Computers & Education, 58 (1), 449-458.
Rau, P. L. P., Gao, Q., & Wu, L. M. (2008). Using mobile communication technology in high school education: Motivation, pressure,
and learning performance. Computers & Education, 50 (1), 1-22.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. Fifth Edition. New York: The Free Press.
Rutten, N., Van Joolingen, W. R., & Van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science educa-
tion. Computers & Education, 58 (1), 136-153.
Skinner, B. F. (2013). The technology of teaching. In Vargas, Julie S. (Ed.) The technology of teaching. BF Skinner Foundation. Reprint
Series. Retrieved from https://books.google.cz/books (Original work published 1968).
Slabin, U. (2013). Teaching general chemistry with instructor’s screen sharing: Students’ opinions about the idea and its imple-
mentation. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12 (6), 759-773.
Slay, H., Siebörger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just “lipstick”? Computers &
Education, 51 (3), 1321-1341.
Smith, H. J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the litera-
ture. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21 (2), 91-101.
885
(P. 873-897) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Šumak, B., & Šorgo, A. (2016). The acceptance and use of interactive whiteboards among teachers: Differences in UTAUT deter-
minants between pre-and post-adopters. Computers in Human Behaviour, 64, 602-620.
Šumak, B., Heričko, M., & Pušnik, M. (2011). A meta-analysis of e-learning technology acceptance: The role of user types and e-
learning technology types. Computers in Human Behaviour, 27 (6), 2067-2077.
Šumak, B., Pušnik, M., Heričko, M., & Šorgo, A. (2017). Differences between prospective, existing, and former users of interactive
whiteboards on external factors affecting their adoption, usage and abandonment. Computers in Human Behaviour, 72,
733-756.
Taylor, R. (Ed.). (1980). The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee (pp. 1-10). New York: Teachers College Press.
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (1), 77-100.
Teo, T. (2011). Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: Model development and test. Computers & Education, 57
(4), 2432-2440.
Türel, Y. K., & Johnson, T. E. (2012). Teachers’ belief and use of interactive whiteboards for teaching and learning. Educational
Technology & Society, 15 (1), 381-394.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view.
MIS Quarterly, 27 (3), 425-478.
Viau, R., & Larivée, J. (1993). Learning tools with hypertext: An experiment. Computers & Education, 20 (1), 11-16.
Wang, Q. (2008). A generic model for guiding the integration of ICT into teaching and learning. Innovations in Education and
Teaching International, 45 (4), 411-419.
Wood, D., Underwood, J., & Avis, P. (1999). Integrated learning systems in the classroom. Computers & Education, 33 (2), 91-108.
Wu, H. K., Lee, S. W. Y., Chang, H. Y., & Liang, J. C. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in
education. Computers & Education, 62, 41-49.
Yucel, A. S., & Cevik, E. (2010). Teachers’ Opinions on Computer-assisted Chemistry Teaching. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 9
(31), 88-102.
Yuen, A. H., & Ma, W. W. (2008). Exploring teacher acceptance of e-learning technology. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Educa-
tion, 36 (3), 229-243.
Záhorec, J., Hašková, A., & Bílek, M. (2014). Impact of Multimedia Assisted Teaching on Student Attitudes to Science Subjects. Jour-
nal of Baltic Science Education, 13 (3), 361-380.
Appendix A. Measurement items and scales for current users (UT1) and former users (UT2)
Item Statement
PE1 I find educational software useful in chemistry teaching.
PE2 Using educational software enables me to accomplish tasks related to chemistry teaching more quickly.
PE3 Using educational software increases the effect of my teaching.
EE1 It is easy for me to become skilful at using educational software.
EE2 I find educational software easy to use.
EE3a Learning to operate educational software is difficult for me.
FC1 I have the resources necessary to use educational software.
FC2 I have the knowledge necessary to use educational software.
FC3 A specific person (or group) is available for assistance with educational software difficulties.
SI Social Influence
SI1 People who influence my behaviour think that I should use educational software in chemistry teaching.
SI2 People who are important to me think that I should use educational software in chemistry teaching.
SI3 Other teachers of chemistry think that I should use educational software in chemistry teaching.
SI4 General public think that I should use educational software in chemistry teaching.
SI5 The senior management of the school has been helpful in the use of educational software in chemistry teaching.
SI6 In general, the school climate is supportive towards the use of educational software.
SI7 Students expect me to use educational software in chemistry teaching.
SI8 Students’ parents expect me to use educational software in chemistry teaching.
ATU Attitude towards Using
ATU1a Using educational software is a bad idea in chemistry teaching.
ATU2 Educational software makes chemistry teaching more interesting.
ATU3 Chemistry teaching with educational software is fun.
ATU4 I like chemistry teaching using educational software.
886
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 873-897)
Item Statement
ATU5 a
Educational software should by only supplement of chemistry teaching.
ATU6a Using educational software has no added value.
BI1 I intend to use educational software in chemistry teaching in the next 12 months.
BI2 I predict that I will use educational software in chemistry teaching in the next 12 months.
BI3 I plan to use educational software in chemistry teaching in the next 12 months.
USE Use
USE1 I use educational software frequently.
USE2 I use educational software in chemistry teaching.
USE3 If available, I use educational software in chemistry teaching.
PIIT1 If I heard about a new information technology, I would look for ways to experiment with it.
PIIT2 Among my peers, I am usually the first to try out new information technology.
PIIT3 I like to experiment with new information technology.
PIIT4a In general, I am hesitant to try out new information technology
M Motivation
I use educational software in chemistry teaching because…
M1 I believe that this is an interesting activity.
M2 of personal reasons.
M3 I feel good when I do it.
M4 I believe that this activity is important for me.
M5 I feel that I must do it.
Educational software use in teaching has an impact on …
PPI1 the education process.
PPI2 students’ curiosity.
PPI3 students’ concentration.
PPI4 students’ creativity.
PPI5 students’ motivation.
PPI6 students’ achievement.
PPI7 students’ higher order thinking skills (critical thinking, analysis, problem solving).
PPI8 student’s competence in transversal skills (learning to learn, social competences, etc.).
Note. a. Statement were worded with negation.
Appendix B. Measurement items and scales for non-planning nonusers (UT3) and planning nonusers (UT4)
Item Statement
PE1 I find educational software useful in chemistry teaching.
PE2 Using educational software would enable me to accomplish tasks related to chemistry teaching more quickly.
PE3 Using educational software would increase the effect of my teaching.
EE1 It would be easy for me to become skilful at using educational software.
EE2 I find educational software easy to use.
EE3a Learning to operate educational software would be difficult for me.
FC1 I would have the resources necessary to use educational software.
FC2 I would have the knowledge necessary to use educational software.
FC3 A specific person (or group) would be available for assistance with educational software difficulties.
SI Social Influence
SI1 People who influence my behaviour think that I should use educational software in chemistry teaching.
SI2 People who are important to me think that I should use educational software in chemistry teaching.
887
(P. 873-897) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Item Statement
SI3 Other teachers of chemistry think that I should use educational software in chemistry teaching.
SI4 General public think that I should use educational software in chemistry teaching.
SI5 The senior management of the school would be helpful in the use of educational software in chemistry
teaching.
SI6 In general, the school climate would be supportive towards the use of educational software.
SI7 Students would expect me to use educational software in chemistry teaching.
SI8 Students’ parents would expect me to use educational software in chemistry teaching.

ATU1a Using educational software would be a bad idea in chemistry teaching.
ATU2 Educational software would make chemistry teaching more interesting.
ATU3 Chemistry teaching with educational software would be fun.
ATU4 I would like chemistry teaching using educational software.
ATU5a Educational software should by only supplement of chemistry teaching.
ATU6a Using educational software would have no added value.
BI1 I intend to use educational software in chemistry teaching in the next 12 months.
BI2 I predict that I will use educational software in chemistry teaching in the next 12 months.
BI3 I plan to use educational software in chemistry teaching in the next 12 months.
USE Use
USE1 I would use educational software frequently.
USE2 I would use educational software in chemistry teaching.
USE3 If available, I would use educational software in chemistry teaching.
PIIT1 If I heard about a new information technology, I would look for ways to experiment with it.
PIIT2 Among my peers, I am usually the first to try out new information technology.
PIIT3 I like to experiment with new information technology.
PIIT4a In general, I am hesitant to try out new information technology
M Motivation
I would use educational software in chemistry teaching because…
M1 I believe that this is an interesting activity.
M2 of personal reasons.
M3 I would feel good when I do it.
M4 I believe that this activity is important for me.
M5 I feel that I must do it.
Educational software use in teaching would have an impact on …
PPI1 the education process.
PPI2 students’ curiosity.
PPI3 students’ concentration.
PPI4 students’ creativity.
PPI5 students’ motivation.
PPI6 students’ achievement.
PPI7 students’ higher order thinking skills (critical thinking, analysis, problem solving).
PPI8 student’s competence in transversal skills (learning to learn, social competences, etc.).
Note. a. Statement were worded with negation.
888
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 873-897)
Appendix C. Differences in descriptive statistics for indicators of theoretical constructs as predictors of actual use
of educational software among Czech chemistry teachers on a Scale between F1 – strongly disagree,
and F7 – strongly agree. (N(UT1) = 183; N(UT2) = 23; N(UT3) = 138; N(UT4) = 212)
User
Code F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 M SD Med Mode
type
PE1 UT1 1.6 0.5 3.3 12 22.4 24.6 35.5 5.69 1.32 6 7
UT2 0 4.3 13 13 39.1 21.7 8.7 4.87 1.29 5 5
UT3 4.3 13.8 14.5 44.2 14.5 5.1 3.6 3.80 1.32 4 4
UT4 0.9 0.5 3.8 22.2 26.9 32.1 13.7 5.25 1.18 5 6
PE2 UT1 1.6 3.3 6 18 30.6 22.4 18 5.12 1.39 5 5
UT2 4.3 39.1 8.7 26.1 17.4 4.3 0 3.42 1.39 3 2
UT3 11.6 22.5 12.3 38.4 12.3 2.2 0.7 3.27 1.35 4 4
UT4 1.4 7.1 7.5 31.1 25.9 19.8 7.1 4.61 1.35 5 4
PE3 UT1 1.6 2.7 5.5 15.8 27.9 27.3 19.1 5.12 1.37 5 5
UT2 8.7 17.4 17.4 34.8 17.4 4.3 0 3.76 1.34 4 4
UT3 8.7 19.6 14.5 39.1 13 4.3 0.7 3.44 1.34 4 4
UT4 0.5 5.2 9.4 26.4 26.9 23.6 8 4.77 1.30 5 5
EE1 UT1 1.1 1.1 3.3 10.9 30.1 28.4 25.1 5.12 1.24 6 5
UT2 8.7 0 4.3 30.4 17.4 21.7 17.4 4.83 1.70 5 4
UT3 7.2 8 10.1 26.8 14.5 23.9 9.4 4.43 1.69 4 4
UT4 0 2.4 6.6 21.7 16.5 29.7 23.1 4.40 1.35 6 6
EE2 UT1 0.5 2.2 2.7 13.7 25.1 36.1 19.7 5.48 1.21 6 6
UT2 4.3 4.3 4.3 26.1 26.1 17.4 17.4 4.87 1.58 5 4a
UT3 6.5 6.5 12.3 39.9 12.3 11.6 10.9 2.89 1.58 4 4
UT4 0.5 5.2 4.2 25.9 15.6 34.4 14.2 5.11 1.37 5 6
EE3 UT1 42.6 35.5 9.8 6 3.3 1.6 1.1 2.01 1.27 2 1
UT2 34.8 34.8 0 26.1 0 0 4.3 2.39 1.56 2 1a
UT3 21.7 29 12.3 23.9 4.3 5.8 2.9 2.89 1.6 2 2
UT4 31.1 34 10.4 14.6 3.8 5.7 0.5 2.45 1.47 2 2
FC1 UT1 0 2.7 5.5 13.1 19.7 30.1 29 4.62 1.32 6 6
UT2 4.3 8.7 17.4 30.4 4.3 4.3 30.4 4.57 1.93 4 4a
UT3 12.3 14.5 13.8 30.4 8.7 12.3 8 3.78 1.76 4 4
UT4 3.3 9.9 11.3 25.9 16.5 18.4 14.6 4.56 1.65 4 4
FC2 UT1 0 2.2 4.9 12 19.7 33.9 27.3 4.65 1.26 6 6
UT2 0 4.3 21.7 30.4 8.7 13 21.7 4.70 1.61 4 4
UT3 5.8 13.8 14.5 31.2 10.9 13 10.9 4.10 1.68 4 4
UT4 2.4 6.1 9 22.6 20.8 21.2 17.9 4.89 1.56 5 4
FC3 UT1 3.3 7.1 8.7 12 13.1 26.2 29.5 5.21 1.75 6 7
UT2 0 0 8.7 26.1 4.3 17.4 43.5 5.61 1.50 6 7
UT3 10.1 13 12.3 29.7 13 13 8.7 3.96 1.74 4 4
UT4 3.8 14.2 8 18.9 13.2 19.3 22.6 4.72 1.85 5 7
SI Social Influence
SI1 UT1 6 9.8 8.7 34.4 14.2 17.5 9.3 4.31 1.62 4 4
UT2 34.8 17.4 8.7 30.4 0 8.7 0 2.70 1.64 2 1
UT3 34.1 19.6 8.7 32.6 2.2 1.4 1.4 2.59 1.48 2 1
UT4 14.2 10.8 10.4 45.8 9.9 7.1 1.9 3.55 1.47 4 4
SI2 UT1 4.9 7.7 11.5 32.2 15.8 20.2 7.7 4.38 1.55 4 4
UT2 39.1 17.4 17.4 17.4 8.7 0 0 2.39 1.41 2 1
UT3 37.7 17.4 9.4 30.4 3.6 0.7 0.7 2.50 1.44 2 1
UT4 12.7 9.9 13.7 45.3 9.9 6.1 2.4 3.58 1.44 4 4
SI3 UT1 7.7 10.4 14.8 37.2 13.7 11.5 4.9 3.93 1.52 4 4
889
(P. 873-897) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
User
type
UT2 30.4 21.7 21.7 17.4 8.7 0 0 2.52 1.34 2 1

UT3 37.7 20.3 10.9 29.7 0.7 0 0.7 2.38 1.34 2 1
UT4 17.9 11.3 9.9 45.8 9.4 4.7 0.9 3.35 1.46 4 4
SI4 UT1 8.7 8.7 13.7 37.2 12.6 15.3 3.8 3.97 1.54 4 4
UT2 30.4 17.4 4.3 30.4 8.7 4.3 4.3 3.00 1.81 3 1a
UT3 29 15.2 10.9 37.7 3.6 2.2 1.4 2.84 1.50 3 4
UT4 11.3 10.8 11.3 45.3 10.8 7.1 3.3 3.68 1.47 4 4
SI5 UT1 0.5 2.2 3.8 14.8 20.2 33.9 24.6 5.52 1.28 6 6
UT2 8.7 4.3 8.7 30.4 17.4 13 17.4 4.52 1.78 4 4
UT3 8.7 10.1 7.2 30.4 16.7 16.7 10.1 4.27 1.72 4 4
UT4 2.4 6.1 7.1 22.6 12.7 33.5 15.6 5.00 1.55 5 6
SI6 UT1 0.5 2.2 3.3 18 14.8 34.4 26.8 5.55 1.31 6 6
UT2 4.3 13 4.3 30.4 21.7 13 13 4.43 1.67 4 4
UT3 8 5.1 13 36.2 15.2 14.5 8 4.21 1.57 4 4
UT4 1.4 3.8 9 20.8 25 28.3 11.8 4.96 1.38 5 6
SI7 UT1 1.6 2.2 6.6 25.7 24.6 23.5 15.8 5.03 1.36 5 4
UT2 8.7 17.4 17.4 34.8 4.3 17.4 0 3.61 1.53 4 4
UT3 18.1 10.1 10.1 46.4 5.1 6.5 3.6 3.44 1.58 4 4
UT4 2.8 4.7 8.5 37.3 19.3 20.8 6.6 4.54 1.36 4 4
SI8 UT1 3.8 4.9 11.5 47 15.8 12.6 4.4 4.21 1.29 4 4
UT2 13 26.1 8.7 43.5 0 8.7 0 3.17 1.44 4 4
UT3 18.1 12.3 12.3 47.8 5.8 2.9 0.7 3.22 1.38 4 4
UT4 3.8 9 9.9 42.5 17 14.2 3.8 4.17 1.36 4 4
ATU1 UT1 72.7 18 1.1 2.2 4.4 1.1 0.5 1.53 1.15 1 1
UT2 30.4 17.4 13 30.4 4.3 0 4.3 2.78 1.62 3 4a
UT3 12.3 18.1 15.9 37 9.4 4.3 2.9 3.38 1.47 4 4
UT4 42.5 28.3 12.7 13.2 0.5 2.8 0 2.09 1.26 2 1
ATU2 UT1 0 0.5 1.1 8.2 15.3 33.3 41.5 5.05 1.04 6 7
UT2 0 8.7 4.3 17.4 26.1 21.7 21.7 5.13 1.52 5 5
UT3 4.3 5.1 12.3 32.6 29.7 11.6 4.3 4.30 1.34 4 4
UT4 0.5 1.4 0.9 13.2 25.5 29.7 28.8 5.66 1.18 6 6
ATU3 UT1 0 1.6 2.7 9.3 27.9 32.8 25.7 4.68 1.14 6 6
UT2 0 8.7 4.3 34.8 34.8 8.7 8.7 4.57 1.27 5 4a
UT3 7.2 3.6 11.6 42 26.1 8 1.4 4.06 1.28 4 4
UT4 0 1.9 3.3 15.6 32.1 26.9 20.3 5.40 1.18 5 5
ATU4 UT1 0 0.5 3.3 9.8 18.6 35.5 32.2 5.82 1.12 6 6
UT2 4.3 8.7 21.7 17.4 21.7 21.7 4.3 4.26 1.57 4 3a
UT3 7.2 8.7 11.6 47.1 16.7 7.2 1.4 3.85 1.30 4 4
UT4 0.5 0.9 5.2 20.8 25.9 26.9 19.8 5.31 1.25 5 6
ATU5 UT1 8.2 7.1 8.2 18 12.6 26.2 19.7 4.77 1.86 5 6
UT2 0 0 8.7 4.3 21.7 21.7 43.5 5.87 1.29 6 7
UT3 1.4 2.2 4.3 19.6 13.8 22.5 36.2 5.54 1.48 6 7
UT4 1.4 2.8 3.8 17.5 16.5 23.6 34.4 5.53 1.47 6 7
ATU6 UT1 57.4 30.1 4.4 6.6 0.5 1.1 0 1.66 1 1 1
UT2 26.1 21.7 13 17.4 13 4.3 4.3 3.00 1.78 3 1
UT3 10.1 17.4 16.7 41.3 7.2 5.1 2.2 3.42 1.39 4 4
UT4 33.5 35.8 12.3 16.5 0 1.4 0.5 3.17 1.2 2 2
BI1 UT1 1.1 1.1 1.1 6.6 6.6 26.2 57.4 6.25 1.18 7 7
UT2 13 21.7 13 43.5 0 0 8.7 3.30 1.61 4 4
UT3 48.6 19.6 10.1 18.8 2.2 0 0.7 2.09 1.31 2 1
890
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 873-897)
User
type
UT4 8.5 9 11.3 33 14.2 16 8 4.16 1.65 4 4

BI2 UT1 0.5 0.5 0.5 6.6 5.5 25.1 61.2 6.36 1.04 7 7
UT2 13 17.4 21.7 30.4 0 13 4.3 3.32 1.67 3 4
UT3 55.8 17.4 7.2 15.9 2.9 0.7 0 1.95 1.29 1 1
UT4 8.5 11.8 16.5 31.6 11.8 13.2 6.6 3.92 1.63 4 4
BI3 UT1 0.5 0.5 0.5 6 6.6 25.7 60.1 6.36 1.03 7 7
UT2 17.4 21.7 13 34.8 0 8.7 4.3 3.22 1.68 3 4
UT3 55.1 16.7 9.4 16.7 2.2 0 0 1.94 1.23 1 1
UT4 8 13.2 16 30.7 13.2 11.8 7.1 3.92 1.63 4 4
USE Use
USE1 UT1 0.5 6 9.3 24 23 13.7 23.5 4.98 1.53 5 4
UT2 47.8 30.4 8.7 13 0 0 0 1.87 1.06 2 1
UT3 24.6 21 16.7 33.3 2.9 1.4 0 2.73 1.31 3 4
UT4 1.9 7.5 17 39.2 18.9 11.3 4.2 4.17 1.28 4 4
USE2 UT1 0 1.1 3.3 14.8 16.4 21.9 42.6 5.83 1.28 6 7
UT2 26.1 13 30.4 21.7 8.7 0 0 2.74 1.32 3 3
UT3 17.4 15.2 16.7 32.6 10.1 5.8 2.2 3.29 1.54 4 4
UT4 0 0.5 8 26.9 23.6 26.4 14.6 4.13 1.22 5 4
USE3 UT1 0 0.5 1.6 14.8 19.1 27.3 36.6 5.81 1.16 6 7
UT2 8.7 26.1 21.7 26.1 4.3 4.3 8.7 3.39 1.67 3 2a
UT3 8 12.3 14.5 29.7 21.7 10.9 2.9 3.89 1.51 4 4
UT4 0 0.5 5.2 17.5 19.3 33 24.5 4.54 1.21 6 6
PIIT1 UT1 0.5 4.9 11.5 19.1 27.9 20.8 15.3 4.92 1.42 5 5
UT2 4.3 30.4 8.7 13 8.7 13 21.7 4.17 2.10 4 2
UT3 13 16.7 13 31.2 14.5 6.5 5.1 3.57 1.63 4 4
UT4 2.8 10.8 9.4 23.6 22.2 19.8 11.3 4.56 1.59 5 4
PIIT2 UT1 6 10.9 11.5 27.9 19.1 14.8 9.8 4.27 1.64 4 4
UT2 21.7 21.7 13 8.7 8.7 17.4 8.7 3.48 2.11 3 1a
UT3 25.4 23.2 13 22.5 5.8 7.2 2.9 2.93 1.68 3 1
UT4 12.7 17.9 14.6 22.2 12.7 13.7 6.1 3.70 1.78 4 4
PIIT3 UT1 4.4 8.2 10.9 21.9 21.3 19.1 14.2 4.62 1.65 5 4
UT2 13 26.1 21.7 4.3 8.7 17.4 8.7 3.57 2.00 3 2
UT3 23.2 18.8 12.3 27.5 8.7 6.5 2.9 3.11 1.67 3 4
UT4 9 13.7 14.6 18.4 16.5 16.5 11.3 4.15 1.83 4 4
PIIT4 UT1 42.6 28.4 9.3 12.6 5.5 1.6 0 2.15 1.33 2 1
UT2 30.4 13 13 26.1 4.3 8.7 4.3 3.04 1.85 3 1
UT3 18.1 17.4 14.5 20.3 10.9 14.5 4.3 3.49 1.82 3.5 4
UT4 23.1 29.2 10.4 19.3 7.1 6.6 4.2 2.95 1.73 2 2
M Motivation
M1 UT1 0 1.1 1.6 9.8 14.8 34.4 38.3 5.95 1.12 6 7
UT2 8.7 0 21.7 17.4 17.4 21.7 13 4.52 1.76 5 3a
UT3 7.2 10.1 13 25.4 21.7 16.7 5.8 4.17 1.61 4 4
UT4 0.5 0 1.4 15.6 17.9 39.6 25 4.71 1.10 6 6
M2 UT1 10.9 9.3 6.6 28.4 15.3 17.5 12 4.28 1.82 4 4
UT2 30.4 13 8.7 21.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 3.26 2.05 3 1
UT3 34.8 14.5 11.6 31.9 3.6 2.9 0.7 2.67 1.51 3 1
UT4 11.3 9 13.2 38.7 11.3 12.3 4.2 3.83 1.58 4 4
M3 UT1 1.6 5.5 10.9 20.2 20.8 24 16.9 4.93 1.52 5 6
UT2 30.4 8.7 8.7 17.4 17.4 8.7 8.7 3.43 2.09 4 1
UT3 23.2 13.8 10.9 35.5 9.4 5.1 2.2 3.18 1.61 4 4
UT4 3.3 2.4 8 39.2 20.8 19.8 6.6 4.58 1.32 4 4
891
(P. 873-897) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
User
type
M4 UT1 2.7 4.9 8.2 24 21.3 25.7 13.1 4.86 1.49 5 6

UT2 17.4 17.4 17.4 13 8.7 17.4 8.7 3.65 2.01 3 1a
UT3 26.8 19.6 13.8 31.9 5.8 2.2 0 3.66 1.41 3 4
UT4 1.9 6.1 10.4 37.3 17.9 20.8 5.7 4.48 1.35 4 4
M5 UT1 5.5 12 5.5 26.2 16.9 20.8 13.1 4.52 1.72 5 4
UT2 21.7 13 4.3 21.7 13 21.7 4.3 3.74 2.01 4 1a
UT3 30.4 19.6 10.9 27.5 8.7 2.9 0 3.73 1.50 2.5 1
UT4 3.8 6.1 8.5 31.6 20.8 22.6 6.6 4.54 1.45 4.5 4
PPI1 UT1 0.5 1.6 1.1 11.5 15.8 42.1 27.3 5.76 1.16 6 6
UT2 4.3 4.3 8.7 13 21.7 26.1 21.7 5.09 1.68 5 6
UT3 6.5 6.5 8 37 16.7 17.4 8 4.35 1.55 4 4
UT4 0.9 2.8 2.4 24.5 20.8 30.7 17.9 5.25 1.31 5 6
PPI2 UT1 0 3.3 6.6 12.6 19.7 35.5 22.4 5.45 1.32 6 6
UT2 4.3 4.3 8.7 21.7 30.4 17.4 13 4.74 1.54 5 5
UT3 8 6.5 12.3 34.8 26.1 7.2 5.1 4.07 1.46 4 4
UT4 0.9 1.4 6.1 22.2 21.7 36.8 10.8 5.16 1.24 5 6
PPI3 UT1 2.2 2.7 7.1 19.1 27.3 27.9 13.7 5.05 1.38 5 6
UT2 21.7 4.3 13 30.4 13 4.3 13 3.74 1.96 4 4
UT3 10.1 9.4 12.3 37 18.8 9.4 2.9 3.85 1.49 4 4
UT4 0.9 4.7 9.9 28.8 24.5 22.6 8.5 4.73 1.33 5 4
PPI4 UT1 1.1 5.5 7.7 25.1 21.9 29 9.8 4.87 1.38 5 6
UT2 8.7 17.4 13 34.8 21.7 0 4.3 3.61 1.47 4 4
UT3 10.1 7.2 12.3 39.1 15.2 10.1 5.8 3.96 1.56 4 4
UT4 0.9 2.8 9 27.8 25.5 24.5 9.4 4.85 1.29 5 4
PPI5 UT1 0.5 1.1 4.9 12.6 22.4 36.6 21.9 5.52 1.22 6 6
UT2 0 4.3 4.3 34.8 34.8 13 8.7 4.74 1.18 5 4a
UT3 8 8.7 10.9 33.3 23.9 10.9 4.3 4.07 1.50 4 4
UT4 0.5 0.9 4.7 25.9 23.1 32.1 12.7 5.17 1.19 5 6
PPI6 UT1 1.6 3.3 4.9 22.4 31.1 29.5 7.1 4.95 1.25 5 5
UT2 8.7 17.4 17.4 30.4 21.7 0 4.3 3.57 1.47 4 4
UT3 9.4 12.3 16.7 41.3 13.8 3.6 2.9 3.60 1.38 4 4
UT4 2.4 1.4 11.3 36.8 21.7 19.8 6.6 4.60 1.28 4 4
PPI7 UT1 1.6 6 10.9 22.4 28.4 22.4 8.2 4.70 1.39 5 5
UT2 8.7 17.4 13 17.4 21.7 8.7 13 4.04 1.87 4 5
UT3 8.7 12.3 15.2 44.9 12.3 3.6 2.9 3.62 1.35 4 4
UT4 1.4 2.8 9 31.6 27.8 19.8 7.5 4.71 1.26 5 4
PPI8 UT1 2.2 4.9 10.4 24.6 29 20.2 8.7 4.69 1.39 5 5
UT2 13 8.7 17.4 21.7 21.7 8.7 8.7 3.91 1.78 4 4a
UT3 8.7 13 19.6 40.6 9.4 4.3 4.3 3.59 1.42 4 4
UT4 0.9 4.7 8 34 26.4 21.2 4.7 4.63 1.23 5 4
Note. a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown.
892
Appendix D. Post-hoc analysis (UT1 current users, UT2 former users, UT3 non-planning nonusers, UT4 planning nonuser)
Code Diff UT1 – UT2* / n1 = 183, n2 = 23, N = 206 Diff UT1 – UT3* /n1 = 183, n3 = 138, N = 321 Diff UT1 – UT4*/n1 = 183, n4 = 212, N = 395
Asymp. effect Asymp. Asymp. effect

effect
U sig. Z Sig size Inter. U Z sig. Inter. U Z sig. size Inter.
size (r)
(2‑tailed) (r) (2‑tailed) (2-tailed) (r)
PE1 1338.50 .004 2.84 .004 .20 S 3967.50 10.52 .000 .59 L 14900.50 3.97 .000 .20 S
PE2 757.00 .000 5.00 .000 .35 M 4323.00 10.09 .000 .56 L 15127.00 3.77 .000 .19 S
PE3 750.00 .000 5.02 .000 .35 M 4390.00 10.01 .000 .56 L 15238.00 3.68 .000 .18 S
EE1 1574.00 .049 1.97 .049 .14 S 7774.00 5.89 .000 .33 M 17878.50 1.34 .179 .07 /
EE2 1610.00 .067 1.83 .067 .13 S 6681.50 7.22 .000 .40 M 16524.50 2.54 .011 .13 S
EE3 (R) 1832.00 .315 1.01 .313 .07 / 8371.50 5.17 .000 .29 S 16024.50 2.98 .003 .15 S
FC1 1489.00 .022 2.28 .022 .16 S 5522.00 8.63 .000 .48 M 12621.50 5.99 .000 .30 M
FC2 1414.50 .010 2.56 .011 .18 S 6241.00 7.76 .000 .43 M 14265.50 4.54 .000 .23 S
FC3 1830.00 .311 -1.02 .309 .07 / 7616.00 6.09 .000 .34 M 16423.00 2.63 .009 .13 S
SI1 1033.50 .000 3.97 .000 .28 S 5697.00 8.42 .000 .47 M 14348.50 4.46 .000 .22 S
SI2 767.50 .000 4.96 .000 .35 M 5054.50 9.20 .000 .51 L 13789.00 4.96 .000 .25 S
SI3 1056.00 .000 3.89 .000 .27 S 5892.50 8.18 .000 .46 M 15726.50 3.24 .001 .16 S
SI4 1448.00 .014 2.43 .015 .17 S 7751.00 5.92 .000 .33 M 17374.00 1.79 .074 .09 /
SI5 1392.50 .008 2.64 .008 .18 S 7234.50 6.55 .000 .37 M 15839.00 3.14 .002 .16 S
SI6 1280.50 .002 3.06 .002 .21 S 6546.50 7.39 .000 .41 M 14547.50 4.29 .000 .22 S
SI7 1033.50 .000 3.97 .000 .28 S 5664.00 8.46 .000 .47 M 15468.00 3.47 .001 .17 S
SI8 1259.50 .001 3.13 .002 .22 S 7946.50 5.69 .000 .32 M 19290.00 0.10 .924 .00 /
ATU1 (R) 1096.00 .000 3.74 .000 .26 S 3938.00 10.55 .000 .59 L 13310.00 5.38 .000 .27 S
ATU2 1344.50 .004 2.82 .005 .20 S 3916.00 10.58 .000 .59 L 15692.00 3.27 .001 .16 S
ATU3 1075.50 .000 3.82 .000 .27 S 4355.50 10.05 .000 .56 L 16923.50 2.19 .029 .11 S
ATU4 906.00 .000 4.45 .000 .31 M 3298.00 11.33 .000 .63 L 14721.50 4.13 .000 .21 S
ATU5 (R) 1376.00 .006 2.70 .007 .19 S 9629.50 3.64 .000 .20 S 14901.50 3.97 .000 .20 S
ATU6 (R) 1137.00 .000 3.59 .000 .25 S 4021.00 10.45 .000 .58 L 13915.50 4.84 .000 .24 S
BI1 414.00 .000 6.27 .000 .44 M 732.50 14.45 .000 .81 L 5809.50 12.01 .000 .60 L
BI2 354.00 .000 6.49 .000 .45 M 425.50 14.82 .000 .83 L 4359.00 13.29 .000 .67 L
BI3 312.00 .000 6.65 .000 .46 M 360.50 14.90 .000 .83 L 4405.50 13.25 .000 .67 L
USE1 245.00 .000 6.90 .000 .48 M 3654.00 10.90 .000 .61 L 13350.50 5.34 .000 .27 S
USE2 245.50 .000 6.90 .000 .48 M 2915.50 11.80 .000 .66 L 13035.50 5.62 .000 .28 S
(P. 873-897)
893
894
Code Diff UT1 – UT2* / n1 = 183, n2 = 23, N = 206 Diff UT1 – UT3* /n1 = 183, n3 = 138, N = 321 Diff UT1 – UT4*/n1 = 183, n4 = 212, N = 395
Asymp. effect Asymp. Asymp. effect

(P. 873-897)
effect
U sig. Z Sig size Inter. U Z sig. Inter. U Z sig. size Inter.
size (r)
(2‑tailed) (r) (2‑tailed) (2-tailed) (r)
USE3 559.00 .000 5.73 .000 .40 M 4194.00 10.24 .000 .57 L 16808.00 2.29 .022 .12 S
PIIT1 1661.50 .100 1.64 .101 .11 S 6827.00 7.05 .000 .39 M 17033.0 2.09 .036 .11 S
PIIT2 1607.00 .065 1.84 .065 .13 S 7189.00 6.61 .000 .37 M 15784.50 3.19 .001 .16 S
PIIT3 1436.00 .013 2.48 .013 .17 S 6651.50 7.26 .000 .41 M 16555.50 2.51 .012 .13 S
PIIT4 (R) 1536.50 .034 2.11 .035 .15 S 7222.00 6.57 .000 .37 M 14078.50 4.70 .000 .24 S
M1 1071.00 .000 3.83 .000 .27 S 4720.50 9.60 .000 .54 L 16549.50 2.52 .012 .13 S
M2 1480.50 .020 2.31 .021 .16 S 6365.00 7.61 .000 .42 M 16213.50 2.81 .005 .14 S
M3 1229.50 .001 3.25 .001 .23 S 5638.00 8.49 .000 .47 M 16437.00 2.62 .009 .13 S
M4 1356.00 .005 2.78 .006 .19 S 4148.00 10.30 .000 .57 L 16164.50 2.86 .004 .14 S
M5 1642.50 .086 1.71 .087 .12 S 5666.00 8.46 .000 .47 M 19157.00 0.21 .832 .01 /
PPI1 1627.00 .077 1.77 .077 .12 S 5884.00 8.19 .000 .46 M 14871.50 4.00 .000 .20 S
PPI2 1513.00 .028 2.19 .028 .15 S 6003.50 8.05 .000 .45 M 16544.00 2.52 .012 .13 S
PPI3 1229.50 .001 3.25 .001 .23 S 6927.00 6.92 .000 .39 M 16497.00 2.56 .010 .13 S
PPI4 1113.00 .000 3.68 .000 .26 S 8316.00 5.24 .000 .29 S 18946.00 0.40 .690 .02 /
PPI5 1296.00 .002 3.00 .003 .21 S 5675.00 8.44 .000 .47 M 15938.50 3.06 .002 .15 S
PPI6 964.50 .000 4.23 .000 .29 S 5710.00 8.40 .000 .47 M 15854.50 3.13 .002 .16 S
PPI7 1653.50 .094 1.67 .095 .12 S 7202.00 6.59 .000 .37 M 19125.00 0.24 .810 .01 /
PPI8
PI8 1550.00 .039 2.06 .040 .14 S 7123.00 6.69 .000 .37 M 18624.00 0.68 .494 .03 /
Code Diff UT2 – UT3*/ n2 = 23, n3 = 138, N = 161 Diff UT2 – UT4*/ n2 = 23, n4 = 212, N = 235 Diff UT3 – UT4*/ n3 = 138, n4 = 212, N = 350
Asymp.
Asymp. sig. effect Asymp. sig. effect effect size
U sig. Z Int. U sig. Z Int. U Z sig. Int.
(2-tailed) size (r) (2-tailed) size (r) (r)
(2-tailed)
PE1 864.50 .000 3.49 .000 .27 S 2045.50 .206 -1.27 .206 .08 / 6058.50 -9.26 .000 .50 M
PE2 1583.00 .987 -0.02 .987 .00 / 1236.00 .000 -3.88 .000 .25 S 7242.50 -7.98 .000 .43 M
PE3 1554.00 .876 0.16 .875 .01 / 1231.00 .000 -3.90 .000 .25 S 7182.00 -8.05 .000 .43 M
EE1 1365.00 .287 1.07 .285 .08 / 2043.50 .204 -1.27 .203 .08 / 10176.50 -4.81 .000 .26 S
EE2 1181.50 .050 1.96 .050 .15 S 2239.50 .524 -0.64 .523 .04 / 9866.50 -5.15 .000 .28 S
EE3 (R) 1277.00 .136 1.50 .135 .12 S 2344.50 .764 0.30 .764 .02 / 12205.50 -2.62 .009 .14 S
FC1 1236.50 .091 1.69 .091 .13 S 2416.50 .945 -0.07 .946 .00 / 10909.50 -4.02 .000 .21 S
FC2 1302.50 .170 1.37 .170 .11 S 2209.50 .463 -0.74 .462 .05 / 10638.50 -4.31 .000 .23 S
FC3 789.00 .000 3.85 .000 .30 M 1770.00 .030 2.16 .031 .14 S 11136.50 -3.77 .000 .20 S
SI1 1554.50 .876 0.15 .877 .01 / 1679.50 .014 -2.45 .014 .16 S 9519.50 -5.52 .000 .30 S
SI2 1527.00 .775 -0.29 .774 .02 / 1388.50 .001 -3.39 .001 .22 S 8992.00 -6.09 .000 .33 M
SI3 1489.50 .640 0.47 .639 .04 / 1651.50 .010 -2.54 .011 .17 S 9268.00 -5.79 .000 .31 M
SI4 1517.00 .739 0.34 .737 .03 / 1881.00 .072 -1.80 .072 .12 S 10200.50 -4.79 .000 .26 S
SI5 1462.50 .550 0.60 .549 .05 / 2057.00 .221 -1.23 .219 .08 / 11051.00 -3.87 .000 .21 S
SI6 1440.00 .482 0.71 .479 .06 / 1979.00 .139 -1.48 .139 .10 / 10479.50 -4.48 .000 .24 S
SI7 1522.50 .757 0.31 .757 .02 / 1575.50 .005 -2.78 .005 .18 S 8826.50 -6.27 .000 .34 M
SI8 1529.50 .783 -0.28 .783 .02 / 1500.00 .002 -3.03 .002 .20 S 9385.00 -5.67 .000 .30 M
ATU1 (R) 1220.50 .077 1.77 .077 .14 S 1836.00 .052 -1.94 .052 .13 S 7379.50 -7.84 .000 .42 M
ATU2 1055.50 .010 2.57 .010 .20 S 1961.00 .124 -1.54 .124 .10 S 6507.50 -8.78 .000 .47 M
ATU3 1255.00 .110 1.60 .109 .13 S 1517.50 .003 -2.97 .003 .19 S 6459.50 -8.83 .000 .47 M
ATU4 1340.50 .235 1.19 .235 .09 / 1517.00 .003 -2.97 .003 .19 S 6268.50 -9.04 .000 .48 M
ATU5 (R) 1403.50 .378 -0.88 .377 .07 / 2132.00 .326 -0.99 .324 .06 / 14531.00 -0.10 .917 .01 /
ATU6 (R) 1315.50 .191 1.31 .190 .10 S 1831.00 .050 -1.96 .050 .13 S 7423.50 -7.79 .000 .42 M
BI1 883.00 .001 3.40 .001 .27 S 1678.50 .014 -2.45 .014 .16 S 5169.00 -10.22 .000 .55 L
BI2 768.00 .000 3.95 .000 .31 M 1989.00 .148 -1.45 .148 .09 / 5297.00 -10.09 .000 .54 L
BI3 866.00 .000 3.48 .001 .27 S 1840.50 .053 -1.93 .054 .13 S 5203.50 -10.19 .000 .54 L
(P. 873-897)
895
896
Code Diff UT2 – UT3*/ n2 = 23, n3 = 138, N = 161 Diff UT2 – UT4*/ n2 = 23, n4 = 212, N = 235 Diff UT3 – UT4*/ n3 = 138, n4 = 212, N = 350
Asymp.
(P. 873-897)
Asymp. sig. effect Asymp. sig. effect effect size

U sig. Z Int. U sig. Z Int. U Z sig. Int.
(2-tailed) size (r) (2-tailed) size (r) (r)
(2-tailed)
USE1 1002.50 .004 -2.82 .005 .22 S 474.50 .000 -6.34 .000 .41 M 6793.00 -8.47 .000 .45 M
USE2 1263.50 .119 -1.56 .119 .12 S 500.50 .000 -6.26 .000 .41 M 5535.00 -9.83 .000 .53 L
USE3 1231.50 .086 -1.71 .086 .14 S 785.00 .000 -5.34 .000 .35 M 6093.00 -9.23 .000 .49 M
PIIT1 1341.00 .237 1.19 .236 .09 / 2171.50 .392 -0.86 .390 .06 / 9693.50 -5.33 .000 .29 S
PIIT2 1374.50 .307 1.02 .306 .08 / 2240.00 .526 -0.64 .524 .04 / 11017.00 -3.90 .000 .21 S
PIIT3 1401.50 .373 0.89 .371 .07 / 1998.50 .157 -1.42 .156 .09 / 9958.00 -5.05 .000 .27 S
PIIT4 (R) 1357.00 .269 1.11 .268 .09 / 2396.50 .894 -0.13 .895 .01 / 12098.00 -2.73 .006 .15 S
M1 1398.50 .365 0.91 .364 .07 / 1461.00 .001 -3.15 .002 .21 S 6636.50 -8.64 .000 .46 M
M2 1344.00 .243 1.17 .241 .09 / 1983.50 .143 -1.47 .143 .10 / 8878.50 -6.21 .000 .33 M
M3 1478.00 .602 0.52 .600 .04 / 1666.50 .012 -2.49 .013 .16 S 7650.50 -7.54 .000 .40 M
M4 1205.00 .065 1.84 .065 .15 S 1795.50 .037 -2.07 .038 .14 S 5973.50 -9.36 .000 .50 L
M5 1109.00 .020 2.31 .021 .18 S 1915.00 .092 -1.69 .092 .11 S 5996.50 -9.33 .000 .50 M
PPI1 1135.50 .029 2.18 .029 .17 S 2393.00 .886 -0.14 .886 .01 / 9678.50 -5.35 .000 .29 S
PPI2 1162.50 .040 2.05 .041 .16 S 2052.50 .215 -1.24 .214 .08 / 8301.50 -6.84 .000 .37 M
PPI3 1508.00 .706 -0.38 .705 .03 / 1663.00 .012 -2.50 .012 .16 S 9868.00 -5.15 .000 .28 S
PPI4 1393.00 .352 -0.93 .350 .07 / 1293.50 .000 -3.69 .000 .24 S 9725.50 -5.30 .000 .28 S
PPI5 1191.00 .056 1.91 .056 .15 S 1924.00 .097 -1.66 .097 .11 S 8521.00 -6.60 .000 .35 M
PPI6 1569.00 .933 -0.08 .933 .01 / 1478.00 .002 -3.10 .002 .20 S 8882.00 -6.21 .000 .33 M
PPI7 1364.00 .284 1.07 .282 .08 / 1913.00 .090 -1.69 .090 .11 S 8129.00 -7.02 .000 .38 M
PPI8 1389.50 .342 0.95 .341 .08 / 1842.00 .054 -1.92 .054 .13 S 8327.50 -6.81 .000 .36 M
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 873-897)
Received: July 31, 2017 Accepted: September 25, 2017
Kateřina Chroustová RNDr. in Education of Chemistry for High School, Ph.D. Student of
Didactics of Chemistry, Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science,
University of Hradec Králové, Rokitanského 62, 50003 Hradec
Králové, Czech Republic.
E-mail: katerina.chroustova@uhk.cz
Website: http://www.uhk.cz
Martin Bílek PhD. in Pedagogy with orientation to Chemistry Didactics, Professor
of Chemistry Didactics, Department of Chemistry and Chemistry
Education, Faculty of Education, Charles University, M. D. Rettigové 4,
11639 Prague, Czech Republic.
E-mail: bilek.martin@post.cz
Website: http://www.pedf.cuni.cz
Andrej Šorgo PhD in Biology, Associate Professor of Biology Didactics, Faculty
of Natural Sciences and Mathematics and Faculty of Electrical
Engineering and Computer Science, University of Maribor,
Smetanova 17, University of Maribor, Koroška cesta 160, Maribor,
Slovenia.
E-mail: andrej.sorgo@uni-mb.si
Website: http://www.fnm.uni-mb.si/
897
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
ENROLMENT IN BIOLOGY,
HIV/AIDS KNOWLEDGE AND
RELATED BEHAVIOUR AMONG
SOUTH AFRICAN SCHOOLGIRLS
Abstract. In spite of integrating HIV/AIDS Lindelani Mnguni

education in South African curricula the
prevalence of HIV in 2016 was the highest
since 2002. HIV infection rate is particularly
Introduction
high among schoolgirls compared with
boys. Using a closed-ended questionnaire, HIV/AIDS remains one of the most devastating health challenge glob-
this quantitative survey research com- ally. In South Africa young people, in particular adolescent girls are most
pared Biology and non-Biology schoolgirls’ affected by HIV/AIDS. This same trend has also been reported elsewhere.
(n=291) behavioural intention, Health Lit- For example, Saad, Subramaniam and Tan (2013, p. 196) report that “in South
eracy and HIV/AIDS Literacy to determine Asia and South-East Asia, 40% of all young people living with HIV are young
women, and the rate of HIV infection among girls is rapidly outstripping the
if enrolling for Biology, and subsequently
rate among boys. An estimated 6,000 young people are infected every day
learning about the scientific nature of HIV/ which translates to one person in every 14 minutes.” Most developing coun-
AIDS would reduce risk behaviour among tries like South Africa therefore have adapted their school curricula in order
schoolgirls. Results indicate that Biology to use formal education to teach about HIV/AIDS. However, previous research
students have higher Health Literacy and has shown that the South African Biology curriculum, locally known as Life
HIV/AIDS Literacy than non-Biology stu- Sciences, is not adapted to empower students with skills and knowledge re-
quired to adopt safe behavioural practices related to HIV/AIDS (Mnguni, 2013).
dents. The behavioural intentions of both
The research reported in this article investigated the relationship be-
groups were not significantly different. tween enrolment in Biology and behavioural intention related to HIV/AIDS
Health Literacy and HIV/AIDS Literacy did among girls. The focus on girls was mainly due to the high prevalence of HIV/
not correlate significantly with behavioural AIDS among adolescent girls compared to boys (e.g. Saad et al., 2013). Biology
intention, which were indicative of risk was chosen as an area of interest because as a science subject it is expected
behaviour. These findings suggest that to improve students’ science literacy, including knowledge of HIV/AIDS. This
would then allow improved decision making among students where they
enrolling for Biology and other science
could critically examine and use scientific knowledge in everyday life (Bingle
subjects and subsequently learning about & Gaskell, 1994). Such an application of scientific knowledge in everyday life
HIV/AIDS may not reduce risk behaviour however would require that the curriculum adopts a social constructivist
among schoolgirls. view (Bingle & Gaskell, 1994) which Mnguni (2013) argues is not the case with
Keywords: behavioural intention, biology Biology in South Africa. Given this, the current researcher hypothesized that
students, health literacy, HIV/AIDS literacy, school Biology in South Africa does not correlate with students’ behavioural
intention in relation to HIV/AIDS. This hypothesis was tested in order to inform
South African schoolgirls.
Biology curriculum development for the empowerment of schoolgirls with
the intention of reducing the prevalence of HIV/AIDS.
Problem of Research
Lindelani Mnguni
University of South Africa, South Africa At the height of the Iraqi war, Jeremy Cronin, a South African communist
warned that “four hundred thousand South Africans are dying every year of
AIDS. This makes the war in Iraq look like a birthday party” (Cronin, 2006). His
views were based on the high HIV/AIDS prevalence in South Africa coupled
898
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENROLMENT IN BIOLOGY, HIV/AIDS KNOWLEDGE AND
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 898-907)
with poor literacy and poverty which exacerbated the spread of HIV. Ten years later Statistics South Africa (2016)
reported that in 2016 the prevalence of HIV in South Africa was 12.7% compared to 11% in 2006. In fact, Statistics
South Africa’s records suggest that the prevalence of HIV in 2016 was the highest since 2002. Sadly, research shows
that adolescent girls in southern Africa generally are significantly and uniquely more vulnerable to HIV/AIDS than
adolescent boys (Dellar, Dlamini & Abdool Karim, 2015). This is because, young women contribute four-times the
number of new infections per year compared with their male peers (Dellar et al., 2015). A number of factors have
been attributed to this asymmetrical spread of HIV among adolescents, including the fact that girls tend to have
sexual relations with older men who are often infected with HIV (Gregson, Garnett, Nyamukapa, Hallett, Lewis,
Mason, Chandiwana & Anderson, 2002). Other researchers have cited factors such as poor or lack of education,
low empowerment in expressing and accessing information related to sexual matters and poverty as key factors
to girls’ vulnerability (Saad et al., 2013). Furthermore, the spread of HIV has been attributed to behavioural factors
such as peer pressure, cultural beliefs and practices, hormonal urges, gender-based violence and discrimination,
stigma and discrimination, poor sexuality education, human rights violation as well as illiteracy (Dellar et al., 2015;
Harrison, Newell, Imrie & Hoddinott, 2010).
Attempts have therefore been made to reduce the spread of HIV through educational programmes that
include sexuality education, sexual health, life skills and resilience as well as Health Literacy and HIV/AIDS Literacy
(Mnguni, Abrie & Ebersöhn, 2016). As part of these efforts, some governments have mandated the integration of
Health and HIV/AIDS education in the formal school curriculum (Mnguni et al., 2016). This includes Health Literacy
and HIV/AIDS Literacy. Health Literacy can be defined as the basic knowledge and skills required for an individual
to obtain, communicate, process, and understand basic health information and services to make appropriate
health decisions (Nutbeam, 2000). Based on this definition, HIV/AIDS Literacy can be defined as HIV/AIDS-specific
knowledge and skills required for an individual to obtain, communicate, process, and understand HIV/AIDS related
information and services to make appropriate decisions. In the South African context, Life Orientation for instance
is a compulsory school subject where students are taught the behavioural and socio-economic aspects of HIV/AIDS
while in Biology they are taught the scientific nature of HIV/AIDS in relation to various body systems including the
immune system and the circulatory system. Notably, Biology is an optional subject that is predominantly done by
students who intend pursuing biology-related careers.
The effectiveness of educational programmes aimed at reducing the spread of HIV has been questioned. For
example, Mnguni and Abrie (2012) report that adolescents are not satisfied with the content knowledge and pre-
sentation strategies used to teach about HIV/AIDS. This is because some of this knowledge is scientifically inaccurate
and socially irrelevant (Mnguni & Abrie, 2012). As a result, there are reports of wide spread negative perceptions
towards school programmes that teach about HIV/AIDS (Van Deventer, 2009; Rooth, 2005; Van Deventer, 2004).
Other researchers (e.g. Wolff & Mnguni, 2015) report that HIV/AIDS-related content is integrated into formal cur-
riculum as academic knowledge rather than functional knowledge. This means such knowledge is decontextualized
and therefore students may not be able to transfer this knowledge into their everyday life.
Given the complexities related to HIV/AIDS education, the current researcher explored the relationship between
Health Literacy, HIV/AIDS Literacy and behavioural intention among South African schoolgirls. This is because of
the increased vulnerability of girls to HIV/AIDS (Dellar et al., 2015; Saad et al., 2013) and the reported efforts to ad-
dress this problem through formal education (Mnguni & Abrie, 2012). Of interest in this regard is whether formal
education can be used to address one the of the most complex socio-scientific issues among the most vulnerable.
Determining HIV/AIDS Related Behaviour: A Theoretical Framework
HIV/AIDS-related behaviour, which could involve engaging in sexual intercourse, is rather difficult to observe
without violating ethical standards of science. For this reason, the current researcher identified the theory of planned
behaviour as an appropriate lens through which HIV/AIDS-related behaviour could be determined. According to
Hansen, Jensen and Solgaard (2004), the theories of reasoned action and of planned behaviour could be used
to predict and to understand students’ motivation towards behaviours. However, while the theory of reasoned
action is perceived as a good predictor of behaviour, it has been accused of failing to recognise that behaviour
is not always volitional (Guo, Johnson, Unger, Lee, Xie, Chou, Palmer, Sun, Gallaher & Pentz, 2007; Kuther, 2002).
Furthermore, this theory does not recognise that behaviour is also influenced by people’s perceptions of their
ability to perform such a behaviour (Hansen et al., 2004). The theory of planned behaviour on the other hand sug-
gests that a person’s behaviour is determined by his/her behavioural intentions (see Figure 1; Ajzen, 2002, Ajzen,
899
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENROLMENT IN BIOLOGY, HIV/AIDS KNOWLEDGE AND ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/
(P. 898-907) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
1991). In this instance, the behavioural intentions can be defined as the person’s attitude towards the behaviour
itself and can be either for or against the behaviour in question (Kuther, 2002). Intention relates to motivational
factors that influence behaviour, willingness to try as well as the amount of effort that people are willing to exert
(Ajzen, 1991). Furthermore, the person’s behaviour according to Ajzen (1991) is determined by subjective norms,
which are other people’s perceived opinions about the behaviour (Figure 1). This means behaviour will depend on
facilitating factors, context of opportunity, resources and action control (Ajzen, 1991).
Figure 1: The Theory of Planned Behaviour (adapted from Ajzen, 2002).
The theory of planned behaviour also suggests that in addition to attitudes and subjective norms, behaviour
is influenced by perceived behavioural control (Figure 1; Ajzen, 1991). This is the individual’s subjective belief about
whether or not they have the ability to behave in a certain way (Hansen et al., 2004). Other researchers have linked
the perceived behavioural controls as based on the theory of achievement motivation as well self-efficacy (Ajzen,
1991). The theory of achievement motivation defines an individual’s expectancy of success as the perceived prob-
ability of succeeding at a given task (Ajzen, 1991). Self-efficacy (Bandura, 1991) refers to one’s judgments on how
well they can execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations, for example, that behaviour
is influenced by confidence in one’s ability to perform. In essence, self-efficacy influences among other things, the
choice of activities, preparation for an activity, effort expended during activity as well as thought patterns and
emotional reactions (Ajzen, 1991; Bandura, 1991)
Ajzen (2002) further argues that beliefs also affect behaviour (Figure 1). For example, behavioural beliefs, which
are beliefs about the likely consequence of a behaviour, have been shown to affect the attitude towards a behav-
iour. Furthermore, normative beliefs, that is, beliefs about the expectations of other people influence subjective
norms. In addition, Ajzen (2002: 1) indicates that “control beliefs about the presence of factors that may facilitate
or impede performance of the behaviour” as they affect perceived behavioural control.
Based on the above, the current researcher posits that HIV/AIDS-related behaviour in most instances is
individualistic, voluntary, under control, deliberate, planned and is performed. In this way, while knowledge is
important, students do decide on their behavioural patterns based on their individualistic motivation, beliefs,
attitudes and intentions. However, for this to happen, the relevant knowledge and skills would have to be taught
within a curriculum that is oriented towards social reconstruction ideology, which Mnguni (2013) reports is not
the case in South Africa.
Research Aim and Questions
Given the complexities associated with observing HIV/AIDS behaviour, the current researcher used the
theory of planned behaviour to determine the HIV/AIDS behavioural intentions of the participants as a proxy for
900
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 898-907)
predicting their possible behaviour. Using the theory of planned behaviour as a theoretical framework therefore,
the researcher explored the relationship between Health Literacy, HIV/AIDS Literacy and behavioural intention
among South African schoolgirls. The research questions framing this research were:
a) How do female Biology students compare with non-Biology female students in their Health Literacy,
HIV/AIDS Literacy and behavioural intention?
b) To what extent do female students’ Health Literacy and HIV/AIDS Literacy correlate with their behav-
ioural intention?
Underlying these questions was whether enrolling for Biology, and subsequently learning about the scientific
nature of HIV/AIDS would reduce risk behaviour.
Research Design
To respond to the above research questions, the researcher used a comparative quantitative, non-experimental
survey research design for determining Health Literacy, HIV/AIDS Literacy and as well as behavioural intention
related to HIV/AIDS of the participants. The primary objective in this regard was to compare Health Literacy, HIV/
AIDS Literacy and self-reported behavioural intention between biology students and non-biology students. The
study was non-experimental survey because no interventions were employed. A closed-ended questionnaire was
used to collect data from the participating students. Participants were girls studying in South African government
schools. With the permission of the relevant authorities and participants, data were collected at the schools dur-
ing school time.
Questionnaire Design
Data were collected using a previously validated closed-ended questionnaire (Mnguni et al., 2016) which
was made up of thirty questions spread equally in three sections, namely, Health Literacy, HIV/AIDS Literacy and
behavioural intention. Concerning Health Literacy, the questionnaire probed, through ten items, students’ knowl-
edge of virology, bacteriology, immunology, the circulatory system and vaccination. This knowledge is deemed
in literature as essential for Health Literacy (Mnguni & Abrie, 2012) and is taught in Biology. Ten HIV/AIDS Literacy
items tested the participants’ knowledge of HIV Transmission, the effects of HIV in the body, the cause of AIDS,
symptoms of AIDS, and the curability of HIV/AIDS. This content is primarily taught in Life Orientation for which all
the participants were enrolled. This knowledge is also available in various HIV/AIDS-related youth interventions in
South Africa (e.g. Kemp, Gerth-Guyette, Dube, Andrasik, & Rao, 2016; Page, Ebersöhn & Rogan, 2006). The theory of
planned behaviour was used as a framework for designing ten items for probing students’ behavioural intention.
In this regard the items probed students’ attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control towards
safe and risk behavioural practices, which as discussed earlier, are determinants of actual behaviours (Ajzen, 1991).
Face and content validity of the instruments were determined through a pilot research as well as through a
panel of experts (Mnguni et al., 2016). Using a validation instrument (Hyrkäs, Appelqvist-Schmidlechner & Oksa,
2003; Nicholls, 2003), the panel of experts showed that the items were able to test for Health Literacy, HIV/AIDS
Literacy and behavioural intentions as defined in the research and that the questionnaire was suitable for the
purpose it is designed for. The pilot research showed that students in the same context as the participants were
able to respond to the items effectively. The instrument satisfied reliability requirements (r = .71).
Sampling and Ethical Considerations
The participating students were selected using a non-probability convenience sampling approach from nine
government schools at UMsunduzi district, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa. These participants were 291 schoolgirls
aged between 15 and 18 doing Grade 11 in four inner city schools and five township schools. Grade 11s were chosen
because it is in Grades 10 and 11 that scientific HIV/AIDS content knowledge is taught. Of the 291 participants, 180
were enrolled for Biology and 111 were not. In the South African education system, Biology is taught as a subject
in Grades 10-12. However, students have a choice to either do Biology or not, depending on their career prospects.
The Biology content taught was standard in all the schools as prescribed by the government curriculum. Ethical
901
(P. 898-907) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
clearance and consent were received from all participants, who participated voluntarily, and relevant stakehold-
ers including the school and provincial Department of Basic Education according to the guidelines of the South
African university where the research was based.
Data Collection and Analysis
The questionnaire was administered to all students within one week at the schools. Students were not told
about the questionnaire prior to administering it in order to minimize preparation through revision of the relevant
work. During administration of the questionnaire teachers at the relevant schools as well as three other assistants
were present and helped with the distribution of the questionnaire, invigilating and collecting the completed
questionnaires afterward.
Students’ responses to the Health Literacy and HIV/AIDS Literacy items in the questionnaire were scored by
the researcher, as either correct (allocating a score of 1 point) or incorrect (allocating a score of 0 points) against
a set of correct answers, which were prepared by the researcher. In cases where there were no responses given or
where multiple answers were given, a score mark of zero was allocated. Thereafter, percentage scores were gener-
ated for each student, per school and for the two sections of the questionnaire (i.e. Health Literacy and HIV/AIDS
Literacy items.) These percentage scores were then used to compare the performance of biology and non-biology
students. With regards to behavioural intention items, the researcher had prepared answers that would imply safe
behavioural preference, based on social norms and literature (e.g. Mnguni et al., 2016). Students’ responses were
therefore scored against these by giving one point for a safe behavioural preference and zero for a risk behaviour.
All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics 24.0 Ink software. Generally, descriptive statistics
were used to determine the distribution patterns of the data. Inferential statistics were then used to explore these
patterns in terms of comparisons and relationships between variables. In particular, a non-parametric test (i.e.
Mann Whitney u test) was used to compare behavioural intentions because the data in this regard were nominal
and the independent variable consisted of two categorical, independent groups (i.e. biology and non-biology
students) (Noether, 2012). Data for Health Literacy and HIV/AIDS Literacy were however interval data allowing for
analysis using a parametric t-test.
Results of Research
Results showed a concerning trend regarding the participants’ Health Literacy and HIV/AIDS Literacy. In this
instance data for all participants combined showed that Health Literacy (M = 0.44, SD = 0.25) was significantly lower
than their HIV/AIDS Literacy (M = 0.69, SD = 0.18), p < .001. In spite of this however, Health Literacy correlated
significantly with HIV/AIDS Literacy (p = .556). Given these observation, the researcher explored further to specific
questions where participants showed a lack of knowledge. In the instance of Health Literacy, it emerged that 70%
of the participants could not answer correctly when asked what a virus is even though 68% percent answered
correctly when asked what bacteria are. However, a further 63% failed to correctly identify tuberculosis and pneu-
monia as examples of HIV/AIDS-related opportunistic infections. Fifty five percent (55%) also could not correctly
indicate what ‘contaminated blood’ meant in the context of infection. Majority of the participants also could not
correctly respond to questions probing knowledge of the immune system including the role of antibodies, CD4
cells as well as the meaning of immune deficiency. Notably, participants showed better understanding of HIV/AIDS
Literacy. In this regard participants gave correct responses to items probing knowledge of the causes of AIDS, HIV
transmission mechanisms (i.e. 83% in both instances) as well as HIV infection and the role of antiretroviral drugs (i.e.
78% in both cases). However, participants could not correctly respond to a question probing their understanding
of the different strains of HIV.
Data also revealed that there was no significant difference in the behavioural intention of participants from
inner city schools and township schools (Table 1). This in spite of significant differences in Health Literacy and
HIV/AIDS Literacy (p < .001 in both cases). The mean score for Health Literacy in township schools was 0.4 and
0.52 for inner city school. Similarly, the mean score for HIV/AIDS Literacy in township schools was 0.66 and 0.76
for inner city school. This clearly shows that students from inner city students had higher knowledge of HIV/AIDS
than their township peers. However, the results suggest that the schooling environment has negligible effect on
student behavioural intention.
902
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 898-907)
Table 1. Comparison of behaviour intention of inner city and township school participants.
Ranks Test Statistics
Sum of
School Type N Mean Rank Mann-Whitney U 8716.500
Ranks
Township schools 206 145.81 30037.50 Wilcoxon W 300037.500

Behavioural intention Inner city schools 85 146.45 12448.50 Z - .141
Total 291 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .888
The researcher then explored the data to determine if taking Biology as a subject had an effect on the partici-
pants’ ability to correctly respond to the relevant items. Results showed that Biology students have a significantly
higher Health Literacy (M = 0.54, SD = 0.20) than non-Biology students (M = 0.27, SD = 0.23), p <.001. It was also
found that the HIV/AIDS Literacy among Biology students (M = 0.74, SD = 0.16) was significantly higher than that
of non-Biology students (M = 0.62, SD = 0.19), p <.001). Interestingly, a similar pattern was observed when students
were grouped according to whether or not they were doing Physics as a subject. Participants who were enrolled
for Physics had a significantly higher Health Literacy (p <0.001) and HIV/AIDS Literacy (p = .034) than non-Physics
students. However, one could argue that, except in a few instances, participants enrolled for Biology usually also
enrolled for Physics as well. As a result, participants were also compared according to enrolment in Mathematics
since Mathematics is not always associated with Biology. For example, in the South African curriculum, students
doing business studies (i.e. Economics and Accounting) are given an option of taking Mathematics even though
they do not take Biology. Students who do neither sciences (Biology and Physics) nor business studies (e.g. Ac-
counting and Economics) are not expected to do any mathematics. In the current research, 82% of the participants
were enrolled for Mathematics. Data analysis then revealed that participants who were enrolled for Mathematics
performed significantly better than those who did not on both Health Literacy (p<.001) and HIV/AIDS Literacy
(p < .001). Data also showed that enrolment in science subjects correlated significantly with Health Literacy and
HIV/AIDS Literacy (Table 2). However, enrolment in Accounting, Geography, History, and Life Orientation did not
correlate with Health Literacy and HIV/AIDS Literacy. This in spite of the fact that Life Orientation is supposed to
teach about the behavioural and socio-economic aspects of HIV/AIDS and was taken by all participants. The most
plausible explanation of these results is that in Biology students are taught scientific knowledge of HIV/AIDS, and
Biology is taken by most participants taking Physics and Mathematics. Consequently, students taking Biology,
Physics and Mathematics showed a higher Health Literacy and HIV/AIDS Literacy.
Table 2. Correlation between selected school subjects and HIV/AIDS-related knowledge among stu-
dents (n = 291).
Health Literacy HIV/AIDS Literacy
HIV/AIDS Literacy Pearson Correlation .556**

Sig. (2-tailed) .001
Accounting Pearson Correlation -.099 -.028
Sig. (2-tailed) .093 .630
Business Economics Pearson Correlation -.176** -.040
Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .499
Economics Pearson Correlation -.327** -.149*
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .011
Geography Pearson Correlation -.012 -.104
Sig. (2-tailed) .839 .077
History Pearson Correlation -.027 .061
Sig. (2-tailed) .648 .301
Life Orientation Pearson Correlation .108 .047
Sig. (2-tailed) .067 .422
Biology Pearson Correlation .525** .317**
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .001
903
(P. 898-907) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Health Literacy HIV/AIDS Literacy
Mathematics Pearson Correlation .388** .266**

Sig. (2-tailed) <.001 .001
Physics Pearson Correlation .456** .251**
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .001
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Further analysis of the data showed a significant correlation between Health Literacy and HIV/AIDS Literacy
between groups (i.e. Biology and non-Biology students). However, both Health Literacy and HIV/AIDS Literacy
did not correlate significantly with behavioural intention. In this instance results showed that the distribution of
responses of Biology and non-Biology students for behavioural intention were not significantly different (Table
3). Data also revealed that in some instances both groups reported tendency towards risk behaviour particularly
in relation to multiple sexual partners and unprotected sex.
Table 3. A comparison of the behavioural intentions of Biology and non-Biology students.
Ranks Test Statistics
School subjects
N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks Mann-Whitney U 9677.500
taken
Non-biology 111 143.18 15893.50 Wilcoxon W 15893.500

Biology 180 147.74 26592.50 Z -1.074
Behavioural intention
Asymp. Sig.
Total 291 .283
(2-tailed)
Concerning risk behaviours, data revealed that participants reported a generally safe attitude (Table 4). How-
ever, it emerged that as few as 39% of the participants thought it was ok to use sterilised needles for injections
while 54% thought otherwise. It was also found that 77% of the participants report that most students dislike
condoms. While this does not imply that they do not use condoms, the fact that such a high number reported a
negative subjective norm may be indicative of the possibility of students who may not use condoms. This deduc-
tion is further supported by the fact that 53% of the participants reported that young people in their community
do not protect themselves from HIV infection. Furthermore, 16% of the participants reported that they would have
unprotected sexual intercourse, e.g. without a condom with their boy/girlfriend.
Table 4. Behavioural intention of the participants (n = 291).
Classification Item Yes (%) No (%)
It is okay for unmarried people to have unprotected sexual intercourse. 08 90

It is okay for people to have many sexual partners. 03 97
Attitude
It is okay to use sterilized needles for injections. 39 54
It is okay to share one razor blade without sterilizing it before use. 02 95
In my community, it is okay for people to have multiple sexual partners. 06 90
Subjective norm Most students in my school like condoms. 17 77
Young people in my community protect themselves from HIV infection. 42 53
I would have sexual intercourse with someone whose sexual activities I do
07 90
not really know.
Perceived behavioural control I would have unprotected sexual intercourse, e.g. without a condom with
16 82
my boy/girlfriend.
I am at risk of getting HIV. 30 68
904
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 898-907)
Discussion
In responding to the research questions, this research was able to determine the Health Literacy and HIV/AIDS
Literacy of the participants. The theory of planned behaviour was also successfully used to determine the behavioural
intentions. These findings could be used to further our understanding of the prevalence of HIV/AIDS among girls.
Key Findings
A significant finding of this research is that among the participating girls, Health Literacy was lower than their HIV/
AIDS Literacy. This could be explained by the fact that general HIV/AIDS specific knowledge is taught to all students
through a number of media for a variety of outcomes (e.g. Harrison et al., 2010; Ebersöhn, 2008). What is interest-
ing however is that Biology students had significantly higher level of both Healthy Literacy and HIV/AIDS Literacy.
This finding echoes Mnguni et al. (2016) who also found that Biology students have a significantly higher HIV/AIDS
knowledge than non-Biology students. What is also significant is that schoolgirls doing science subjects (including
Mathematics and Physics students) have a significantly higher HIV/AIDS knowledge than schoolgirls who do not do
science subjects. This is a critical finding in the global fight against HIV/AIDS because it may imply that increased
access to science may improve the understanding of HIV/AIDS among students. This is critical in light of previous
research, which has suggested that poor or lack of education including health and sexuality education increase the
vulnerability of girls to HIV infection (e.g. Dellar et al., 2015). The researcher therefore believes that health and sexuality
education should include aspects of science education. Urgent in this regard however, is further research to determine
why science subjects correlate positively with Health Literacy and HIV/AIDS Literacy. This particularly in light of the
fact that Health Literacy and HIV/AIDS Literacy knowledge did not have a significant correlation with enrolment in
non-science subjects such as History and Life Orientation. This finding suggests therefore that enrolment in science
subjects could be important for improved understanding of HIV/AIDS.
While HIV/AIDS knowledge was related to enrolment in science subjects, it was interesting to find that neither
Health Literacy nor HIV/AIDS Literacy correlates with safe behavioural intentions. Using the Theory of Planned Behav-
iour, the current research has demonstrated that the attitude and perceived behavioural control of ‘self’ were generally
positive towards safe HIV/AIDS behaviour. However, when asked about the ‘other’ rather than the ‘self’, participants
reported negative behavioural patterns. For example, the students reported that most ‘other’ students do not like
condoms and that young people do not protect themselves from HIV infection. This finding is critical because as sug-
gested in literature, people are more honest when talking about the ‘other’ and tend to be defensive when talking
about themselves (Ajzen, 1991). While the participants may not have tangible evidence to support their claims about
the ‘other’, they may actually be reflecting on their own experiences and behaviours.
There are three critical notes related to lack of correlation between Health Literacy and HIV/AIDS Literacy with
safe behavioural intentions. Firstly, if the participants are correct in reporting the ‘other’ students as being at risk of
infection, then one may argue that the Health Literacy and HIV/AIDS Literacy of the ‘other’ students are not known;
and hence their knowledge of HIV/AIDS cannot be regarded as a factor for their vulnerability. This argument however
could suggest that the theory of planned behaviour as used in the current study was not successful in determining the
behavioural intention of the ‘self’. Secondly, and in line with other researchers, this finding suggests that behaviour is
not always related to knowledge (e.g. Mnguni et al., 2016, Guo et al. 2007; Page et al., 2006; Hansen et al., Shortell, Weist,
Sow, Foster & Tahir, 2004; Ajzen, 1991). Thirdly, the lack of correlation between Health Literacy and HIV/AIDS Literacy
with safe behavioural intentions may be due to misalignment between curriculum and everyday life (e.g. Mnguni,
2013). To this Hodson (2004, p. 2) contends that “regrettably, science is often regarded as a body of knowledge that
can be transmitted by teachers, memorized by students, and reproduced on demand in examinations. Regrettably,
too, science is often portrayed as the de-personalized and disinterested pursuit of objective truth, independent of
the society in which it is practised and untouched by ordinary human emotions, values, and conventions.”The current
researcher therefore suggests that perhaps the lack of correlation between knowledge of HIV/AIDS and behavioural
intention among the youth could be because of education’s failure to resolve the dualism between the school and
society (Zuga, 1992), a duality which renders school irrelevant to everyday societal issues. Instead, there may be other
factors that inform behaviour. Further research is required to explore these arguments in detail.
905
(P. 898-907) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Limitations and Areas Requiring Further Research
The major limitation of the research was its inability to determine if behaviour of the participants is individualistic,
voluntary, under control, deliberate, planned and is performed requiring scrutiny. This could be because of the induc-
tive approach used instead of the deductive approach. For example, instead of using closed-ended pre-determined
determinants of HIV/AIDS related behaviour using the theory of planned behaviour, the researcher could have asked
open-ended questions. Thereafter methods such as the Delphi method could have been used to allow the data to
reveal factors informing risk behaviour, other than those listed in the theory of planned behaviour. Such a method
could probably provide a more realistic prediction of the participants’ vulnerability to HIV/AIDS.
Furthermore, research must be done to determine what informs risk behavioural intentions among youths in
South Africa, since knowledge seems not to. Ajzen (1991) suggests that it is beliefs, attitudes, subjective norms and
behavioural control. The question however is, within the context of HIV/AIDS, what informs beliefs, attitudes, subjec-
tive norms and behavioural control, seeing for instance that enrolment in some school subjects does not? While it
was important to explore the subject within the context of girls, in the future it might be necessary to compare girls
and boys since social pressures may be affecting them both equally. While the findings of the current researcher
are important, the researcher believes that a wider and more in-depth study is required to explore the relationship
between scientific HIV/AIDS knowledge and behavioural intention in South Africa and globally. This recommendation
is made in the light of a number of reports that scientific literacy improves lives.
Conclusions
Given the high prevalence of HIV/AIDS in South Africa, it is encouraging to note the various efforts to increase
knowledge and awareness. The high Health Literacy and HIV/AIDS Literacy among students is a critical finding. More
important is that these literacies are associated with enrolment in science subjects. Flowing from this, the researcher
believes that efforts must be made to ensure that these literacies are not ‘exclusive’ to science students but to all stu-
dents. This could be done by adapting other subjects, where it is not the case currently, to integrate socio-scientific
issues such as HIV/AIDS.
Additionally, based on the reported findings that show a lack of correlation between knowledge and behavioural
intentions, the researcher is of the view that it is not enough to teach about HIV/AIDS. As reported in literature, what
may be more important is to ensure that such knowledge is contextualized and actionable. Therefore, efforts may
need to be taken to adapt the curriculum to address everyday life issues that students go through.
The researcher also believes that researchers must consider grounded theory methods when exploring factors
that affect HIV/AIDS behaviour. This is based on the observation that the theory of planned behaviour may not have
been the best framework for determining behavioural intentions of the participants in the current research.
In responding to the research questions, the researcher concludes that female Biology students have a higher
Health Literacy, HIV/AIDS Literacy than non-Biology students even though the behavioural intentions are not sig-
nificantly different. Finally, the students Health Literacy and HIV/AIDS Literacy do not always correlate with their
behavioural intention.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50 (2), 179-211.
Ajzen, I. (2002, September). Constructing a TPB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Retrieved from
http://www.unibielefeld.de/ikg/zick/ajzen%20construction%20a%20tpb%20questionnaire.pdf.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50 (2),
248-287.
Bingle, W. H., & Gaskell, P. J. (1994). Scientific literacy for decision-making and the social construction of scientific knowledge.
Science Education, 78, 185–201. doi:10.1002/sce.3730780206.
Cronin, J. (2006, September). Zuma tells workers to preserve the alliance. Retrieved from https://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/
zuma-tells-workers-to-preserve-the-alliance-293383.
Dellar, R. C., Dlamini, S., & Karim, Q. A. (2015). Adolescent girls and young women: key populations for HIV epidemic control. Journal
of the International AIDS Society, 18 (2 Suppl 1), 64-70.
Ebersöhn, L. (2008). From microscope to kaleidoscope: Reconsidering educational aspects related to children in the HIV&AIDS
pandemic. In L. Ebersöhn (Ed.), From microscope to kaleidoscope: Reconsidering educational aspects related to children in the
HIV&AIDS pandemic (pp. 1–12). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
906
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 898-907)
Gregson, S., Garnett, G. P., Nyamukapa, C. A., Hallett, T. B., Lewis, J. J., Mason, P. R., Chandiwana, S. K., & Anderson, R. M. (2006).
HIV decline associated with behaviour change in Eastern Zimbabwe. Science, 311 (5761), 664-666.
Guo, Q., Johnson, C. A., Unger, J. B., Lee, L., Xie, B., Chou, C. P., Palmer, P. H. Sun, P., Gallaher, P., & Pentz, M. (2007). Utility of the
theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behaviour for predicting Chinese adolescent smoking. Addictive Behav-
iours, 32 (5), 1066-1081.
Hansen, T., Jensen, J. M., & Solgaard, H. S. (2004). Predicting online grocery buying intention: A comparison of the theory of
reasoned action and the theory of planned behaviour. International Journal of Information Management, 24 (6), 539-550.
Harrison, A., Newell, M. L., Imrie, J., & Hoddinott, G. (2010). HIV prevention for South African youth: which interventions work?
A systematic review of current evidence. BMC Public Health, 10 (1), 102.
Hodson, D. (2004). Going beyond STS: Towards a curriculum for sociopolitical action. Science Education Review, 3 (1), 2-7.
Hyrkäs, K., Appelqvist-Schmidlechner, K., & Oksa, L. (2003). Validating an instrument for clinical supervision using an expert panel.
International Journal of Nursing Studies, 40, 619 – 625.
Kemp, C., Gerth-Guyette, E., Dube, L., Andrasik, M., & Rao, D. (2016). Mixed-methods evaluation of a novel, structured, commu-
nity-based support and education intervention for individuals with HIV/AIDS in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. AIDS and
Behaviour, 20 (9), 1937-1950.
Kuther, T. L. (2002). Rational decision perspectives on alcohol consumption by youth: Revising the theory of planned behav-
iour. Addictive Behaviours, 27 (1), 35-47.
Mnguni, L. (2013). The curriculum ideology of the South African secondary school Biology. South African Journal of Education, 33
(2), 1-11.
Mnguni, L., & Abrie, M. (2012). HIV/AIDS content knowledge and presentation strategies in biology for effective use in everyday
life. Journal of Biological Education, 46 (4), 226-233.
Mnguni, L., Abrie, M., & Ebersöhn, L. (2016). The relationship between scientific knowledge and behaviour: an HIV/AIDS case. Jour-
nal of Biological Education, 50 (2), 147-159.
Noether, G. E. (2012). Introduction to statistics: The nonparametric way. Springer Science & Business Media.
Nicholls, J. (2003). Methods in school textbook research. International Journal of Historical Learning, Teaching and Research, 3
(2), 11-27.
Nutbeam, D. (2000). Health literacy as a public health goal: A challenge for contemporary health education and communication
strategies into the 21st century. Health Promotion International, 15 (3), 259-267.
Page, J. A., Ebersöhn, L., & Rogan, J. (2006). The impact of an HIV/AIDS module on the knowledge and attitudes of Grade 11 biol-
ogy students. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10 (1), 103-114.
Saad, B. M., Subramaniam, G., & Tan, P. L. (2013). Awareness and vulnerability to HIV/AIDS among young girls. Procedia-Social
and Behavioural Sciences, 105, 195-203.
Shortell, S. M., Weist, E. M., Sow, M. S. K., Foster, A., & Tahir, R. (2004). Implementing the Institute of Medicine’s recommended cur-
riculum content in schools of public health: A baseline assessment. American Journal of Public Health, 94 (10), 1671-1674.
Statistics South Africa. (2016). Mid-year population estimates. Pretoria, South Africa: Stats SA.
Wolff, E., & Mnguni, L. (2015). The Integration of HIV and AIDS as a socio-scientific issue in the life sciences curriculum. African
Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19 (3), 213-224.
Zuga, K. F. (1992). Social reconstruction curriculum and technology education. Journal of Technology Education, 3 (2), 48-58.
Received: March 30, 2017 Accepted: September 30, 2017
Lindelani Mnguni PhD, Department of Science and Technology Education, College

of Education, School of Teacher Education, University of South
Africa, PO Box 29433, Sunnyside, 0132, Pretoria, South Africa.
E-mail: mngunle@unisa.ac.za

907
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
THREE LEVELS OF INQUIRY IN
IMPROVING TEACHER TRAINING
STUDENTS’ SCIENCE PROCESS
SKILLS
Abstract. Teacher training students require I Putu Artayasa,

the mastery of science process skills (SPS) to
Herawati Susilo,
improve their performance in teaching sci-
ence. The purpose of this research was to (1)
Umie Lestari,
compare the difference in effectiveness be- Sri Endah Indriwati
tween the three levels of inquiry (structured,
guided, open inquiry) and the conventional
strategy in improving SPS; (2) compare the
differences in effectiveness between the
three levels of inquiry and conventional Introduction
strategy in improving the integrated sci-
ence process skills (ISPS), especially the Science process skills (SPS) is the mental and physical abilities that
skills of preparing experimental procedures, students need in learning science and technology and solve individual and
collecting data, presenting data, discussing social problems (Akinbobola & Afolabi, 2010). These skills not only play a role
data, and making conclusion. This research in improving the students’ science skills, but also train the students to work
was a quasi-experimental: pre-test post- while studying, and apply these skills to solve everyday problems (Feyzioglu,
test non-equivalent control group design. 2009; Ozturk, Tezel, & Acat, 2010). SPS is the key to the development of science
The sample of this research consisted of 154 literacy that plays an important role in everyday life, especially to face complex
students of Teacher Training for Elementary science and technology problems in the 21st century (Feyzioglu, Demirdag,
School Education of University of Mataram. Akyilidz, & Altun, 2012; Holbrook & Rannikmae, 2009; Rahayu, 2016).
The data were collected by using SPS test SPS consists of basic and integrated science process skills. Basic science
and the scoring of experiment report. The process skills (BSPS) include observation, measurement, classification, infer-
data were analyzed by using ANCOVA and ence, prediction and presentation of investigation results. Integrated science
the Kruskal Wallis test. The results indicate process skills (ISPS) is a combination of two or more BSPS (Kemendikbud,
that there is a significant difference in the 2011; Nworgu & Otum, 2013). ISPS includes determining and controlling
effectiveness between the three levels of variables, designing experiments, formulating hypothesis, collecting data
inquiry and the conventional strategy in and drawing conclusions (Chabalengula, Mumba, & Mbewe, 2012; Duran, Isik,
improving SPS. Among the three levels of Mihladiz, & Ozdemir, 2011; Eisenkraft & Antheswashburn, 2008; Nur, Nasution,
inquiry itself, there is no any significant dif- & Suryanti, 2013). All these skills need to be implemented in schools to sup-
ference. On the ISPS, the open inquiry has port natural science learning, that is, students not only learn facts, concepts,
the highest effectiveness and the structured laws and theories in science, but also learn the process of how the science
inquiry has the lowest effectiveness. products are created (Mariana & Praginda, 2009).
Keywords: guided inquiry, inquiry levels, Teachers have a role in introducing and in training SPS to their students.
open inquiry, structured inquiry, science Thus, in order to maximalize that role, the teachers should also have sound
process skills. SPS (Erkol & Ugulu, 2013). Teachers and teacher training students who have
sound SPS are in great need to support the success of science learning in
schools (Duran et al., 2011). Unfortunately, research results in several regions
I Putu Artayasa in Indonesia, such as Banten, Jakarta, Bandung, and Surakarta, show that
University of Mataram, Indonesia
Herawati Susilo, Umie Lestari, many teachers and teacher training students have low SPS (Akbar & Rusta-
Sri Endah Indriwati man, 2010; Anggraini, 2012; Kurniawan & Fadloli, 2016; Maknun, Surtikanti,
State University of Malang, Indonesia Munandar, & Subahar, 2012). It appears that the SPS difficulties of teachers
can be attributed to a lack of planning skills and implementing skills when
908
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE THREE LEVELS OF INQUIRY IN IMPROVING TEACHER TRAINING
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 908-918)
they conducted experiments (Sukarno, Permanasari, Hamidah, & Widodo, 2013). However, it seems that these skills
that teachers lack could be improved through practicum (Nwagbo & Uzoamaka, 2011; Sudargo, 2012).
The quality of SPS that the teachers have cannot be separated from the knowledge and skills acquired when
they were still students (Akbar & Rustaman, 2011). The solution to the low SPS held by teacher training students
requires a search for the factors that cause it (Erkol & Ugulu, 2013). University or tertiary lecturers have a responsibil-
ity to improve students’ SPS by using effective learning strategies (Kurniawan & Fadloli, 2016). The increase of SPS
for the teacher training students is not only emphasized on the BSPS, such as observation and measurement skills,
but also on ISPS, such as the skill of designing experiments. This is because when they become teachers, they will
be faced with the challenge of making various experimental designs to facilitate the development of the students’
SPS. The increase of ISPS of teacher training students is also to encourage creativity, problem solving, reflective
thinking which is an important aspect for the development of science and technology (Akinbobola, & Afolabi, 2010).
The implementation of science-learning strategies which appears to be effective to improve SPS is to encour-
age students to actively conduct investigations, link learning with daily life and provide challenges to develop a
more adept understanding of science (Skamp, 1998). The implementation of such strategies is in line with the
characteristics of inquiry strategies that provide opportunities for students to investigate science issues which they
are interested in (Ketpichainarong, Panijpan, & Ruenwongsa, 2010). The implementation of the inquiry strategy has
an effect on the increase of students’ interest in science and SPS (Akinoglu, 2008; Gormally, Brickman, Armstrong,
& Hallar, 2009; Kanli & Yagbasan, 2017; Ketpichainarong et al., 2010; Nuangchalarem & Thammasena, 2009).
The inquiry strategy is divided into four levels, namely: demonstrating, structured, guided, and self-directed
or open inquiry. The implementation of these four levels is distinguished by the extent of teacher involvement in
the learning process. It appears that the teachers’ involvement occurs mostly during the demonstrated inquiry, and
the teachers are less involved in the structured inquiry and guided inquiry levels (Llewellyn, 2013). The least teach-
ers’ involvement in inquiry learning occurred in the open inquiry (Llewellyn, 2013; Zion & Mendelovici, 2012). The
implementation of structured inquiry is quite similar to conventional practicum, but it differs in that the students’
responsibility during the investigation is bigger, which gives students flexibility to process and present the data in
their own tables or graphs. This is not done in the conventional practicum. In guided inquiry, the teacher provides
the formulation of the problem to be investigated by the students, but teacher does not provide problem solving
instructions (Llewellyn, 2011). The implementation of open inquiry provides students a great deal of discretion
in the investigation, from making their own problem formulation to drawing conclusion (Llewellyn, 2013; Zion &
Mendelovici, 2012).
Each level of inquiry has different contributions toward the student’s SPS improvement (Hardianti & Kuswanto,
2017). For example, the implementation of structured inquiry contributes to the development of basic inquiry
skills, such as observation, inference, hypothesis formulation, data collection and organization, drawing conclu-
sions, while guided inquiry develops students’ ability to develop data collection procedures. Open inquiry trains
students to make experimental design and higher inquiry skills (Zion & Mendelovici, 2012). The implementation
of open inquiry makes students better trained in investigation and cooperation, but the opportunity to document
investigations occurred more in guided inquiry students (Sadeh & Zion, 2012).
Although there are more than one level of inquiries, and each can contribute to the improvement of different
process skills, teachers generally apply only one level of inquiry in learning (Fuad, Zubaidah, Mahanal, & Suarsini,
2017). Thus, it will not provide specific information about which level of inquiry is effective on the improvement
of each kind of SPS. According to Llewelyn (2011), teachers can offer different levels of inquiry in learning. It is
necessary to obtain the opportunity to each group of students to choose the level of inquiry they like. However, to
improve the students’ SPS, teachers need information about the levels of inquiry, especially the information about
which levels of inquiry are the most suitable to be offered to students. The suitability of the levels of inquiry can
eventually affect the effectiveness of the learning.
Research Focus
This research focused on the objectives, namely (1) comparing the effectiveness of structured, guided, open
inquiry and conventional strategies in improving student SPS, and (2) comparing the effectiveness of structured,
guided, open inquiry and conventional strategies to increase five types of ISPS, namely the skills of preparing
experimental procedures, collecting data, presenting data in order to be easily understood, discussing data, and
making conclusions.
909
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE THREE LEVELS OF INQUIRY IN IMPROVING TEACHER TRAINING ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/
(P. 908-918) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
General Background
The design of this research was a quasi experiment: pre-test post-test non-equivalent control group design.
Three inquiry classes were the experimental groups, while the conventional class was the control group, as shown
in Table 1.
Table 1. Research design.
Group Pre-test Treatment Post-test
E1 O1 X1 O2
E2 O3 X2 O4
E3 O5 X3 O6
C O7 X0 O8
Information: X 1: Structured inquiry; X 2: Guided inquiry; X 3: Open inquiry; X 0: Without inquiry strategy (Conventional);
E: Experiment; C: Control.
The research was conducted in science education lecture for 3 months from September to November 2016.
There were ten topics of science that students learned during this research, namely, measurements, substance
and its changes, plant diversity, photosynthesis, animal diversity, nutrition, respiration, circulation, environmental
pollution and adaptation of living creatures, and simple machines. The inquiry classes and the conventional class
learned the ten topics above. The implementation of the three inquiry strategies and conventional strategy was
the independent variable, while the learning result, which was science process skills, was the dependent variable.
Class meetings were held once a week, and each the meeting was 150 minutes long.
The implementation of the three levels of inquiry was done gradually. At the first meeting, all inquiry classes
applied the lowest inquiry level, namely the structured inquiry. At the second meeting, the structured inquiry
class still implemented structured inquiry, while the other two inquiry classes implemented guided inquiry. From
the third meeting onwards, the structured inquiry class implemented the structured inquiry, the guided inquiry
class implemented the guided inquiry, and the open inquiry class implemented the highest level, namely the
open inquiry. In the learning process, all the inquiry classes implemented the inquiry cycle referring to Llewellyn
(2013) covering the stages of: (1) inquisition-questioning to be investigated-, (2) acquisition-brainstorming of
possible answers to questions-, (3) supposition-selecting a statement to be tested-, (4) implementation-making
experimental design-, (5) summation-collecting evidence and drawing conclusions-, and (6) exhibition-sharing
and communicating experimental results-.
In the last 5 years, the conventional class implemented conventional practicum in PGSD (teacher training for
elementary education). The implementation of conventional practicum is based on complete experimental instruc-
tions containing objectives, introductions, problem formulations, tools and materials, work procedures, and data
presentation tables. Meanwhile, each inquiry class conducted experimental activities in accordance with the level
of inquiry found in Lliwellyn (2013), as shown in Table 2. Every student documented the results of his activities in
the form of an experiment report and at the next meetings, the representatives from each group presented the
results of their activities in front of the class.
Table 2. Characteristics of the three levels of inquiry.
Structured inquiry Guided inquiry Self-directed (open inquiry)

Activities
(Level 2) (Level 3) (Level 4)
Preparation of questions
Lecturer Lecturer Student
(experimental problems)
Preparation of experimental design Lecturer Student Student
Data processing and conclusion Student Student Student
910
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 908-918)
All experiments from the conventional class and from the structured inquiry classes were conducted in the
classroom, while the other two classes performed two experiments in the classroom, three in-class experiments
then resumed at home or outside the classroom, and five experiments were performed at home. In classroom
experiments, students made use of the tools and materials provided by the lecturers, while at home experiments,
students used the tools and materials from their environment or made simple experimental tools. All classes con-
ducted group experiments consisting of 4 - 5 students.
One lecturer taught four research classes. Prior to teaching, researchers and lecturers discussed the prepara-
tion of the lesson. Researchers participated in the classroom and observed the implementation of learning. At the
end of class meetings, lecturers and researchers discussed the learning process barriers for improvement at the
next class meeting. Lecturers monitored students’ activities outside of class through visits, videos, and photos.
Sample
The population of this research was 3rd semester students of teacher training for elementary education (PGSD)
at University of Mataram in the academic year of 2016/2017 consisting 278 students. The samples were taken by
using cluster random sampling technique. A number of 154 students were distributed into four classes, namely:
structured inquiry, guided inquiry, open inquiry, and conventional classes.
The research data were collected from test results and experimental reports. The test was made by the research-
ers, and validated by a curriculum expert and science material expert. The test indicators covered the students’ ability
to observe, inference, use of numbers, groupings, predictions, experimental design, proposing hypothesis, prepara-
tion of tools and experimental materials, data processing, and inferences of experimental results. The indicator of
this test is in accordance with the SPS test indicator proposed by Chabalengula et al. (2012) and Nur et al. (2013).
In order to measure the change, pre- and post- tests were conducted with all four classes. The pre-test was
given at the first meeting, the first week of September, while the post-test was given at the end of the lecture
meeting, the third week of November 2016. The test consisted of 22 multiple choice items and 9 essay items. In
the multiple-choice test, the correct answer was given score 1, and 0 when it is wrong, while the score of the essay
test item had a grade of 0-2.
All test items were valid (p < .05). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the test was .845. It means that the test
was reliable (Sarwono, 2015). The reliability analysis of each test item showed that the lowest Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient of test item was .800 and the highest was .845. It means that all test items were reliable.
Data Analysis
The effectiveness of the three levels of inquiry and conventional strategy was analyzed using Analysis of Co-
variance (ANCOVA). The pre-test score is the covariate to determine whether the post-test is significantly different
(Gormally et al., 2009). Before the ANCOVA was performed, a normality test of Kolmogorov-Smirnov and homoge-
neity test of Levene were first performed. A post hoc Least Significant Difference (LSD) test was then performed to
determine whether the effectiveness of the four learning strategies was significantly different.
The scores of the five kinds of ISPS were obtained from the results of the experimental reports. The scores
of each ISPS were given based on the Likert Scale 1-5 (1 = very poor, 2 = poor, 3 = acceptable, 4 = good, and 5 =
very good). The Kruskal Wallis Test was used to compare the score differences from the five kinds of ISPS among
the structured, guided, open inquiry and conventional classes. The test was suitable for comparing ordinal scale
data and not normally distributed data (Prayitno, 2012). All the data were analyzed by using the statistical software
package, namely Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for Windows version 22.
The research process was concluded by interviewing 12 students (3 students per class) to obtain the informa-
tion about what they liked and what they did not like during the learning process. The purpose of the interviews
was to obtain additional feedback pertaining to the students’ experiences regarding their learning; i.e. aspects that
were not possible to obtain from the results of the test and from the experiment report.
911
(P. 908-918) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Result of Research
The mean score of pre- and post-test of SPS is presented in Table 3. The open inquiry class had the highest
pre-test and post-test scores, while the structured inquiry class had the lowest pre-test score, and the conventional
class had the lowest post-test score. The largest score increase from pre-test to post-test occurred in the open-
inquiry class, while the smallest increase occurred in the conventional class. The pre-test and post-test data were
normally distributed (p pre-test and post-test = .200 > .05). Levene test value from pre-test (p = .382) and post-test
(p = .066) indicated that both tests had homogeneous variance (p > .05).
Table 3. Comparison of mean score of pre-test and post-test of SPS.
Post-
Strategy N Pre-test Difference Mean Corrected1 SE Notation2
test
Conventional 36 36.8 45.9 9.1 51.705 1.371 a

Structured inquiry 41 36.3 49.5 13.2 55.811 1.294 b
Guided inquiry 39 47.3 60.4 13.1 55.852 1.309 b
Open inquiry 38 50.3 66.4 16.1 58.880 1.356 b
1
.Based on estimated marginal means of post-test
2
.The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
The results of ANCOVA (Table 4) show that the effectiveness of the implementation between open inquiry,
guided inquiry, structured inquiry, and conventional strategy in increasing student SPS is significantly different
(p = .005 < .05). The results of this test also show that pre-test results have an effect on the post-test gain (p < .001).
Table 4. The results of ANCOVA.
Source df Mean square F Sig.(p)
Pre-test 1 28712.791 441.829 < .001

Learning Strategy 3 290.412 4.469 .005
The results of post hoc LSD test show that the corrected mean among the three levels of inquiry is not sig-
nificantly different, but it is significantly different from that of the conventional class, as indicated in the notation
column of Table 3. This means that the effectiveness of the implementation of the three inquiry levels in increasing
the SPS is higher and significantly different from that of the conventional strategy, but the effectiveness among
the three levels of inquiry is not significantly different.
There are six experiment reports submitted by students during the lectures. The topics of the experiment
reports are shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Topics of experiment report.
Report Topic Total experiments
1 Measurement 1
2 Substance and its changes 1
3 Plant diversity 1
4 Photosynthesis 1
5 Animal diversity 1
Nutrition, respiration, circulation, environmental pollution and adaptation,
6 5
simple machines
912
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 908-918)
There are five types of ISPS which were scored from the six experiment reports, namely the skills of arranging
work procedures, collecting data, presenting data in tables and graphs, discussing data, and making conclusions.
Based on the results of Kruskal Wallis test (Table 6), the mean difference in scores of the five skills among open
inquiry, guided inquiry, structured inquiry, and conventional strategies was significant (p < .001).
Table 6. Significance differences of five types of ISPS.
Work procedures Data collection Data presentation Data discussion Conclusion
Chi-square 49.400 49.141 68.190 42.663 43.284

df 3 3 3 3 3
Asymp.sig. (p) < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001
Grouping Variable: Three levels of inquiry and conventional
The significant mean score differences of the five ISPS among the four classes, as shown in Table 6, can be ex-
amined in detail from the mean rankings in Table 7. The class implementing open inquiry had the highest mean on
the five ISPS compared to the other three classes. The guided inquiry class had a higher mean of ISPS in the skills of
work procedures, data collection, and conclusions than the structured inquiry and the conventional class (Table 7).
Table 7. Mean rank of five types of ISPS.
Mean rank
Strategy N
Work procedure Data collection Data presentation Data discussion Conclusion
Conventional 36 58.22 59.65 90.56 60.72 54.92

Structured inquiry 41 48.29 55.94 31.60 57.83 61.57
Guided inquiry 39 98.27 76.35 81.74 75.51 77.38
Open inquiry 38 105.96 118.86 110.30 116.66 116.20
The findings from the data presented in Table 8 suggest that the open inquiry class had very positive scores
pertaining to work procedures and data collection (Very good) and positive scores regarding data presentation,
the data discussion and conclusion drawing (Good). As such, the open inquiry group scored the highest compared
to the other three.
The guided inquiry class’ ISPS scores on the other hand, suggest that this group scored only at the ‘Good’ level
and another at ‘Acceptable’. Likewise, the structured inquiry class had two ISPS that were ‘Good’ and three ISPS as
‘Acceptable’. The conventional class had three ISPS scores that were ‘Good’ and two ISPS as ‘Acceptable’. If all the four
classes were compared, it is evident that the open inquiry class obtained higher ISPS scores than the other three
classes. In addition, the guided inquiry class achieved better ISPS scores than the structured inquiry class and the
conventional class. The conventional class demonstrated better data presentation than the structured inquiry class.
Table 8. Scores and categories of the five types of ISPS.
Working
Data collection Data Presentation Data Discussion Conclusion
procedures
Strategy
a b a b a b a b a b
Conventional 4 Good 4 Good 4 Good 3 Acceptable 3 Acceptable

Structured inquiry 4 Good 4 Good 3 Acceptable 3 Acceptable 3 Acceptable
Guided inquiry 4 Good 4 Good 4 Good 4 Good 3 Acceptable
Open inquiry 5 Very good 5 Very good 4 Good 4 Good 4 Good
a = the mean score based on the Likert Scale
b = category
913
(P. 908-918) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
After all the post-tests were concluded, three students from each class participated in individual interviews.
The interview was focused on obtaining data about the factors affecting the students’ learning results through the
questions about what the students liked and did not like from the learning process.
The results of the interview with the students in the conventional class showed that on average they expe-
rienced learning through experimentation activities as useful, because it could strengthen their understanding
of science concepts. Their complaints were related to the limited number of lab tools and the writing of the
experiment reports, which was considered to occupy them. They stated that there was not anything new from
the experiment procedure, because the experiment was only based on the lecturer’s directions as they had
often done previously. The conventional strategy had been conducted by them on natural science lecturing at
the previous semester.
The students in the structured inquiry class enjoyed the learning, because the learning process was held
through a series of experiments which was not boring. Their complaints were that they found it difficult to pres-
ent the experimental data because they were not given any directions in presenting the data on the experimental
procedure, whereas this process was a new experience for them. They also complained about the experiment report
writing which had to be submitted every week. This was a consequence from six experimental reports submitted
by the students (Table 5) and every week there was a session for presenting their experimental report.
The students in the guided inquiry class admitted that the learning method implemented was quite interesting
and interactive because the lecturer gave experimental questions that motivated the students to actively discuss
to solve the problems given. The writing of the experiment reports became the source of the students’ complaints
because of the amount of time required to finish it. This happened because the students’ ISPS was evaluated by
the way they wrote the work procedure, the data collection, the data presentation, the discussion and the conclu-
sion (Table 6). Thus, they had to make description about the five kinds of ISPS on the six experiment reports and
it made much more time needed to finish that.
The students in the open inquiry class enjoyed the learning, because the learning process provided them
with many opportunities to cooperate with other students in completing the experimental tasks. Moreover, they
also claimed to be challenged to be more critical and creative in finding the experiment questions and using the
surrounding materials to complete the experiment that they designed by themselves. The complaints were that
the students felt that they had too many assignments, because in addition to designing experiments which was
a new experience, they were also required to make a report on the experiment, while they also had other assign-
ments from other lectures. For instance, at the Curriculum Analysis lecturing, the students performed curriculum
analysis and then designed a lesson plan for learning at elementary school.
The results of the interview with the students from all four classes generally illustrate that the implementa-
tion of the experiment made the learning enjoyable, but as a consequence the students had more burden in their
tasks. A bigger workload, such as the task of designing an experiment, encouraged the students to be more active
in the discussion and cooperation, and to be more critical and creative in learning.
Discussion
The research results showed that the mean score of SPS in the structured, guided, and open inquiry classes was
higher and significantly different from that in the conventional class. The above suggests that the implementation
of these three levels of inquiry is more effective in improving SPS than the conventional strategy. The findings of
Baskoro, Corebima, Susilo, Zubaidah, and Ramli (2017); Gormally et al. (2009); Kanli and Yagbasan (2017); Sahyar
and Hastini (2017) also show that the implementation of inquiry strategies is more effective in increasing SPS than
that of conventional strategies.
There are several factors that can influence these outcomes, such as the implementation of inquiry strate-
gies gives students greater responsibility in completing the experiment than that in the conventional strategies.
According to Llewellyn (2013) the students in structured inquiry, although given the working procedure of the
experiment, are responsible for processing and presenting data based on their own ideas. The students of guided
inquiry are responsible for making the working procedure of the experiment, while the students of open inquiry
have more responsibilities, which is, finding experimental problems and designing an experiment. Meanwhile, the
responsibility of the students of the conventional class is less than that of the students of the three inquiry classes.
The students of conventional class are only given complete experimental instructions, starting from the experi-
mental problems until the way of presenting the experimental data. The implications of increased responsibility to
914
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 908-918)
complete the experiment is that it increases the students’ efforts and cooperation to complete the tasks. This was
proved from the results of the interview with the students of inquiry class. The results of the interview revealed
that the responsibility to design an experiment encouraged them to be more active in discussion and cooperation
to complete their assignments. The provision of greater responsibility in an inquiry activity, in fact, also increases
motivation, interest, and the scientific attitudes toward learning (Akinoglu, 2008; Bayram, Oskay, Erdem, Ozgur, &
Senol, 2013; Lin et al., 2017; Lintuan, Chin, Tsai, & Cheng, 2005). Moreover, the greater responsibility in complet-
ing the experiments could also give more opportunities for the students to explore and enrich various skills in
conducting various experiments (Aljaafreh, 2013).
The implementation of inquiry strategies encourages students to think more critically (Fuad et al., 2017). The
contribution of critical thinking is to improve the students’ understanding of SPS in the experiments conducted
(Azizmalayeri, Mirshahjafari, Sharif, Asgari, & Omidi, 2012; Kitot, Ahmad, & Seman, 2010). The increase in SPS could
probably be attributed to the students’ activities during each stage of the inquiry cycle, especially the stages of
acquisition, implementation and summation. In the acquisition stage, which is stage 2 of the inquiry cycle, students
brainstorm any possible answers to the experiment questions. This stage provides students with opportunities to
improve inference skills and preparation of experimental hypotheses. At stage 4 and 5, which was implementa-
tion and summation, the students were asked to design experiments and to process and to present data in tables
or graphs based on their own ideas. Thus, in stage 4 and 5 of inquiry, the students were assisted to learn deeper
about the preparation of the experimental procedure, data analysis and data presentation, which contributed to
their improved understanding of preparing experimental design and data processing. This might have an impact
on the improved development of the two types of SPS.
The students that participated in the conventional strategies class implemented experiments based on
complete instructions, which are often referred to as cookbook labs (Gormally et al., 2009). Students’ activities in
cookbook labs are emphasized on developing the skills of observing, measuring, and counting, but lacking the
emphasis on developing the skills of formulating problems, composing hypotheses, identifying variables and
designing experiments (Anggraini, 2012). Thus, the insufficient experience of the students in the conventional
class in formulating problems and hypotheses, and designing experiments may have resulted in the lower level
of performance of their skills pertaining to the higher level of SPS.
Different results occurred in the ISPS scores of the structured, guided, open inquiry and conventional strate-
gies groups, as there were significantly different scores in terms of preparing experimental procedures, collecting
data, presenting data, discussion, and experimental conclusions. In this research, the implementation of open
inquiry had the highest effectiveness in increasing ISPS, while guided inquiry had a lower effect than the open
inquiry, but higher than the other two classes. These results are in accordance to the findings that the students in
open inquiry classes have higher abilities related to searching literature, new ideas, technical problem solving, and
understanding of work procedures (controlling variables, work methods, and statistical analysis) than the students
engaging in conventional contexts (Sadeh & Zion, 2009; Zion & Mendelovici, 2012).
The greater flexibility of the students of the open inquiry class in selecting experimental problems provides
an opportunity for them to think more critically, but flexibly about some of the experimental design alternatives,
so that they can work on experiments which match their interests. For example, the open inquiry students have an
idea to investigate whether the degree of light intensity affects the rate of oxygen gas production in photosynthetic
experiments. It is important to note that before these students engage in the problems, they must have already
considered several things like what the hypothesis is, what variables are measured, what tools and experimental
materials are used, how the experiments are designed, and so on. In other words, the formulation of the experiment
problem they choose is relevant to their interests and to the supporting factors such as the tools and experimental
materials they have. When students engage in an investigation that is relevant to their interests, it appears that
they seem to be more comfortable with their work and as such it seems that the increase of ISPS will occur to a
greater extent (Nworgu & Otum, 2013).
The students in the guided inquiry in this research had ISPS scores which were between the open inquiry and
structured inquiry groups. These results indicated that if the students are not ready yet to implement the open
inquiry, it is advisable that they choose the guided inquiry as a substitute. These recommendations are consistent
with the research findings of Arslan (2014) which suggests that the teacher training students who usually implement
the lower level of inquiry, namely the confirmation inquiry, had difficulties in defining hypotheses and designing
experiments when they were implementing open inquiry. As such, they were in need of the implementation of
guided inquiry as a bridge before implementing the open inquiry. The same suggestion was also put forward by
915
(P. 908-918) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Zion and Mendelovici (2012) that the implementation of guided inquiry can assist students to make the transition
when they want to switch from structured inquiry to open inquiry.
The students implementing structured inquiry had higher SPS score than that of the students implementing
conventional strategy. However, in one of the ISPS, namely the experimental data presentation skills, the students
of structured inquiry class had a lower score than that of the students of the conventional class. This might be
because generally the students of the structured inquiry class presented their data into narrative form sentences
that tended to be difficult to understand and even not interesting, because it needed much more time for reading
and understanding data and it became more difficult when the data was written unclearly and definitely made
us harder to understand it. In contrast, the students of the conventional class presented their data based on the
provided table available in the experiment guide book. Such data presentation is easier to understand. This find-
ing is consistent with the results of interviews with the students of structured inquiry who stated that they had
difficulties in presenting the experimental data, because they did not get any directions of data presentation in
their experimental guide book. It seems that the structured inquiry students need comprehensive guidance in the
way of how to serve the data which is shorter on the form of table or graph.
Conclusions
The effectiveness of the implementation of open inquiry, guided inquiry and structured inquiry was not sig-
nificantly different in the improvement of students’ SPS, but the effectiveness of these three levels of inquiry was
significantly higher than that of the conventional strategy. On the ISPS, implementation of the three levels of inquiry
and conventional strategy had a significantly different effect, whereas the implementation of open inquiry had the
highest effectiveness on the ISPS improvement, followed by guided inquiry, conventional and structured inquiry.
Although all three levels of inquiry had the same effectiveness in improving SPS, open inquiry however appears
to be more effective when implemented in the science learning process of teacher training students, because it
showed a higher increase towards developing ISPS. The good mastery of ISPS will help teachers to prepare various
experimental designs of science which is useful in facilitating the development of students’ SPS. The implication
of this research for the universities is that the curriculum for university lectures should provide more attention to
mini-research activities, particularly those related to the implementation of open inquiry. For the government, es-
pecially the Ministry of Education of Indonesia, the creation of policies should facilitate the mini-research activities
of teachers through training which can have a direct impact on improving ISPS and improving the performance
of science teachers in science learning.
Acknowledgments
The researcher would like to thank Baiq Niswatun Khair who helped with the data of this research. The
researcher also thanks Dadi Setiadi and Gunawan for the criticisms and suggestions for the improvement of the
learning scenarios and tests used in this research.
References
Akbar, B., & Rustaman, N. Y. (2010). Kemampuan keterampilan proses sains guru SD [Science process skills of elementary school
teachers]. Proceedings of Seminar Nasional Biologi (pp. 28-45). Semarang: Jurusan Biologi FMIPA Universitas Negeri Semarang.
Akbar, B., & Rustaman, N. Y. (2011). Kemampuan mahasiswa PGSD dalam SPS dan pengembangan instrumen peskornnya [PGSD
students’ ability in SPS and the development of the scoring instruments]. Jurnal Evaluasi Pendidikan, 2 (1), 27-39.
Akinbobola, A. O., & Afalobi, F. (2010). Constructivist practices through guided discovery approach: the effect on student cognitive
achievement in Negerian sinor secondary school physics. Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education, 2 (1), 16-25.
Akinoglu, O. (2008). Assessment of the inquiry-based project implementation process in science education upon students’ points
of views. International Journal of Instruction, 1 (1), 1-12.
Aljaafreh, I. J. A. R. (2013). the effect of using the directed inquiry strategy on the development of critical thinking skills and
achievement in physics of the tenth-grade students in Southern Mazar. Journal of Education and Practice, 4 (27), 191-197.
Anggraini, S. (2012). Profil kemampuan melakukan inkuiri melalui kegiatan miniriset calon guru biologi dalam perkuliahan
fisiologi tumbuhan [Profile of the ability to perform inquiry through mini research activities of biology teacher candidates
in plant physiology lectures]. Proceedings of Seminar Nasional Cakrawala Pembelajaran Berkualitas di Indonesia (pp. 742–753).
Jakarta: Direktorat Pendidik dan Tenaga Kependidikan Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi Kementerian Pendidikan
dan Kebudayaan.
916
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 908-918)
Arslan, A. (2014). Transition between open and guided inquiry instruction. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 407 – 412.
Azizmalayeri, K., Mirshahjafari, E., Sharif, M., Asgari, M., & Omidi, M. (2012). The impact of guided inquiry methods of teaching
on the critical thinking of high school students. Journal of Education and Practice, 3 (10), 42-47.
Baskoro, A. P., Corebima, D., Susilo, H., Zubaidah, S., & Ramli, M. (2017). Closing the science process skills gap between students
with high and low level academic achievement. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16 (2), 266-277.
Bayram, Z., Oskay, O.O., Erdem, E., Ozgur, S.D., & Senol. (2013). Effect of inquiry based learning method on students’ motivation.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 988-996.
Chabalengula, M., Mumba, F., & Mbewe, S. (2012). How pre-service teachers understand and perform science process skills.
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 8 (3), 167-176.
Duran, M., Isik, H., Mihladiz, G., & Ozdemir, O. (2011). The relationship between the pre-service science teachers’ scientific process
skills and learning styles. Western Anatolia Journal of Educational Science, (Special issue), 467-476. Retrieved from http://
webb.deu.edu.tr/baed/giris/baed/ozel_sayi/467-476.pdf.
Eisenkraft, A., & Antheswashburn, M. (2008). Assessment of laboratory investigations, In J. Coffey, R. Douglas, & C. Stearns (Eds.),
Assessing Science Learning (pp.145-166). Arlingtong: National Science Teachers Association Press.
Erkol, S., & Ugulu, I. (2013). Examining biology candidates’ scientific process skill levels and comparing these levels in terms of
various variables. Procedia-social and Behevioral Sciences, 116, 4742-4747.
Feyzioglu, B. (2009). An investigation of the relationship between science process skills with efficient laboratory use and science
achievement in chemistry education. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 6 (3), 114-132.
Feyzioglu, B., Demirdag, B., Akyilidz, M., & Altun, E. (2012). Developing a science process skills test for secondary student: validity
and reliability study. Education Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12 (3), 1899-1906.
Fuad, N. M., Zubaidah, S., Mahanal, S., & Suarsini, E. (2017). Improving junior high schools’ critical thinking skills based on test
three different models of learning. International Journal of Instruction, 10 (1), 101-116.
Gormally, C., Brickman, P., Armstrong, N., & Hallar, B. (2009). Effects of inquiry-based learning on students’ science literacy skills
and confidence. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3 (2), 1-22.
Hardianti, T., & Kuswanto, H. (2017). Difference among levels of inquiry: process skills improvement at senior high school in
Indonesia. International Journal of Instruction, 10 (2), 119-130.
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2009). The meaning of scientific literacy. International Journal of Environmental & Science Educa-
tion, 4 (3), 275-288.
Kanli, U., & Yagbasan, R. (2017). The effects of a laboratory approaches on the development of university students’ science process skills
and conceptual achievement, Essays in Education, Special Edition, Retrieved 15/09/2017 from https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/284035577.
Kemendikbud. (2011). Pedoman pembuatan alat peraga biologi sederhana untuk SMA [Guidelines for the manufacture of biology
simple props for senior high schools]. Jakarta: Direktorat Pembinaan SMA Dirjen Pendidikan Menengah Kemendikbud.
Ketpichainarong, W., Panijpan, B., & Ruenwongsa. (2010). Enhanced learning of biotechnology students by an inquiry-based
cellulase Laboratory. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 5 (2), 169-187.
Kitot, A. K. A., Ahmad, A. R., & Seman, A. A. (2010). The effectiveness of inquiry teaching an enhanching students’ critical thinking.
Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 7, 264-273.
Kurniawan, A., & Fadloli. (2016). Profil penguasaan SPS mahasiswa PGSD universitas terbuka [Profile mastery of SPS of PGSD
open university students]. Proceeding Biology Education Conference, 13 (1), 410-419.
Lin, J. L., Cheng, M. F., Lin, S. Y., Chang, J. Y., Chang, Y. C., Li, H. W., & Lin, D. M. (2017). The effects of combining inquiry-based
teaching with science magic on the learning outcomes of a friction unit. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16 (2), 218-227.
Lintuan, H., Chin, C. C., Tsai, C. C., & Cheng, S. F. (2005). Investigating the effectiveness of inquiry instruction on the motivation
of different learning styles students. International Journal of Mathematic Education, 3, 541-566.
Llewellyn, D. (2011). Differentiated science inquiry. California: Corwin, A Sage Company
Llewellyn, D. (2013). Teaching high school science through inquiry and argumentation. (Second edition). California: Corwin A Sage
Company.
Maknun, D., Surtikanti, R.R.A.K., Munandar, A., & Subahar, T.S. (2012). Keterampilan esensial dan kompetensi motorik laboratorium
mahasiswa calon guru biologi dalam praktikum ekologi hewan [Essential skills and laboratorium motoric competencies of
biology student teachers in animal ecology practicum]. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 1 (2), 141-148.
Mariana, I. M. A., & Praginda, W. (2009). Hakikat IPA dan pendidikan IPA untuk guru SD [The nature of science and science education
for elementary school teachers]. Jakarta: Pusat Pengembangan dan Pemberdayaan Pendidikan dan Tenaga Kependidikan
IPA (PPPPTK IPA).
Nuangchalerm, P., & Thammasena, B. (2009). Cognitive development, analytical thinking and learning satisfactionof second
grade students learned through inquiry-based learning. Asian Social Science, 5 (10), 82-87.
Nur, M., Nasution, & Suryanti, J. (2013). Keterampilan proses sains dan berpikir kritis [Science process skills and critical thinking].
Surabaya: Universitas Negeri Surabaya.
Nwagbo & Uzoamaka, C. (2011). Effects of biology practical activities on students’ process skill acquisition, Retrieved 15/09/2017
from http://stanonline.org/journal/pdf/JSTAN-Chinwe%26Chukelu%202011.pdf.
Nworgu, L. N., & Otum, V. V. (2013). Effect of guided inquiry with analogy instructional strategy on students’ acquisition of science
process skills. Journal of Education and Practice, 4 (27), 35-40.
Ozturk, N., Tezel, O., & Acat, M. M. (2010). Science process skills levels of primary school seventhgrade students in science and
technology lesson. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 3 (7), 15-28.
917
(P. 908-918) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Prayitno, D. (2012). Belajar cepat olah data statistik dengan SPSS [Quick learning of analyzing statistical data using SPSS]. Yogya-
karta: Penerbit ANDI.
Rahayu, S. (2016, March 17). Mengembangkan literasi sains anak Indonesia melalui pembelajaran berorientasi nature of science (NOS)
[Developing science literacy of Indonesian children through learning-oriented nature of science (NOS)]. Paper Presented
at Professor Inauguration Speech, Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia.
Sadeh, I., & Zion, M. (2009). The development of dynamic inquiry performance within an open inquiry setting: a comparison to
guided setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46 (10), 1137-1160.
Sadeh, I., & Zion, M. (2012). Which type of inquiry project do high school biology students prefer: open or guided? Research in
Science Education, 42 (5), 831-848.
Sahyar & Hastini, F. (2017). The effect of scientific inquiry learning model based on conceptual change on physics cognitive com-
petence and science process skill (SPS) of students at senior high school. Journal of Education and Practice, 8 (5), 120-126.
Sarwono, J. (2015). SPSS 22. Yogyakarta: Penerbit ANDI.
Skamp, K. (1998). Teaching primary science constructively (C. MacKenzie, Ed.). Victoria: Harcourt Australia Pty Ltd.
Sudargo, F. (2012, May 25). Metapedagogi dalam pendidikan guru biologi: membangun kemampuan berpikir kritis dan kreatif melalui
pembelajaran berbasis praktikum [Metapedagogy in biology teacher education: Building creative and critical thinking skills
through practical work-based learning]. Paper Presented at Professor Inauguration Speech, University Pendidikan Indonesia.
Sukarno, Permanasari, A., Hamidah, I., & Widodo, A. (2013). The analysis of science teacher barriers in implementing of science
process skills (SPS) teaching approach at junior high school and it’s solutions. Journal of Education and Practice, 4 (27), 185-190.
Zion, M., & Mendelovici, R. (2012). Moving from structured to open inquiry: challenges and limits. Science Education International,
23 (4), 383-399.
Received: June 12, 2017 Accepted: October 05, 2017
I Putu Artayasa PhD Student of State University of Malang, Lecture of biology

education, Teacher Training and Education Faculty, University of
Mataram, Jl. Majapahit No. 62 Mataram 83125, Indonesia.
E-mail: artayasa75@yahoo.com
Herawati Susilo PhD, Professor, Biology Department, State University of Malang, Jl.
Semarang No. 5 Malang 65145, Indonesia.
E-mail: herawati.susilo.fmipa@um.ac.id
Website: http://www.um.ac.id
Umie Lestari PhD, Associate Professor, Biology Department, State University of
Malang, Jl. Semarang No. 5 Malang 65145, Indonesia.
E-mail: umie.lestari.fmipa@um.ac.id
Sri Endah Indriwati PhD, Associate Professor, Biology Department, State University of
Malang, Jl. Semarang No. 5 Malang 65145, Indonesia
E-mail: sri.endah.fmipa@um.ac.id
918
UNPACKING THE SOUTH
AFRICAN PHYSICS-
EXAMINATION QUESTIONS ISSN 1648-3898 /Print/
ACCORDING TO BLOOMS’ ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/
REVISED TAXONOMY
Abstract. The quality and standard of

Abraham Motlhabane
South African examination questions for
the grade 12 examination have become
an important issue for the South African
education system. So far, the focus of
empirical research has been on factors that
lead to poor performance in the Physical
sciences as well as the alignment of the
Introduction
grade 12 Physical Sciences examination
with the core curriculum in South Africa.
The analysis of the South African final year grade 12 Physics examination
On the contrary, this research paper focuses
questions using the revised Bloom’s taxonomy is not a well-researched area.
on a different aspect: the weaknesses and
Various studies have used the revised Bloom’s taxonomy in their different
the strengths of the Physics examination
fields of research apart from final grade 12 Physics examination questions.
questions. It addresses the question of how
For example, the research by Zareian, Davoudi, Heshmatifar, Rahimi (2015)
the Physics examination questions cover
evaluated the questions in two English for Specific Purposes (ESP) textbooks,
higher and lower order level questions in
namely, English for the Students of Sciences (ESS) and English for the Stu-
the Bloom’s revised taxonomy. To answer
dents of Engineering (ESE) taught in Iranian universities for several academic
this question, the Physics examination
years based on Bloom’s new taxonomy of cognitive learning domain. The
questions of the year 2014 and 2015 were
results of the research (Zareian et al., 2015) showed that most of the ques-
analysed using Bloom’s revised taxonomy
tions were aligned with remembering, understanding and applying as the
of learning objectives. The examination
three lower-level categories, while analysing, evaluating, and creating as the
questions were codified and the frequencies
three higher-level categories constituted the lowest frequency in the two
and percentages of occurrence of differ-
textbooks. A content analysis by Ulum (2016) was conducted on the extent
ent learning objectives were calculated.
of Bloom’s taxonomy in the reading comprehension questions of the course
The results show that third level cognitive
book Q: Skills for success 4 reading and writing. Findings of the research
skills were more prevalent than other ones.
(Ulum, 2016) suggested that this analyzed course book lacked the higher level
Furthermore, examiners asked questions
cognitive skills involved in Bloom’s taxonomy. A review was done by Cullinane
that require application and few questions
and Liston (2016) on the leaving certificate Biology examination questions
requiring the recall of knowledge.
(1999-2008) using Bloom’s taxonomy. The findings (Cullinane & Liston, 2016)
Keywords: physics examination, revised
showed that the examination predominately included questions that do not
Bloom’s taxonomy, quality of education.
promote higher levels of thinking. Lee, Kim and Yoon (2015) examined the
intended primary science curricula from Korea and Singapore using revised
Bloom’s taxonomy. The results show that students in Singapore (Lee et al.,
2015) experienced a 59% increase in learning objectives as they move from
the lower to upper primary, whereas their Korean counterparts experience
a 15% increase. In the research by Fiegel (2013), the revised taxonomy was
used to develop learning outcomes that were linked to lesson plans and Abraham Motlhabane
University of South Africa, South Africa
assignments. The results (Fiegel, 2013) suggest that students value this ap-
proach especially to course design. Kidwell, Fisher, Braun and Swanson (2012)
919
UNPACKING THE SOUTH AFRICAN PHYSICS-EXAMINATION QUESTIONS ACCORDING TO ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/
(P. 919-931) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
used the taxonomy to teach a set of core knowledge learning objectives for accounting ethics education, and it
was found to be beneficial to the course. In South Africa, the research by Edwards (2010) documented findings on
the analysis related to the alignment of the grade 12 Physical Sciences examination with the core curriculum. The
research (Edwards, 2010) found that, the cognitive level “Remember” is under-represented in the Chemistry and
Physics examinations, whereas the cognitive levels Understand and Apply were over-represented in Chemistry. In
view of the research already done, this research used the revised Bloom’s taxonomy to analyse the final grade 12
Physics examination questions.
This research is important as it gives light into the assessment standards in the grade 12 Physics exit exami-
nation so as to provide examiners with a tool with which to look at shortcomings of the examination question or
the assessment standards (Edwards, 2010). Similarly, when assessment is aligned (Herman & Webb, 2007) to the
standards, an analysis such as this can provide sound information about both how well learners are doing and how
well schools and their teachers are doing in helping students to attain the standards. Furthermore, Olson (2003)
when an examination question is used to measure the achievement of curriculum standards, it is essential to evalu-
ate and document both the relevance of the examination to the standards and the extent to which it represents
those standards. Therefore, this research fills the gap in the scholarship in this area and serves as a future reference
for further research on the analysis of Physics examinations.
This research analysed the final year grade 12 Physics examination questions. For this purpose, the revised
Bloom’s taxonomy was used. The rationale for using the revised Bloom’s taxonomy introduced by Anderson,
Krathwohl, Airiasian, Cruikshank, Mayer, and Pintrich (2001) includes the fact that it incorporates learner-centred
prototypes into the original taxonomy, with the aim to evaluate learners’ comprehension. The revised Bloom’s
taxonomy (Anderson et al., 2001) affixed the knowledge dimension to the skeletal structure, which provided for
the description of learning activities and assessments at the intersection of knowledge and cognitive process cat-
egories. Consequently, the aim of this research is to use the revised Bloom’s taxonomy as a framework to evaluate
the extent to which the examination questions cover higher and lower level questions.
Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy
Bloom’s Taxonomy was first proposed in 1956 (Dam & Volman, 2004). The original taxonomy consisted of the
well-known categories: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. His hierarchy
has been a major aid to educators planning for and considering all levels of thinking and focusing on the inclusion
of higher order thinking in lessons, units of instruction and national curricula. Its emphasis on cognitive objectives
has helped educators create meaningful learning events and, consequently worthwhile learning outcomes in stu-
dents. In 2001 Anderson et al., revised the taxonomy. From the lowest to the highest the new revised taxonomy
is as follows (Anderson et al., 2001):
•• Remembering: This is the lowest level, which asks a learner to define, duplicate, list, memorize, recall,
repeat, and reproduce state.
•• Understanding: This level asks learners if they can explain ideas or concepts by asking them to classify,
describe, discuss, explain, identify, locate, recognize, report, select, translate, and paraphrase.
•• Applying: It involves students in applying information in a new way which requires learners to choose,
demonstrate, dramatize, employ, illustrate, interpret, operate, schedule, sketch, and solve.
•• Analyzing: Class activities and assignments for this level require students to break information into
parts to explore understandings and relationships by asking them to classify, compare, contrast, dif-
ferentiate, and examine.
•• Evaluating: Evaluation necessitates justifying a stand or decision by asking students to appraise, argue,
defend, judge, select, support, and evaluate.
•• Creating: This is the highest level of instructional outcome requiring students to compose, construct,
devise, formulate, predict, and infer.
The aim of this research was to analyse the weaknesses and strengths of the Physics examination questions
in terms of lower and higher order thinking skills under the revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Although the research is
limited to the 2014 and 2015 Physics examination, it sheds a light upon the efficiency of examination in developing
cognitive skills as well as guiding examiners, educational policy-makers, science teachers and curriculum designers
920
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ UNPACKING THE SOUTH AFRICAN PHYSICS-EXAMINATION QUESTIONS ACCORDING TO
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 919-931)
in terms of incorporating more higher-order questions in their materials in a way to achieve higher level cognition
skills. Therefore, this research investigated the following research question, to what extent do the 2014 and 2015
Physics examination questions cover the lower and higher order cognition levels of the revised Bloom’s taxonomy.
Methodology of the Research
General Background
Qualitative content analysis was used as a research method. The content of the examination questions was
interpreted through the systematic classification process of coding and identifying themes or patterns (Hsieh, &
Shannon, 2005). Generally, text data might be in verbal, print, or electronic form and might have been obtained
from narrative responses, open-ended survey questions, interviews, focus groups, observations, or print media
such as articles, books, or manuals (Kondracki, Wellman, & Amundson, 2002). However, the text in this research
was available in print and electronic form. This qualitative content analysis went beyond merely counting words
to examining content intensely for the purpose of classifying large amounts of text into an efficient number of
categories that represent similar meanings (Weber, 1990). Therefore, the goal of using content analysis was to
provide knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon under research (Downe-Wamboldt, 1992).
Sample Selection
The sample for this research comprised of the 2014 and 2015 final Physics examination questions. 10 examina-
tion questions consisting of 34 sub-questions from the 2014 grade 12 final examination as well as 11 examination
questions consisting 26 sub questions from the 2015 examination were purposively selected. The examination
questions were identified as information rich (McMillan &Schumacher, 1997) to be used for this research.
A coding scheme for classifying and evaluating the examination questions using the revised Bloom’s taxonomy
was developed. Frequencies and reporting percentages took place as a quantitative research design. This research
used a descriptive content analysis style that describes the occurrence of the coding categories of analysis precisely.
Content analysis was used to make replicable and valid inferences by interpreting and coding textual material in
the grade 12 examination questions. Content analysis was used because it provides new insights and increases
the understanding of the particular phenomena and informs practical actions (Krippendorff, 1989). The text was
systematically evaluated, and qualitative data was converted into quantitative data. The most important aspects
of the examination questions were identified and presented clearly and effectively. This helped in guiding the
coding and analysis. Themes and patterns were identified to describe the situation. The cognitive levels of Bloom’s
revised taxonomy were used to categorise the examination questions.
Data Analysis
Coding as a process of organizing and sorting data was used. The codes served as a way to label, compile and
organize the data. Initial coding and marginal remarks were done on hard copies of examination questions. The
marginal codes were helpful when thinking about how codes fit together. To ensure reliability of data, the coding
practice/training was used to enhance the consistent interpretation of data and reduce individual interpretive bias
(Creswell, 2007). Hence, before coding the examination questions, three researchers were requested to practice
coding independently until 90% or greater reliability of coding was achieved. Differences in coding were constantly
compared, discussed, and resolved to meet this level of consistency. At that point, a coding book was developed
for use during the remaining data analysis. Additional coding rules were defined to establish consistency in seg-
menting the descriptions for coding.
Bloom’s definitions of different levels of the cognitive domain were carefully studied and the key word ex-
amples were extracted and used. The coding scheme represented the six levels of learning objectives from the
simple recall or recognition of facts, as the lowest level, through increasingly more complex and abstract mental
levels of analysing and creating. The coding categories were labelled as (Anderson et al., 2001): remembering,
921
(P. 919-931) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
understanding, applying, analysing, evaluating, and creating. Each coding category included examples for each
level, key words that represented intellectual activity on each level and excerpt of the examination questions.
Once the data had been coded, regularities, variations and peculiarities were examined and patterns identi-
fied. The process of identifying substantive connections by associating codes or linking data was done (Dey, 2003).
Correlations or relations between different codes were studied and a picture of the data was built.
This research attempted to examine the levels of Bloom’s revised taxonomy used in the Physics examination
of 2014 and 2015. Question 1 in all the examinations was multiple choice and it was not included in this research.
Generally, each question was matched with the cognitive thinking levels of the Bloom’s Revised taxonomy and in
this particular research, question key words were used. Key words in each examination questions were identified
to determine to what extent the questions involve cognitive thinking levels. In order to do this, descriptive analysis
for each question was done. All the questions in the 2014 and 2015 examination questions were collected, listed,
and analysed according to Bloom’s Revised taxonomy: low order thinking skills: remembering, understanding, and
applying, and high order thinking skills: analysis, evaluating, and creating. The percentage and frequencies were
calculated for each level of cognition.
Bloom’s revised taxonomy was used because it can be a proper benchmark to assess learning and teaching
activities with the cognitive learning domain like remembering, understanding, applying, analysing, evaluating,
and creating (Zareian at al. 2015). Every coding category involved including examples of key words for each ques-
tion and the level representing cognitive domain was analysed. The data is presented in the form of tables for ease
of reference. In each table, raw frequencies as well as the percentage for each cognitive level is provided. Bloom’s
revised taxonomy has been used as a theoretical framework of this research and as a result the findings were tabu-
lated accordingly. Question stems focusing on each level and key words exemplifying the steps of the taxonomy
were used to come to a conclusion on which levels of thinking order were available in the examination questions.
The data that emerged from descriptive analysis, for example frequencies and percentages, were employed in the
inferential component of data analysis.
Results of Research
The descriptive analysis covered the six categories of the cognitive level of Bloom’s taxonomy, the frequen-
cies and percentages. The results of this research are classified according to the lower and higher-level coding
categories. The percentages were calculated to find out the extent to which the examination questions emphasis
both the lower and higher-levels of the Bloom’s revised taxonomy. In the following tables, the data obtained from
examination questions are analysed.
Table 1. Frequencies and percentages of the six levels of the cognitive domain in Bloom’s revised taxonomy
in the 2014 physics examination.
Revised
Bloom’s Remembering Understanding Applying Analysing Evaluating Creating Total
taxonomy
Frequencies 8 7 27 0 0 0 42
Percentages 19 16 64 0 0 0 100
As it can be seen in Table 1, 64% of the questions in the 2014 examination were third level questions (ap-
plying) according to Bloom’s revised taxonomy. The results show that the first three levels of the revised Bloom’s
taxonomy, that is level 1 (remembering), level 2 (understanding) and level 3 applying were incorporated in the 2014
examination questions. In fact, level 3 questions (applying), which is a medium order thinking according to the
revised Bloom’s taxonomy was in the majority with 64% of questions. With two lower order thinking questions of
the revised Bloom’s taxonomy, that is remembering and understanding represented by 19% and 16% respectively.
The percentage recorded for the first level questions (remembering 19%) is very close to the percentage captured
for the second level questions (understanding 16%). The results also show that there were no instances of any use
of higher order thinking skills (analysing, evaluating and creating). The possibility of exclusion of higher order
questions maybe that, they are not relevant for grade 12 learners. Sample excerpts from the 2014 examination
questions are indicated below.
922
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 919-931)
Figure 1: sample excerpts from the 2014 examination.
The excerpt in Figure 1 shows that, in most cases learners are asked questions that require application. The
questions are phrased such that learners are required to solve a problem. For instance, question 4 above, requires
that the learners must be proficient in problem-solving.
The next table analysed in detail the key words used in each of the questions in the 2014 examination.
Table 2. The 2014 examination question analysis with key words used for each question and the level of
Bloom’s taxonomy.
The verbs used in each of the

Examination Question The level of Bloom’s Taxonomy
questions
2014 1 Multiple choice not included Multiple choice not included

State First Level: Remembering
Draw Second level: Understanding
2
Calculate Third level: Applying
Which one First Level: Remembering
Explain Second level: Understanding
3
Sketch Third level: Applying
Show Third level: Applying
4 Define First Level: Remembering
Give a reason Second level: Understanding
5 Choose First Level: Remembering
Give a reason Second level: Understanding
6
923
(P. 919-931) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/

Examination Question The level of Bloom’s Taxonomy
questions

7
Define First Level: Remembering
8
Determine Third level: Applying
Name First Level: Remembering
9
10
How Second level: Understanding
The majority of the questions in the 2014 examination required learners to calculate.
For the 2015 examination questions, the frequencies and percentages are provided below.
Table 3. Frequencies and percentages of the six levels of the cognitive domain in Bloom’s Taxonomy in the
2015 Physics examination.
Revised Bloom’s
Remembering Understanding Applying Analyzing Evaluating Creating Total
taxonomy
Frequencies 11 6 30 0 0 0 46
Percentages 23 12 64 0 0 0 100
64% of questions (Table 3) accounted for the medium level questions of Bloom’s taxonomy in the 2015
examination. Interestingly the same percentage was recorded in the 2014 examination. Lower level questions
according to Bloom’s taxonomy, namely remembering and understanding recorded 23% and 12% respectively.
A lower percentage of 12% is recorded for understanding, while the remembering level stands at 23%. This means
just over 60% of the questions were medium level questions (level 3) and just over 30 % (level 1 and 2 combined)
were lower level questions. Contrary to the research by Edwards (2010) on exemplar examination questions of
2008 and final examination questions of 2008 and 2009, level 1 (remembering) constituted the largest proportion
(38.9%), followed by understand (29.9%) and apply (26.4%). There is a significant difference between the propor-
tion of application (26.4%) in the research by Edwards (2010) and this research 64% (application). This may be
due to the guidelines given to examiners before they set examination questions. In addition, the curriculum has
since changed significantly from 2008. Sample excerpts from the 2015 examination questions are indicated below.
924
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 919-931)
Figure 2: Sample excerpts from the 2015 examination.
In the next table, the 2015 examination questions are analysed in detail with the key words used in each of
the questions and the level according to Bloom’s taxonomy.
Table 4. The 2015 examination question analysis with key words used for each question and the level of
Bloom’s revised taxonomy.

Examination Question The level of Bloom’s taxonomy
questions
2015 1 Multiple choice not included Multiple choice not included

2
3
Sketch Third level: Applying
4
How First level: Remembering
5 Draw Third level: Applying
State First level: Remembering
Write First level: Remembering
6
Give a reason First Level: Remembering
8
925
(P. 919-931) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/

Examination Question The level of Bloom’s taxonomy
questions

9
Calculation Third level: Applying
Describe Second level: Understanding
10 Write First level: Remembering
Define First level: Remembering
The verb that is prevalent in both examinations is “calculate” (see Table 4) which is in the third level (applying).
Calculations involve reading the question, selecting the correct formula, doing the necessary substitution from the
data given and finally calculating what is required. The examination questions included the first three levels with
applying being the more dominant in the two examinations than all other levels. Applying according to Bloom’s
revised taxonomy is the capacity to employ acquired data in recent and actual cases. As a result, it covers imple-
menting principles, methods, terms and theories in proper circumstances. Since Physics involves, employing data
in recent and actual cases and learners should implement Physics principles, methods, terms and theories. In the
assessment of learners, examiners and teachers tend to focus more level 3 questions (applying) more than any other
level. The examination is characterised with questions that require application. As indicated in the excerpt below.
Figure 3: Excerpt from 2015 Physics examination.
In principle learners are given a Physics scenario. In this scenario the data is provided. The learners must read,
understand, use and apply the data appropriately using the correct formulae. In the question above (question 4)
learners must calculate which is a level 3 question (applying) according to Bloom’s revised taxonomy. All the ques-
tions in the 2014 and 2015 are similar to the above. Hence the majority of questions are application.
The first level (remembering) that appears in the two examinations includes questions that require learners
to state the laws or defining a concept. Examples extracted from both the 2014 and 2015 are indicated below
926
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 919-931)
Figure 4: Examples extracted from both the 2014 and 2015 examination.
Learners seem to perform well in the topic of Doppler effect, question 6. In 2014 learners performed well in
the same question on the topic of Doppler effect.
The excerpt of question 6 from the 2014 is indicated below.
Figure 5: Excerpt of question 6 from 2014 examination.
As can be seen from the above excerpt, question 6 consisted of the level 1 questions (remembering) with only
one question at a third level (applying). In addition, question 6 also required learners to explain and give reasons
for their answers which is level 2 (understanding).
The results show that in question 5 and question 7 the learner’s performance was very low. Below is the
excerpt of question 5 from 2014 examination.
927
(P. 919-931) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Figure 6: Excerpt of question 5 from 2014 examination.
In actual fact question 5 required learners to think at a higher level to be able to answer this question. Learners
had to make sense of the scenario described and illustrated by the diagrams in 5.1 and 5.2. Although the questions
may be regarded as application according Bloom’s taxonomy, careful analyses and evaluation of the scenario is
required before attempting to answer the questions. Some parts of the question are first level questions (remem-
bering), for instance section 5.1.1, state the principle of conservation of energy in words. It should be noted that
5.1.2 may look like it is just a simple multiple choice, however the learner needs to think carefully and apply Phys-
ics knowledge appropriately. Learners performed very well in answering questions on vertical Projectile motion,
momentum and Doppler effect (question 3, 4 and 6). Despite the relatively stronger performance in question 3, 4
and 6 in comparison to other question, many learners lacked understanding of the basic conceptual interpretation
of question and basic calculation skills. The majority of learners battled with definitions, particularly in question
9.4.1. As a result, they earned very low marks.
Discussion
Physics is known as a difficult subject to comprehend by lots of learners. As a result, success of learners is
rather low in physics questions that are asked in high school and final year exit examinations (Çepni & Azar, 1998;
Çepni et al., 2003). Because, physics teachers think that physics is difficult to understand as a subject, they generally
ask lower-order and superficial questions (Azar, 2005). However, if the questions are prepared and asked without
the teacher taking into consideration the cognitive levels of Bloom’s taxonomy, the students’ achievement in final
Physics examinations may be affected negatively (Azar, 2005).
Therefore, if the aim is to make learners solve high-order physics questions in final year Physics examinations
then they should be encouraged to improve their system of thinking, and appropriate education should be provided
(Azar, 2005). The results of this research agree with Azar (2005) that lower-order questions neither develop intel-
ligence capacity of students nor lead them to learning parrot fashion. Similarly, Physics questions should be based
on analysis and problem solving (Azar, 2005). Therefore, the main purpose for determining success of learners has
to be determining and developing their level of cognitive progress by asking well-prepared questions (Azar, 2005).
On the contrary, the teachers in secondary schools don’t have experience of asking questions by considering the
Bloom’s taxonomy (Azar, 2005). The research by Hand, Prain and Wallace (2002) showed that learners prefer low-
928
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 919-931)
order questions and don’t prefer questions which need to be thought on. Similar results in the literature show that
teachers rarely tend to use higher level questions such as analysis, synthesis and evaluation which help learners
to progress in their scientific thinking (Azar, 2005). Findings of this research are consistent with Azar (2005) and
Cepni (2003) who also found that most questions in their studies were at application level. According to Azar (2005)
application level is generally preferred by teachers to evaluate their students’ understanding.
Similarly, studies by Zareian et al., (2015) found that most of the questions in the textbooks evaluated, were
aligned with remembering, understanding and applying as the three lower-level categories, while analysing,
evaluating, and creating as the three higher-level categories constituted the lowest frequency in the two textbooks.
The examination consisted of questions that required using mathematical skills to solve physics problem
(Tuminaro & Redish, 2007). However, learners lack the mathematical skills needed to solve problems in physics and
students do not know how to apply the mathematical skills they have to particular problem situations in physics.
For example, most of the questions required learners to calculate, however if students simply do not possess the
requisite mathematical knowledge (Tuminaro & Redish, 2007), learners will find it difficult to answer these ques-
tions. As pointed out by Redish (2005), mathematics is commonly referred to as “the language of science” and is
typically required of our physics learners to take mathematics as prerequisites to their study of physics. However,
using math in science (and particularly in physics) (Redish, 2005) is not just doing math. It has a different purpose
– representing meaning about physical systems rather than expressing abstract relationships – and it even has a
distinct semiotics – the way meaning is put into symbols – from pure mathematics.
The questions in these examinations may be difficult to the learners because most students find it consider-
ably easier to acquire knowledge about science than to acquire the abilities for applying this knowledge flexibly to
solve diverse problems (Larkin & Reif, 1979). This is partly because problem-solving is a very sophisticated cognitive
skill. Hence understanding and teaching scientific problem-solving is both practically important and intellectu-
ally challenging. This is because problem solving is an integral part of physics classes (Tuminaro & Redish, 2007).
In line with the suggestions in the diagnostic report (DoBE, 2015) teachers are advised to make greater use
of short formative assessment tasks in order to reinforce basic concepts and principles. This can be used to good
effect in content relating to definitions listed in the examinations. The prescribed experiments should be done by
the learners so that they are able to enhance the applicable skills for example in the analysis of data.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The aim of this research was to analyse examination questions in order to determine the extent to which
the examination questions cover higher and lower order questions according to Bloom’s revised taxonomy. This
research used the 2014 and 2015 Physics final year examination questions as data sources. The results of this re-
search aim to enable teachers and examiners to identify the gaps in the level of assessment questions used. The
findings reveal that only the first three levels of Bloom’s revised taxonomy were used. The first level remembering
involved learners recalling relevant knowledge from long term memory. It included learners remembering how
to state the laws and principles of physics as well as defining physics concepts. The second level understanding
involved learners making sense of what they have learnt. The verbs used for level 2 questions included describ-
ing, explaining and drawing. A very small percentage of questions on level 1 and level 2 were incorporated. On
the contrary, level 3 questions (applying) accounted for the majority of questions in the examination. The verb
used in most of the level 3 questions was calculate. This research concludes that higher order questions were not
included in the examination questions. It is recommended that workshops be held with teachers and examiners
to familiarise them with assessment strategies that are inclusive of Bloom’s revised taxonomy. Such workshops
should put more emphasis on the importance of using frameworks such as Bloom’s revised taxonomy to construct
examination questions. Such an initiative should place more emphasis on generating questions that go beyond
just remembering laws and principles but breaking physics concepts into parts and understanding how each part
is related to one another. Making judgements based on a set of guidelines as well as putting information together
in an innovative way. It is suggested that teachers and examiners carefully look at the examination questions to
check if they cover all of the levels of Bloom’s revised taxonomy. This should be done before examination questions
are finalised. Furthermore, classroom teaching should be improved to incorporate teaching and learning activities
that include different levels of the revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Assessment workshops should emphasize the teach-
ers and examiners’ awareness of the Bloom’s revised taxonomy. Similarly, this research is making a contribution in
enlightening the stakeholders on the standard and quality of the final Physics examination questions. This research
929
(P. 919-931) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
calls for a thorough introspection, reflection and rethinking of Physics examination questions. All educators (teach-
ers and examiners, corresponding university professors) should undertake training on the assessment of pupils’
achievement by considering the cognitive levels of Bloom’s taxonomy.
Moreover, examiners of grade 12 Physics examinations should take courses about what Bloom’s taxonomy is
and how they should consider it while preparing exam questions. Further research is required to investigate the
assessment practices of Physics teachers in their daily classroom activities.
Acknowledgement
The financial assistance of the National Research Foundation (NRF) towards this research is hereby acknowl-
edged. Opinions expressed, and conclusions arrived at, are those of the author and are not necessarily to be at-
tributed to the NRF.
References
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airiasian, W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., & Pintrich, P. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning,
teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational outcomes: Complete edition. New York: Longman.
Azar, A. (2005). Analysis of Turkish high-school physics-examination questions and university entrance exams questions accord-
ing to Blooms’ Taxonomy. Turkish Science Education Journal, 2 (2), 144-150.
Bloom, B., Englehart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educa-
tional goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: Longman.
Cepni, S. (2003). An analysis of university science instructors’ examination questions according to the cognitive levels. Educational
Sciences: Theory &Practice, 3 (1), 65-84.
Cepni, S., & Azar, A. (1998). The analysis of the physics questions, asked at high schools exams (in Turkish). Proceedings of IIIth
national science education conference (pp.109-114). Trabzon, Turkey: KTU.
Cresswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publica-
tions Ltd.
Cullinane, A., & Liston, M. (2016). Review of the leaving certificate biology examination papers (1999–2008) using Bloom’s tax-
onomy–an investigation of the cognitive demands of the examination. Irish Educational Studies, 35 (3), 249-267.
Department of Basic Education. (2011). Curriculum and assessment policy statement grades 10-12: physical sciences. Pretoria:
Government Printer.
Department of Basic Education. (2010). National examinations and assessment report on the national senior certificate examination
results Part 2. Pretoria: Department of Education.
Department of Basic Education. (2015). Diagnostic report on the national senior certificate examination results. Pretoria: Depart-
ment of Education. Available at http://www.education.gov.za/Resources/Reports.aspx date of access: 12 January 2016.
Department of Basic Education. (2014). Diagnostic report on the national senior certificate examination results. Pretoria: Depart-
ment of Education. Available at http://www.education.gov.za/Resources/Reports.aspx date of access: 12 January 2016.
Department of Basic Education. (2014). Physical science examination 2014. Available at http://www.education.gov.za/Home.aspx
Date of access: 12 January 2016
Department of Basic Education. (2015). Physical science examination 2015. Available at http://www.education.gov.za/Home.aspx
Date of access: 12 January 2016.
Dey, I. (2003). Qualitative data analysis: A user friendly guide for social scientists. London and New York. Routledge.
Downe-Wamboldt, B. (1992). Content analysis: Method, applications, and issues. Health Care for Women International, 13 (3),
313-321.
Dam, G. T., & Volman, M. (2004). Critical thinking as a citizenship competence: Teaching strategies. Learning and Instruction, 14
(4), 359-379.
Edwards, N. (2010). An analysis of the alignment of the grade 12 physical sciences examination and the core curriculum in South
Africa. South African Journal of Education, 30 (4), 571-590.
Fiegel, G. L. (2013). Incorporating learning outcomes into an introductory geotechnical engineering course. European Journal
of Engineering Education, 38 (3), 238-253.
Hand, B., Prain, V., & Wallace, C. (2002). Influences of writing tasks on students’ answers to recall and higher-level test questions.
Research in Science Education, 32 (1), 19-34.
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15 (9), 1277-1288.
Herman, J. L., & Webb, N. M. (2007). Alignment methodologies. Applied Measurement in Education, 20 (1), 1-5.
Kidwell, L. A., Fisher, D. G., Braun, R. L., & Swanson, D. L. (2013). Developing learning objectives for accounting ethics using Bloom’s
taxonomy. Accounting Education, 22 (1), 44-65.
Kondracki, N. L., Wellman, N. S., & Amundson, D. R. (2002). Content analysis: Review of methods and their applications in nutrition
education. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 34 (4), 224-230.
930
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 919-931)
Krippendorff, K. (1989). Content analysis. In E. Barnouw, G. Gerbner, W. Schramm, T. L. Worth, & L. Gross (Eds.), International ency-
clopedia of communication (1) 403-407). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Retrieved on 12 January 2016 from http://
repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/226.
Larkin, J. H., & Reif, F. (1979). Understanding and teaching problem‐solving in physics. European Journal of Science Education, 1
(2), 191-203.
Lee, Y. J., Kim, M., & Yoon, H. G. (2015). The intellectual demands of the intended primary science curriculum in Korea and Sin-
gapore: An analysis based on revised Bloom’s taxonomy. International Journal of Science Education, 37 (13), 2193-2213.
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (1997). Research in education: A conceptual approach. New York: Long.
Olson, L. (2003). Standards and tests: Keeping them aligned. Research Points: Essential Information for Education Policy, 1 (1), 1-4.
Redish, E. F. (2006). Problem solving and the use of math in physics courses. arXiv preprint physics/0608268.
Tuminaro, J., & Redish, E. F. (2007). Elements of a cognitive model of physics problem solving: Epistemic games. Physical Review
Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 3 (2), 020101.
Ulum, Ö. G. (2016). A descriptive content analysis of the extent of Bloom’s taxonomy in the reading comprehension questions
of the course book Q: Skills for success 4 reading and writing. The Qualitative Report, 21 (9), 1674.
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Sage university papers series. Quantitative applications in the social sciences Retrieved
11 January 2016 from https://books.google.co.za/books?hl=en&lr=&id=nLhZm7Lw2FwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA5&dq=Weber,+R.+P.
+(1990).+Basic+content+analysis+&ots=ofOmhLL8xJ&sig=_BuR4ugWi0E2t898yeLhiIybBQw#v=onepage&q&f=false
Zareian, G., Davoudi, M., Heshmatifar, Z., & Rahimi, J. (2015). An evaluation of questions in two ESP coursebooks based on Bloom’s
new taxonomy of cognitive learning domain. International Journal of Education and Research, 3 (8), 313-326.
Received: July 31, 2017 Accepted: October 10, 2017
Abraham Motlhabane PhD, Professor, University of South Africa, 1 Preller Street,

Muckleneuk Ridge, Pretoria, 0002 South Africa.
E-mail: motlhat@unisa.ac.za
931
IDENTIFYING AND APPLYING
FACTORS CONSIDERED
IMPORTANT IN STUDENTS’
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN IN
SCIENTIFIC OPEN INQUIRY
Abstract. Even though experimental Hwoe-gwan Yang,

design (ED) in open inquiry is important Jongwon Park
for more authentic scientific inquiry, it is
not easy for students. The objective of this
research was to identify factors considered
important in students’ ED and explore
how to utilize it to improve students’ ED.
To achieve the objective, in the first step,
eighteen middle-school students in a gifted
center participated in this study voluntar-
ily. They were asked to design experimental Introduction
procedures without any guidelines or help.
Students’ EDs were analyzed qualitatively The aim of this research is to identify difficulties that students experience
to extract difficulties that students experi- when they try to design experimental procedures in scientific open inquiry
enced when designing experimental proce- and obtain teaching strategy to improve students’ experimental design (ED)
dures. Based on analysis results, 17 factors by considering these difficulties.
were identified as factors to be considered Science educators have emphasized student-centered or open-type
for students’ ED and structured in a form of scientific inquiry in which students will find an inquiry problem, design
checklist. In the second step, the checklist experimental procedures, and draw conclusions by themselves (Kim & Park,
was provided to 50 students in the gifted 2015; Berg, Bergendahl, Lundberg, & Tibell, 2003; Krystyniak & Heikkinen,
center as guidelines for their ED. They were 2007; Zion, 2008; Zion & Mendelovici, 2013). Such open inquiry is important
then asked to design experimental proce- not only for elementary and high-school students, but also important for
dures. Comparing scores of these students’ science teachers who guide these students (Lamanauskas & Augiene, 2016;
ED with those of the control group, it was Tatar, 2012; Windschitl, 2004).
found that these factors were significantly ED as one of major elements in open inquiry has also been emphasized
effective for improving students’ ED with in science curriculum. For example, National Science Education Standards
high effect size. In conclusion, results of this in the USA have included “planning and carrying out investigations” as one
research suggest that effective teaching of eight practices (inquiry skills) for K-12 science (National Research Council
strategy for students’ ED in scientific open [NRC], 2012, p. 42). In Korea, the new science curriculum revised in 2015 em-
inquiry can be obtained based on analysis phasizes that “Science courses should enable diverse inquiry-based learning”.
about their difficulties in ED. It also included “designing and conducting inquiry” as one major inquiry skill
Keywords: checklist, experimental design, (Ministry of Education [MOE], 2015, pp. 4-5). Actual scientists also emphasize
gifted education, scientific open inquiry. the importance of ED. For example, Coil, Wenderoth, Cunningham, and Dirks
(2010) have reported that ED is ranked the 7th or 8th among 22 scientific
inquiry skills considered important in scientific research by 159 biologists.
Hwoe-gwan Yang, Jongwon Park However, designing experimental procedures is not easy for students
Chonnam National University, (Hugerat, Najami, Abbasi, & Dkeidek, 2014; Kim & Song, 2012; Lim, Yang, Kim,
Republic of Korea Hong, & Lim, 2010; Trautmann, McKinster, & Avery, 2004). In a preliminary
stage of this research, 171 middle-school students enrolled in scientifically
gifted centers in Korea were asked what parts were the most difficult ones
932
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ IDENTIFYING AND APPLYING FACTORS CONSIDERED IMPORTANT IN STUDENTS’
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 932-945)
or needing help the most when they were conducting open scientific inquiries. As a result, 35% of them answered
that ED was the most difficult part in open inquiry while 40% of them required help or guidance in designing ex-
perimental procedures. Scientifically gifted students are more than average in science. They particularly have high
interest in science. They also have many experiences in scientific inquiry. Nonetheless, their difficulties in designing
experimental procedures indicate that extra special guidance is needed for ED.
To improve students’ ability to design experimental procedures, many science educators have made various
efforts. For example, Ross and Robinson (1987) have helped ninth- and tenth- grade students’ ED by using five
guidelines to identify dependent variables, independent variables, controlling variables, and so on. Hiebert (2007)
has conducted a study to help university students to design biological experiments, including controlling variables,
determining sample size, and analyzing data statistically. Girault and Durham (2014) have used computers to im-
prove students’ EDs by identifying errors in their design processes and providing feedbacks on them.
Others have concerns about the development and application of tools for evaluating students’ ability to
design experiments. Deane, Nomme, Jeffery, Pollock, and Birol (2014) have developed Biological Experimental
Design Concept Inventory (BEDCI) consisting of 14 items in 8 categories to assess such abilities in biology. Sirum
and Humburg (2011) have developed Experimental Design Ability Test (EDAT) consisting of 10 items. Etkina et al.
(2006) have included “ability to design experimental inquiry” in a tool developed to assess scientific ability in the
area of physics. This tool is relatively simple. It is consisted of only a few characteristic factors such as identifying
dependent and independent variables, selecting appropriate experimental equipment, and clarifying disadvan-
tages of ED. Kim and Kang (2014) have utilized Diet COLa Test (DCT) developed by Fowler (1990) to compare ED
abilities of ordinary Korean students and students classed as gifted in science.
This research was designed by combining the test of with the improvement of students’ EDs in science. To
achieve this objective, students’ incomplete or inappropriate parts when designing experimental procedures were
identified first. Attempts were then made by developing a checklist to improve students’ EDs by guiding them to
revise their original designs. Finally, the effectiveness of the checklist for student’ ED was then tested.
To help students overcome difficulties in EDs, there are different approaches. Ross and Robinson (1987) have
used three approaches: (1) observe students’ EDs and help them when they face difficulties, (2) ask students to
reflect on their own activities in designing experiments by using the checklist and indicate what to consider in ED,
(3) ask students to find out what should be included in ED examples and use their findings in their ED. As a result,
Ross and Robinson (1987) have concluded that these three approaches are equally effective.
The first approach requires teacher to observe ED for each student and help each student individually. It is not
easy to apply it to many students in an ordinary school laboratory. The third approach requires too much active
participation by students because they have to find their own solutions for their ED problems. Regarding the third
approach, Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) have reported that having students construct their own solutions
without guided instructions is not so effective. Therefore, the second approach was used in the present research.
That is, in this research, a checklist developed to improve students’ ED was provided to students, and then
students were asked to use the checklist reflectively when carrying out their actual EDs.
In the process of developing the checklist, two approaches (explicit and implicit) need to be considered. In the
explicit approach, when a student conducts any scientific task, a direct guidance or specific teaching is provided for
the given task. In the explicit approach, students learn specific skills or concepts in a specific situation or context
of a given task. In this case, when the situation or context of a task changes, contents or skills to be learned also
need to change. Through this process, students are ‘expected’ to improve their general skills or understanding
independent of the context. The explicit approach can be viewed as an inductive process.
On the other hand, the implicit approach can be viewed as a deductive process. In the implicit approach,
teachers or teaching materials are focused on developing basic and general skills and abilities not limited to the
context of the task, with the expectation that improved skills and abilities will be utilized in conducting the task
in different contexts.
Even though each approach has its own advantages, it has been reported that the implicit approach has a
limitation in that the “expectation” might not work successfully. For example, in efforts to help students understand
the nature of science (NOS), many science educators recommend an explicit approach because implicit teaching is
relatively ineffective in improving NOS understanding (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick,
2002; Schwartz, Lederman, & Crawford, 2004). Therefore, the present research will employ the explicit approach for
students’ EDs. Instead of having general drills or exercises in arbitrary situations, direct guidance will be provided
when students are trying to design experimental procedures in actual situations.
933
IDENTIFYING AND APPLYING FACTORS CONSIDERED IMPORTANT IN STUDENTS’ ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/
(P. 932-945) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
With the above background, this research is designed to identify students’ difficulties when they design ex-
perimental procedures by extracting incomplete or unsuitable parts from their EDs. Based on these difficulties, a
checklist will be developed to guide students’ actual ED explicitly. Its effectiveness is then tested. Detailed research
goals are shown below:
1) To identify students’ difficulties in EDs,
2) To develop a checklist as a guideline for students’ EDs by considering students’ difficulties,
3) To evaluate the effectiveness of the checklist by applying it to students’ actual EDs.
Preliminary Research
Methodology
The purpose of preliminary research is to examine what difficulties students will have and what parts they
need help in scientific open inquiry. A survey of was conducted for 171 students and their responses were analyzed.
Sample
At G city in Korea, there is a science gifted center under ‘G city Education Office’. The center selects students
who are gifted in science and mathematics from elementary and junior-high schools. It provides more than 100
hours of study per year using weekends and vacations. Educational programs at the center are developed by school
teachers or educational professionals separately from the national science curriculum. In general, there are about
180 students registered at the center. Of these, a total of 171 students (76 seventh graders, 59 eighth graders, and
36 ninth graders) voluntarily participated in this research after excluding 9 students who could not participate
due to personal reasons.
Questionnaire
The following two questions were answered freely by the students: (1) On what part do you have difficulty in
conducting open scientific inquiry? (2) What part do you need help with when conducting open scientific inquiry?
Data analysis
Students’ written responses were divided into the following six categories: 1) finding an inquiry problem, 2)
designing experimental procedure, 3) conducting experiment (e.g., setting experimental equipment, obtaining
data, and analyzing data), 4) allotting roles (including cooperation), 5) writing report, and 6) presenting inquiry
results. The frequency of each category was then obtained.
Results
The part that students feel difficult in open inquiry
The part that students feel difficult when conducting open inquiry is shown in Table 1. Many students answered
that finding the inquiry problem (58%) and designing experimental procedure (35%) were the most difficult parts
when conducting an open inquiry.
934
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 932-945)
Table 1. The part that students feel difficult in open inquiry.
Part of open inquiry
Finding Designing
Conducting Presenting
Grade inquiry experimental Allocating roles Writing report
experiment the results
problem procedure
f % f % f % f % f % f %
7 (n = 76) 36 47 28 37 14 18 0 0 0 0 10 13
8 (n = 59) 41 70 16 27 11 19 3 5 2 3 9 15
9 (n = 36) 22 61 16 44 2 6 2 6 0 0 2 6
Sum
99 58 60 35 27 16 5 2 2 1 21 12
(n = 171)
Note: Sum of responses exceeded 100% because some students gave multiple responses.
The part that students need help with in an open inquiry
Table 2 shows that part that students need help with in an open inquiry. Many students responded that they
needed help for designing an experimental procedure (40%), finding an inquiry problem (30%), and presenting
inquiry results (22%).
Table 2. The part that students need help with in open inquiry.
Part of open inquiry
Grade Finding Designing

Conducting Presenting
inquiry experimental Allocating roles Writing report
experiment the results
problem procedure
f % f % f % f % f % f %
7 (n = 76) 16 21 34 45 10 13 5 7 0 0 12 16
8 (n = 59) 20 34 23 39 10 17 4 7 2 3 16 27
9 (n = 36) 15 42 12 33 7 19 5 14 1 3 9 25
Sum
51 30 69 40 27 16 14 8 3 2 37 22
(n = 171)
Note: Sum of responses exceeded 100% because some students gave multiple responses.
Results of the preliminary research revealed that the most difficult and necessary parts for students in open
inquiry were ‘problem finding’ and ‘experimental design’. For problem finding, Park (2005) has identified several
strategies that can be effectively used to find inquiry problems. Park (2013) has conducted a research to improve
students’ ability of finding inquiry problems based on results of Park (2005) and obtained positive results. Therefore,
the present research focused on students’ EDs.
Methodology of the Main Research
Based on results of the preliminary research, the main research was focused on identifying students’ difficulties
in EDs in more detail, and improving their ability of ED. The main research consisted of two stages. In the first stage,
survey was conducted to find out more details of students’ difficulties when they needed to design experimental
procedures. A checklist was then developed to guide students’ EDs based on findings about students’ difficulties.
In the second stage of the main research, the checklist was applied to improve students’ ED ability and the effec-
tiveness of it was evaluated.
935
(P. 932-945) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Methodology the First Stage
Sample
Of students participating in the preliminary research, eighteen ninth graders who were taught by one of the
authors of this research at the center were randomly selected. They voluntarily participated in this research. Con-
ducing open inquiry where students set their own inquiry problems, design experiments, and perform inquiries
is a major part of the gifted program in the center. Therefore, all students who participated in this research were
willing to participate in ED activities.
Task
Six tasks were proposed to students for designing experimental procedures. Students chose one task freely
and wrote up their experimental procedures on paper for 45 minutes without any guidance or help. The following
tasks were the one that they could choose from:
•• Exploring factors affecting flight distance of a paper plane.
•• Exploring factors that make a top spin longer.
•• Reducing external noise at home.
•• Measuring elastic coefficient of different materials.
•• Designing a robust (strong) bridge.
•• Designing earthquake-resistant buildings.
Development of a checklist
From students’ EDs, incomplete and inappropriate parts were extracted and categorized according to similar
characteristics. Based on these categorized parts, a checklist was then developed to improve students’ EDs. In or-
der to improve the validity of the checklist, three professionals and three graduate students in the area of science
education revised the checklist by conducting several seminars.
Methodology of the Second Stage
Sample
In the second stage, thirty-four 8th graders and thirty-one 9th graders in the science gifted center participated
in this research voluntarily. They were divided into Groups A, B, and C randomly (Figure 1). To evaluate the effective-
ness of the checklist, Groups A and B were experimental groups while Group C was included as the control group.
936
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 932-945)
Figure 1: Overall process for evaluating the effectiveness of the checklist.
Tasks and application of the checklist
The overall process used to evaluate the effectiveness of the checklist is shown in Figure 1. In the first step of
this process, students in all groups were asked to design an experimental procedure for the given task I (Figure 2)
for 30 minutes without any help or guidance. For Task 1, the task utilized in Kim & Kim’s (2012) research to explore
various characteristics of students’ EDs such as students’ perception of experimental goals, variables and experi-
mental equipment chosen by students, and students’ difficulties in designing experimental procedures was used.
[Context] The student was climbing in the cold winter and was left alone somewhere in mountains. The weather is very cold,
the wind is strong and dry, and it takes a lot of time to be rescued. During that time, student must keep body warm.
[Task] Design an experimental procedure to answer the following question: Would outerwear made of non-woven or vinyl better
protect the body from the cold weather?
Figure 2: Task 1.
After the first EDs, Groups A and B were asked to revise their designs. At this time, only a checklist was pro-
vided to students in group A without detailed description of the checklist. To students in Group B, a checklist was
provided with a 5-minute brief description of the checklist. Groups A and B students modified their first EDs for
5~10 minutes using the checklist. Group C was not given a checklist. Students were asked to compare and discuss
their first EDs with peers and revise them for 10 minutes.
After revision of their EDs, a new task 2 (Figure 3) was presented and students in all groups were asked to
design a new experimental procedure without the checklist for 30 minutes. For Task 2 the task used in Park’s (2012)
research to develop learning materials to improve students’ scientific creativity was used.
937
(P. 932-945) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
[Context] The figure shows a paper clip floating in the air by an electromagnet. There is a thin
glass plate between the electromagnet and the paper clip.
[Task] Design an experimental procedure to answer the following question: In this figure,
what factors affect the strength of the electromagnet at point P?
Figure 3: Task 2.
Data analysis
There were 130 EDs by 65 students for two tasks. Student’s ED ability was assessed using a checklist. Each item
was assessed as 1 point when it was performed well, 0 point when it was performed normally, or -1 point when it
was performed insufficiently. In order to secure the reliability of assessment results, results were compared using
Cohen’s kappa by one researcher and another science teacher who had a master’s degree in the area of science
education. Cohen’s kappa is a well-known method to test reliability by measuring agreement between two raters.
A kappa value of +1 represents a perfect agreement between raters while a value of 0 represents that agreements
are obtained by random chance (McHugh, 2012). High kappa value indicates high reliability.
To evaluate the effectiveness of the checklist, t-test was first used to compare EDs for task 1 and task 2 for each
group. While t-test was used for intra-group comparisons, ANCOVA was used for group-to-group comparisons. The
reason for using ANCOVA was to eliminate differences caused by group participants to see influences only caused
by checklist. For all statistical analysis, SPSS (21) was used.
Results of the Main Research
Results of the First Stage
Students’ incomplete and inappropriate parts in EDs
In the first step of the main research, there were 18 EDs written by 18 students without any help or guidance.
From these designs, various incomplete and inappropriate parts were identified (Table 3). The number of cases
of each difficulty existed was not recorded in this stage because results obtained from this stage were used to
develop a checklist to improve students’ EDs.
Table 3. Students’ incomplete and inappropriate parts found in their EDs.
Code Incomplete and inappropriate parts with an example
D1 Students set variables for the experimental goal or the hypothesis incorrectly. (E.g., after suggesting a hypothesis, ‘The
more legs disperse the force, the stronger the bridge will be’, s/he sets variables irrelevant to the hypothesis as follows: ‘if
the materials of the bridge are changed,…’.)
D2 Students do not recognize the feasibility of the experiment. (E.g., a student designs the building to float off the ground to
reduce the impact of the earthquake.)
D3 Variables are hard to control. (E.g., it is difficult to keep the conditions, such as initial speed and angle, the same when
students tried to fly paper planes under the same conditions.)
D4 Some of the dependents or independent variables are omitted.
D5 Concrete values of the variables are not specified concretely or completely. (E.g., when using ‘paper planes with the same
shape but a different size of the wings’, there are no concrete values for the different sizes of the wings.)
D6 Necessary operational definition of the variables is not defined. (E.g., when using the term, ‘dispersion of the forces’, the
student does not define the term operationally, such as ‘the number of legs of the bridge’.)
D7 Measurement methods are not specified concretely.
D8 Necessary equipment is omitted. (E.g., when trying to fly a paper plane with different angles, 30°, 45°, 60°, …, students do
not specify the appropriate equipment to fly the paper plane.)
938
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 932-945)
Code Incomplete and inappropriate parts with an example
D9 Specifications of equipment are not given. (E.g., when using ‘acoustic insulation materials’, the students do not provide the
concrete specification such as type or size.)
D10 The experimental process is not clearly presented step by step.
D11 Necessary figures or detailed explanations about them are missing.
A checklist to improve students’ ED
Based on results of students’ incomplete parts or mistakes in their EDs (Table 3), a checklist was developed to
improve students’ ED as shown in Table 4.
Table 4. A checklist to improve students’ EDs.
Category Items to check
1. Experimental goals 1-1. Does the experimental procedure meet the experimental goals or hypotheses?
2-1. Is the experimental method possible in terms of spatial and temporal scale?
2-2. Are the experiment preparations (materials or equipment) available?
2. Feasibility
2-3. Is the value to be measured actually measurable?
2-4. Is control of the control variables actually possible?
3-1. Have all the necessary variables been set?
3-2. Are the values of variables specified?
3. Variable setting
3-3. Are variables defined operationally, if necessary?
3-4. Are there formulas, and calculation methods, if necessary?
4-1. Does it specify what should be measured?
4-2. Does it specify the measurement methods clearly?
4. Measurement 4-3. Is all required experimental equipment included?
4-4. Are the specifications for the measurement equipment given, if necessary?
4-5. Is there an iterative measurement process?
5-1. Is the process described step-by-step to be followed?
5. Concreteness 5-2. Is the picture clearly presented, if necessary?
5-3. If the picture is presented, is it clearly explained?
Results of the Second Stage
Reliability of the checklist
EDs from 65 students were scored by the researcher and another teacher using the checklist. As shown in
Table 5 the Cohen’s kappa value was 0.797 between the two evaluators without any consultation. After the first
evaluation, results of these evaluations were compared with each other and difference between them was dis-
cussed. After the discussion, scores were revised individually. The Cohen’s kappa value of revised evaluations was
0.866. For Cohen’s kappa, agreement is considered ‘moderate’ when the kappa value is 0.60 ~ 0.79, ‘strong’ when
the value is 0.80 ~ 0.90, and ‘almost perfect’ when the value is 0.90 or more (McHugh, 2012). Therefore, the reli-
ability of the checklist was high.
939
(P. 932-945) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Table 5. Cohen’s kappa values for each item on the checklist.
Kappa value
Category Item
First evaluation Second evaluation
1 1-1 .713 .953

2-1 .622 .809
2-2 .793 .839
2 2-3 .501 .671
2-4 .647 .749
Average .641 .767
3-1 .953 .953
3-2 .939 .954
3 3-3 .834 .847
3-4 .853 .853
Average .895 .902
4-1 .827 .915
4-2 .708 .781
4-3 .780 .864
4
4-4 .960 .960
4-5 1.000* .950
Average .855 .894
5 5-1 .873 .890
5-2 .791 .919
5-3 .751 .814
Average .805 .874
Average .797 .866
Note: * Results of the two evaluators are completely identical.
Results of the first evaluation showed that only one item (item 2-3) had a Cohen’s kappa value of 0.60 or less.
Eight items had values of 0.61 ~ 0.79 while seven items had values of 0.80 or more. By category, categories 1 and
2 had values between 0.61 and 0.79 while all other categories had values over 0.80. Especially, given that item
‘2-3’ and category 2 showed relatively low kappa values, it was not easy for evaluators to make a judgment on the
feasibility of the experiment. For the second evaluation, two items had values of 0.61 ~ 0.79 while all other items
had values of 0.80 or more.
Therefore, it was confirmed that this checklist could be used as it is. However, it was more reliable when evalu-
ators discussed their evaluation results for category 2.
Effectiveness of the checklist
In order to examine the effectiveness of the checklist, evaluation scores of the first ED for task 1 and the second
ED for task 2 were compared using paired t-test. Results are shown in Table 6. Since the value of evaluation for each
item ranged from -1 to +1, the mean value in Table 6 could have minus value when students’ EDs were ‘insufficient’.
940
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 932-945)
Table 6. Paired t-test between the first and the second EDs.
The 1st exp. design The 2nd exp. design

Effect
N Paired t p
size
M SD M SD
Group A 25 -1.16 4.47 6.48 5.14 7.53 < .01 1.71

Group B 25 1.36 4.77 9.44 4.37 8.02 < .01 1.69
Group C 15 -1.33 4.40 -1.27 5.43 0.04 > .05 0.01
According to results shown in Table 6, group A students who received a checklist and group B students who
received a checklist with brief explanation showed statistically significant improvement in scores of their second
ED compared to their first ED. Effect sizes for groups A and B were also very high (1.71 and 1.69, respectively).
Therefore, the checklist was very helpful in improving students’ EDs. However, for Group C students who did not
receive the checklist, no improvement was seen in their second ED compared to their first ED. Results of more
detailed analysis to find improvement for each item are shown in Table 7.
Table 7. Comparisons of scores between the first and the second EDs for each item of the checklist.
Group A Group B
Category Item Paired t Paired t
1st ED 2nd ED 1st ED 2nd ED
1 1-1 -0.76 0.92 -10.84** 0.76 0.98 -1.64

2-1 0.68 1.00 -232* 0.76 1.00 -1.81
2-2 0.44 1.00 -3.22** 0.64 0.84 -1.26
2 2-3 0.60 0.48 .52 0.76 0.84 -0.56
2-4 -0.12 0.64 -3.93* 0.44 0.82 -2.00
Average 0.40 0.78 -3.80** 0.65 0.88 -2.85*
3-1 -0.84 0.04 -5.34** -0.08 0.80 -5.10**
3-2 -0.88 0.04 -4.85** -0.92 0.28 -7.62**
3 3-3 -0.28 -0.40 061 -0.84 -0.12 -3.22**
3-4 0.04 0.00 1.00 0.04 0.04 0.00
Average -0.49 -0.08 -4.55** -0.45 0.25 -7.13**
4-1 0.26 0.24 0.07 0.84 0.90 -0.46
4-2 -0.40 0.08 -1.83 -0.16 0.34 -1.98
4-3 -0.32 0.20 -2.03* -0.56 0.06 -2.59*
4
4-4 -0.96 -0.28 -3.93** -0.80 -0.32 -2.67*
4-5 0.08 0.28 -1.87 0.08 0.58 -4.42**
Average -0.27 0.10 -3.49** -0.12 0.31 -4.10**
5-1 0.68 0.78 -0.63 0.72 0.92 -1.37
5-2 0.52 0.74 -1.06 0.04 1.00 -4.91**
5
5-3 0.24 0.36 -0.60 -0.16 0.52 -3.92**
Average 0.48 0.63 -1.30 0.20 0.81 -5.55**
Note: Values represent mean values of the checklist score.
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
As shown in Table 7, five items (2-3, 3-4, 4-1, 4-2, and 5-1) among seventeen items did not show any improve-
ment in group A or group B. The followings might the reasons why it is difficult to improve these five items. First,
regarding item 2-3, to judge the possibility of the experiment, conducting pre-experiment may be necessary for
designing an experimental procedure before the main experiment. However, since the actual experiment was
941
(P. 932-945) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
not conducted in this research, students felt hard to predict whether measuring was possible. The need for pre-
experiment was also seen for items 4-1 and 4-2. Students might not be able to determine values to be measured
before an actual experiment (item 4-1). Likewise, the specificity of the measurement method (item 4-2) is also
revised and supplemented in the course of actual experiment after ED.
Second, the reason that there was no improvement in item 3-4 (necessary formulas or calculation methods)
was probably because students did not have enough quantitative background knowledge related to the experi-
ment. ED requires active interaction between methodological skills or techniques and background knowledge
related to the experiment. Finally, the lack of step-by-step describing skills (item 5-1) might be related to students’
lack of ability to write.
Therefore, it was found that pre-experiments, background knowledge, and writing skills were needed for
more complete ED with checklists.
Results of ANCOVA analysis comparing scores between groups by setting scores of the first ED as covariant
variable are shown in Table 8.
Table 8. Comparisons between groups using ANCOVA.
Group Difference of M SD P
Group A
Group B -1.94 1.34 > .05
Group C 7.68 1.51 < .01
Group B
Group A 1.94 1.34 > .05
Group C 9.62 1.54 < .01
Group C
Group A -7.68 1.51 < .01
Group B -9.62 1.54 < .01
As shown in Table 8, there was no significant difference between groups A and B. However, there were statisti-
cally significant differences between groups A and C or between groups B and C. Therefore, the checklist was very
useful for improving students’ EDs. It was possible to help students design experiments by presenting a checklist
only without providing any explanation.
Discussion
This research identified parts of ED that were difficult to students. It was found that a checklist developed
based on these findings could actually improve students’ EDs. However, there are still many things to consider to
use the checklist more effectively.
Although the checklist alone was effective, additional elements were needed to help students design ex-
periments. Even though ED was done before the actual experiment, pre-experiment was necessary to judge the
possibility of the experiment, determine values of variables, and specify measurement methods in more details.
‘Thinking (when designing experimental procedure)’ in scientific inquiry is closely related to actual ‘doing’. To un-
derstand students’ processes or difficulties in designing experimental procedure and improve their EDs, we need to
explore how students’ thinking in ED interacts with actual performing of experiments. Further research is needed
to observe the broader process from pre-experiment to ED and main experiment.
Additional elements also include mathematical formula and calculation method. In cases when direct mea-
surements are impossible, it is often necessary to measure other variables and obtain desired values through
calculations involving variables. For example, the height of a falling object can be measured to determine the
speed of the object when it falls on the floor. In fact, from scientific observation to interpreting data and drawing
conclusion, the scientific inquiry process is closely related to theories. In this research, it was also confirmed that
design of experimental procedure was linked to theories.
The last additional element to consider in ED is writing skill. In fact, writing is an important component of
scientific inquiry. For example, ASE Science Teachers’ Handbook stresses that communication skills are key inquiry
skills along with thinking skills and practical skills (Milner, 1986, p. 5). Many science educators have also emphasized
the importance of writing skills in the scientific inquiry (e.g. Darian, 2003; Nam, Choi, & Hand, 2011; Wellington &
942
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 932-945)
Osborne, 2001). However, Garcia-Mila, and Andersen (2007) have noted that writing has little effect in terms of
improving scientific reasoning. Therefore, further studies are needed to determine the role of writing skills in ED
improvement.
To improve students’ EDs, we investigated difficulties that students had when designing an open inquiry. For
this, only six tasks were used. However, EDs can change according to different tasks and types of inquiry. Therefore,
we need to use more diverse types of tasks to identify students’ difficulties in designing experiments so that we can
revise and develop a checklist based on new findings. To clarify various types of tasks and inquiry, consideration
of authentic scientific inquiry is necessary. For instance, the process of scientific inquiry can be different between
inductive process (to find out hidden features, draw a relationship between variables, or obtain certain specific
values) and deductive process (to test a hypothesis or to confirm theoretical predictions). Many science educators
(e.g., Alters, 1997; Lederman et al., 2014; Windschtl, 2004) have pointed that there is no universal procedure for
scientific research. Cyclic procedures or non-linear procedures may appear in real scientific research (Park, Jang,
& Kim, 2009). For example, after obtaining and analyzing data, variables to be measured or measuring methods
can change. This process can also be repeated cyclically and some steps can be skipped. Therefore, according to
different types of tasks and inquiry, different checklists may be necessary.
In this research, no significant difference in ED was found between the group of students who were given
only the checklist and the group of students who were given the checklist along with a brief explanation of the
checklist. This means that the checklist alone is effective. It might also indicate that the explanation about the
checklist might be too brief to have any effect. If more detailed explanations about the checklist with concrete
examples for each item are given or if students can practice contents corresponding to each item in the checklist
under an actual situation, it might be more effective for improving students’ EDs. In fact, we have already begun
to develop and apply learning activities to help students understand the meaning of each item in the checklist
and practice it in real situations. These new results will be reported in the near future.
Conclusions
For more authentic scientific inquiry, science educators have been emphasizing open inquiry that includes
finding inquiry questions, designing experiments, conducting experiments, analyzing experimental results, and
writing inquiry reports. However, there are many reports that students have difficulties in conducting open inqui-
ries. From this point of view, this research might provide a practical way to improve students’ ability to conduct an
open inquiry. In particular, this research was meaningful in that it analyzed difficulties that students encountered
during inquiry process and found way to help them based on their difficulties. As a result, this research found that
students could effectively design experiments using a checklist developed based on their difficulties.
Furthermore, the checklist developed in this research can be used as a tool to examine student’s ED process
more closely. Although the present research only assessed whether students performed each sub-item of the ED
well or not, it could be used as a framework to specifically explore how students would actually perform each item
of the checklist. For example, for item 2-1 of the checklist, we can investigate what standard or criteria students
would actually use to determine the possibility of the experimental method suggested by them.
However, the checklist in this research is not perfect for improving students’ EDs. In other words, it should
be supplemented by considering various types of inquiry, inquiry tasks, and student characteristics or levels. As
mentioned in the discussion section, it is also necessary to study ways to improve students’ EDs by considering
other factors such as pre-experiments, background knowledge, and writing skills.
It is also worth mentioning that each step of the inquiry is closely related to each other. For example, inquiry
design is related to inquiry problem while data interpretation is also related to ED. Therefore, in order to improve
students’ actual performance of open inquiry, it is necessary to help them with the whole process, including vari-
ous inquiry skills, from finding inquiry problems to writing an experimental report.
Finally, it should be noted that the number of participants used in this research is not sufficient. To test the
effectiveness of the checklist, the total number of participants was 65. However, the number of participants in
each group was 15 ~ 25 which was not enough to generalize results of this research. Therefore, a future research
involving more students is needed to confirm our results. Studies involving different grade levels and general
students who are not gifted students are also be needed. In particular, this research was aimed at science gifted
students. However, open inquiry is also emphasized for ordinary school students according to the National Sci-
ence Curriculum in Korea. Therefore, difficulties in E for general students also needed to be determined to help
943
(P. 932-945) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
their ED abilities. Especially, difficulties that general students face in EDs might be more basic or more varied than
gifted students. As a result, these follow-up studies are needed to make results of this research more generalizable.
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of
the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22 (7), 665-701.
Alters, B. J. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34 (1), 39-55.
Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of science apprenticeship program on high school
students’ understanding of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40 (5), 487-509.
Berg, C. A. R., Bergendahl, V. C. B., Lundberg, B. K. S., & Tibell, L. A. E. (2003). Benefiting from an open ended experiment? A com-
parison of attitudes to, and outcomes of, an expository versus an open-inquiry version of the same experiment. International
Coil, D., Wenderoth, M. P., Cunningham, M., & Dirks, C. (2010). Teaching the process of science: Faculty perceptions and an effec-
tive methodology. CBE Life Sciences Education, 9 (4), 524-535.
Darian, S. (2003). Understanding the language of science. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Deane, T., Nomme, K., Jeffery, E., Pollock, C., & Birol, G. (2014). Development of the biological experimental design concept inven-
tory (BEDCI). CBE-Life Sciences Education, 13 (3), 540-551.
Etkina, E., Heuvelen, A. V., White-Brahmia, S., Brookes, D. T., Gentile, M., Murthy, S., … Warren, A. (2006). Scientific abilities and
their assessment. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 2 (2), 020103.
Fowler, M. (1990). The diet cola test. Science Scope, 13 (4), 32-34.
Garcia-Mila, M., & Andersen, C. (2007). Developmental change in notetaking during scientific inquiry. International Journal of
Girault, I., & d’Ham, C. (2014). Scaffolding a complex task of experimental design in chemistry with a computer environment.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23 (4), 514-526.
Hiebert, S. M. (2007). Teaching simple experimental design to undergraduates: Do your students understand the basics? Advances
in Physiology Education, 31 (1), 82-92.
Hugerat, M., Najami, N., Abbasi, M., & Dkeidek, I. (2014). The cognitive acceleration curriculum as a tool for developing difficul-
ties in the implementation of inquiry skills in science education among primary school students. Journal of Baltic Science
Education, 13 (4), 523-534.
Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). The influence of explicit reflective versus implicit inquiry oriented instruction on sixth
graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 (7), 551-578.
Kim, C. H., & Kang, H. K. (2014). The relationship between scientific problem finding ability and experimental design ability in
elementary gifted children and ordinary children. The Journal of Korea Elementary Education, 25 (4), 111-127.
Kim, D-Y., & Park, J. (2015). Development of a checklist for helping students’ open scientific inquiry report writing. Journal of the
Korean Association for Science Education, 35 (6), 1075-1083.
Kim, H., & Song, J. (2012). Searching for effective strategies on teaching open-inquiry: Based on cases of a science high school
carrying our KYPT problem solving activities. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32 (1), 1489-1501.
Kim, I., & Kim, J-J. (2012). Middle-school students’ ability for experimental design in the process of inquiry. New Physics: Sae Mulli,
62 (6), 601-611.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of
constructivists, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41 (2), 75-86.
Krystyniak, R. A., & Heikkinen, H. W. (2007). Analysis of verbal interactions during an extended, open inquiry general chemistry
laboratory investigation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44 (8), 1160–1186.
Lamanauskas, V., & Augiene, D. (2016). Scientific research activity of students pre-service teachers of sciences at university:
Significance, readiness, effectiveness and career aspects. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15 (6), 746-758.
Lederman, J. S., Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., Bartels, S. L., Meyer, A. A., & Schwartz, R. S. (2014). Meaningful assessment of learn-
ers’ understandings about scientific inquiry-The views about scientific inquiry (VASI) questionnaire. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 51 (1), 65-83.
Lim, S., Yang, I., Kim, S., Hong, E., & Lim, J. (2010). Investigation on the difficulties during elementary pre-service teachers’ open-
inquiry activities. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 30 (2), 291-303.
McHugh, M.L. (2012). Interrater reliability: the kappa statistics. Biochemia Medica, 22 (3), 276-282.
Milner, B. (1986). Why teach science and why to all? In J. Nellist & B. Nicholl (Eds.), ASE science teachers’ handbook (pp. 1-39).
London, UK: Hutchinson.
Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2015). Science curriculum (Ministry of Education Notice No. 2015-74 [Separate Issue 9]). Seoul,
Korea: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://ncic.kice.re.kr/nation.dwn.ogf.inventoryList.do#.
Nam, J., Choi, A., & Hand, B. (2011). Implementation of the science writing heuristic (SWH) approach in 8th grade science class-
rooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9 (5), 1111-1133.
National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscuttine, concepts, and core ideas.
Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Park, J. (2005). Analysis of the characteristics and processes of the generation of scientific inquiry problems. New Physics: Sae
Mulli, 50 (4), 203-211.
944
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 932-945)
Park, J. (2012). Developing the format and samples of teaching materials for scientific creativity in the ordinary science curricu-
lum -Including teachers’ practice and reflection-. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32 (3), 446-466.
Park, J. (2013). Developing and applying teaching materials to help students’ generation of scientific-inquiry problems. New
Physics: Sae Mulli, 63 (4), 360-367.
Park, J., Jang, K-A., Kim, I. (2009). An analysis of the actual processes of physicists’ research and the implications for teaching
scientific inquiry in school. Research in Science Education, 39 (1), 111-129.
Ross, J. A., & Robinson, F. G. (1987). The use of rule structures in teaching experimental design to secondary-school students.
Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An
explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88 (4), 610-645.
Sirum, K., & Humburg, J. (2011). The experimental design ability test (EDAT). Bioscience: Journal of College Teaching, 37 (1), 8-16.
Tatar, N. (2012). Inquiry-based science laboratories: An analysis of preservice teachers’ beliefs about learning science through
inquiry and their performances. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 11 (3), 248-266.
Trautmann, N., McKinster, J., & Avery, L. (2004). What makes inquiry so hard? (and why is it worth it?). Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of ‘‘inquiry:’’ how preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of a theoretical
scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (5), 481-512.
Windschitl, M., & Andre, T. (1998). Using computer simulations to enhance conceptual change: The roles of constructivist instruc-
tion and student epistemological belief. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35 (2), 145-160.
Zion, M. (2008). On line forums as a ‘rescue net’ in an open inquiry process. International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 6 (2), 351-375.
Zion, M., & Mendelovici, R. (2012). Moving from structured to open inquiry: Challenges and limits. Science Education International,
23 (4), 383-399.
Hwoe-gwan Yang Med, PhD student, Department of Science Education, College of

Education, Chonnam National University, Gwangju, Republic of
Korea.
Jongwon Park PhD, Professor, Department of Physics Education, College of
(Corresponding Author) Education, Chonnam National University, Gwangju, Republic of
Korea.
E-mail: jwpark94@jnu.ac.kr
945
THE EFFECT OF THE MODIFIED
KNOW-WANT-LEARN STRATEGY
ON SIXTH-GRADE STUDENTS’
ACHIEVEMENT IN PHYSICS
Abstract. Physics is generally regarded as Zekri A. M. Zouhor,

difficult and uninteresting. The teaching Ivana Z. Bogdanović,
of physics with the use of an appropriate Sonja J. Skuban,
teaching strategy can improve students’ Milica V. Pavkov-Hrvojević
achievement. The aim of this research is to
examine the effect of the modified Know-
Want-Learn (mKWL) strategy on primary
school students’ achievement in physics.
The Know-Want-Learn (KWL) strategy was
Introduction
modified to be used for students’ inquiry.
Quasi experimental research was carried
Physics is introduced as a separate school subject for Serbian students in
out with 110 sixth-grade students divided
their sixth grade of primary school (that is regulated in curriculum determined
into an experimental and a control group.
by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of
The students in the control group were
the Republic of Serbia). In the Republic of Serbia, students enroll in primary
taught using direct teaching and the
school between age 6 and 7 and primary education is divided into two stages:
students in the experimental group were
lower grades (1-4) and higher grades (5-8). In the lower grades, students
taught using TQHL charts. These charts learn elements of physics within two school subjects: The world around us
consist of columns: T-What I Think and (in first and second grade) and Nature and society (in third and fourth grade)
what I know, Q-What Questions I have, (Bošnjak, Obadović & Bogdanović, 2016). However, students do not see
H-How can I find out, L-What I Learned. any connection between these contents and physics. Sixth-grade students
Pre-test and post-test were administered to (aged 11–12 years) already have prejudices that physics is a difficult subject
both groups; two physics knowledge tests and most students do not try to be good at it. Due to this fact, a number of
were constructed for that purpose. The data average primary school students in the Republic of Serbia have bad marks in
were analyzed using descriptive statistics, physics (marks are based on tests results and oral examinations). Therefore,
paired samples t-tests and independent physics teachers should find the way to help students to better acquire phys-
samples t-tests. The implication of the ics contents and that should result in better marks in physics. Since different
research results is that using the mKWL students react differently to particular teaching and learning strategies, it is
strategy in a sixth-grade physics class has desirable to determine various strategies that are possibly useful in order to
a positive effect on students’ achievement. enhance students’ acquiring of physics contents. Besides, various studies are
It can be suggested to implement the implying that physics is generally regarded as conceptually difficult, abstract
described strategy in teaching physics in and uninteresting and that most students unwillingly study physics (Ancell,
order to improve students’ achievement in Guttersrud, Henriksen & Isnes, 2004; Checkley, 2010; Williams, Stanisstreet,
this subject. Spall, Boyes & Dickson, 2003; as cited in Erinosho, 2013). In order for students
Keywords: KWL strategy, learning strategy, to reach their full potential in science class, teachers must be well prepared for
modified KWL strategy, students’ perfor- teaching (Hayes, 2002, Munck, 2007). Teachers have to find a way to enhance
mance. students’ achievement. It is shown that using an adequate learning strategy
is in correlation with students’ achievement in different subjects (Yumuşak,
Sungur & Çakıroğlu, 2007), including physics (Sağlam, 2010). Learning
Zekri A. M. Zouhor,
Ivana Z. Bogdanović, strategies can be defined as “behaviors and thoughts that a learner uses for
Sonja J. Skuban, processing information during learning” (Weinstein & Mayer, 1986; as cited in
Milica V. Pavkov-Hrvojević Selçuk, 2010). Each student is interested in different contents and activities.
University of Novi Sad, Serbia
Therefore, learning strategies should be modified accordingly, in order to help
them in acquiring knowledge (Ekwensi, Moranski & Townsend-Sweet, 2006).
946
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ THE EFFECT OF THE MODIFIED KNOW-WANT-LEARN STRATEGY ON SIXTH-GRADE STUDENTS’
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 946-957)
Know-Want-Learn Strategy and Its Modifications
The Know-Want-Learn (KWL) strategy is initially developed as a learning strategy for guiding students through a
text. It was first suggested by Ogle (1986). Since originally it was a reading strategy, it was rarely applied in teaching
physics and science in general. However, it turned to be a simple and effective strategy that can be applicable in
different school subjects (Foote, Vermette & Battaglia 2001). The use of the KWL strategy supports active learning
and student-centered learning (Bryan, 1998; Ogle, 2009). This strategy consists of three phases where students: (1)
activate prior knowledge, (2) determine what they want to know and (3) reflect and recall on the new knowledge
(Blachowicz & Ogle, 2008).
This strategy suggests the use of the KWL charts, which are the graphic organizers that help students to
organize information, before, during, and after a unit or a lesson. The use of the KWL charts successfully inspires
students’ inquiry (Ogle, 2009). These charts help students not only to adopt given concepts but also to activate
their prior knowledge (Martorella, Beal & Bolick, 2005). Many studies have shown that activating prior knowledge
is a mean to support students’ reading comprehension (Riswanto, Risnawati & Lismayanti, 2014). Such KWL charts
consist of three columns: K – What I Know, W – What I Want to know and L – What I Learned (Table 1). When they are
used in the schools, the KWL charts can be applied through four students’ activities: (1) brainstorming about what
they already know about a topic and listing responses in the first column of the chart; (2) brainstorming about
what they would like to know about the topic and writing responses in the second column of the chart; (3) reading
and learning and (4) filling what they have learned in the third column of the chart with special attention to the
information that is related to what they wanted to know. This strategy can be used by a teacher working with all
students in the classroom or it can be used by students for their independent study (Tok, 2013).
Table 1. The KWL chart.
The students who use the KWL strategy can easier establish the purpose of reading and develop skills for
monitoring their comprehension (Szabo, 2006). The KWL strategy promotes active learning and encourages aca-
demic success (Tran, 2015) and increases reading comprehension (Al-Khateeb & Idrees, 2010). Moreover, it makes
learning and remembering easier and, since each student is studying questions in which he/she is specially inter-
ested in, the understanding of content is improved this way (Gammill, 2006). Accordingly, the KWL strategy can
be used for acquiring physics contents.
Modified KWL strategies can be developed in order to adjust charts for different students’ activities. One of
the earliest modifications of the KWL strategy is the KWL Plus. In this modification, concept mapping and sum-
marizing of learned content is added to the original strategy (Ogle, 1987). One of the simplest modifications of the
KWL strategy is the KWLH chart, where additional H stands for How can I learn more. With this additional column
students are encouraged to think of the possible ways of expanding their knowledge and hence the future learn-
ing is supported (Weaver, 1994). Walker Tileston (2004) indicated that the KWLH strategy is an effective teaching
strategy. Cavner (2013) discussed strategies for preparing children in early childhood education programs to learn
about new topics and found that the KWLH is supporting the organization of new information. Sumardiono (2013)
suggested using the KWLH strategy to understand local descriptive texts in teaching reading.
Another modification of the KWL strategy is TWL, where T stands for What I Think about a topic. When the T
column replaces the H column, the strategy is more useful for learning sciences, it supports inquiry and investigation
(Akerson, 2001). The first column of the TWL chart encourages students to think and discuss about the problem.
947
THE EFFECT OF THE MODIFIED KNOW-WANT-LEARN STRATEGY ON SIXTH-GRADE STUDENTS’ ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/
(P. 946-957) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
The students who use this strategy are encouraged to think to a great extent. The W stands for What else I Want to
know and it enables proposing questions and formulating hypotheses for inquiry.
The THC strategy expands on above-mentioned strategies. It is suggested by Crowther and Cannon (2004)
as a useful strategy that helps students to think about scientific research and propose hypotheses. The use of this
strategy trains students to think as scientists; students ask questions, choose methods for their inquiry and evalu-
ate the results of their work. Crowther and Cannon note that the first column T – What do you Think is encouraging
students to freely share their ideas. In the next column H – How can we find out students think of ideas that may
lead to different ways of inquiry. After the inquiry process is completed, students should be able to draw conclusion
about a given content and write it in the column C – What do we Conclude. The teacher can guide the students to
conclusions by appropriate questions. Nevertheless, the teacher gets the opportunity to monitor the progress of
each student based on student’s conclusion, and therefore to evaluate student’s understanding of a teaching unit
(Crowther & Cannon, 2004).
The KLEW(S) strategy is another modification of the KWL strategy. In this adaptation for science teaching
(Hershberger, Zembal-Saul & Starr, 2006; Hershberger & Zembal-Saul, 2015), the components of chart are used to
document the following: K – What do we think we Know, L – What are we Learning (claims), E – What is our Evidence,
W – What do we still Wonder about and S – What Scientific principles help explain the phenomena.
For successful physics text comprehension and solving tasks in order to strengthen critical thinking, Sumardino
(2014) suggested the effective strategy in the form of the KNWS chart that consists of four columns: K – Know the
information, N – Not relevant, W – Want to find and S – Strategy used.
The mKWL strategy used in this research consists of learning with the help of TQHL chart (Table 2). This choice
was made since authors realized that the TQHL chart appeared to be very convenient as a tool during the physics
classes, due to the fact that it encourages students’ learning and inquiry.
Table 2. The TQHL chart.
Although different charts (THC, KLEW, KNWS) appeared to be very well adjusted for the scientific inquiry, it
seemed more convenient to make new adjustments of chart for the students included in this research. The idea
was to activate students’ prior knowledge but also to allow and encourage them to present their own thoughts.
Because of that the first column covers both, Know and Think – What I Think and what I know. It is followed by the
column What Questions I have, so the students can propose problem and hypotheses for an inquiry. Further on
students should think of different ways of how to come to answers and hence write their ideas in column How
can I find out. They can propose hands-on activities, learning from books, an inquiry process and other, and the
teacher can lead them to choose different methods. In the last column What I Learned the students write about
knowledge they gained.
Problem of Research, Research Aim and Research Hypothesis
It is shown that different teaching strategies can help students in learning physics contents but there is no
strategy that can be regarded as the best. It is helpful to find various strategies appropriate to use in physics class
to encourage students’ learning and inquiry. That way the teacher can decide which strategy will fit best in certain
conditions, depending on the teaching contents, structure of the class and teacher’s personal affinity. Different
modifications of the KWL strategy are examined as a tool for teaching various academic disciplines. In this research
the KWL strategy was adjusted such that the proposed modification can be a useful strategy for teaching physics.
The research was carried out with the aim to examine the effect of the mKWL strategy on primary school
students’ achievement in physics.
In accordance with the given theoretical framework the research hypothesis is formulated. The hypothesis is
that using the mKWL strategy has a positive effect on sixth-grade students’ achievement in physics, which means
that this strategy increases sixth-grade students’ achievement in physics. This positive effect of using the mKWL
strategy can be indicated by determining: (1) if the mean score in the physics knowledge test is significantly (sta-
948
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 946-957)
tistically) higher after implementing the TQHL charts in physics class, (2) if there is a significant difference between
the mean score in the physics knowledge test for the group of students taught using direct teaching and (3) if the
mean score in the physics knowledge test of the students taught using the TQHL charts is significantly (statistically)
higher than the mean score in the physics knowledge test of the students taught using direct teaching.
General Background and Design
Quasi experimental research was carried out in order to examine the effect of the used mKWL strategy on
primary school students’ achievement in physics. A pre-test and post-test control group design was used. The
research was carried out for 14 school weeks (from the beginning of March to the end of June) during the school
year 2016-2017. The research design is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Research design.
The students in the experimental and control groups were pre-tested. The students in the control group were
taught physics using direct teaching, in terms of explicit teaching through lectures and teacher-led demonstrations
planned according to the sixth-grade curriculum determined by the Ministry of Education, Science and Techno-
logical Development of the Republic of Serbia. The treatment in the form of teaching by using the TQHL charts in
physics class was applied to the students in the experimental group. The same teaching units were taught to the
students in both groups for the same time. The teaching units taught during the research were: The law of inertia;
Mass; Measurement of mass; Mass and weight as different concepts; Density; Determination of density; Determina-
tion of density of solid bodies of regular and irregular shape; Determination of density of liquid by measuring its
mass and volume; The concept of pressure; Solid body pressure; Hydrostatic pressure and Atmospheric pressure.
Afterwards, a physics knowledge test created by the researchers was administrated for post-testing.
The pilot research with the same research design was carried out during the school year 2015-2016. The
pilot research was used to detect unexpected problems in carrying out research such that researchers could be
prepared for them. Moreover, it enabled researchers to check students’ understanding of test items in constructed
research instruments (pre-test and post-test). The research sample that was used in the pilot research consisted of
59 students from two sixth-grade classes of primary school in Novi Sad, Republic of Serbia.
949
(P. 946-957) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Sample
This research was carried out with 110 sixth-grade students (51 boys and 59 girls) from four different classes
of a primary school in Subotica, Republic of Serbia. School administration allowed carrying out research and
all students were voluntarily participating in the research. Students’ privacy is respected during the research.
The KWL strategy and its modifications are not being used by Serbian teachers. Hence, selected primary school
was convenient because researchers knew that physics teacher employed there was prepared to be trained for
implementing the TQHL charts in physics class. The teacher took an active part in preparing the material and
has done necessary preparation in order to use this teaching strategy. Researchers wanted to eliminate a pos-
sible influence of imposing substitute teacher to the group of students, hence the sample size was limited by
the number of sixth-grade students taught by the teacher (trained for implementing the TQHL charts). There
were 54 students in the control group and 56 students in the experimental group. Used sample is valid for all
tests performed in this research.
Procedure and Instrument
In primary schools in the Republic of Serbia the groups of students are pre-constituted (in the form of
school classes) in order to meet the requirement of the obligatory school structure defined by the Ministry of
Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia. Besides, the participants could
not be randomly assigned to the groups, hence quasi experimental research design was used. Five school
classes were pre-tested to enable choosing the experimental and control groups to be as similar as possible.
Two school classes formed the experimental group and another two school classes formed the control group. A
physics knowledge test created by researchers was administrated for pre-testing. Two physics knowledge tests
(pre-test and post-test) were constructed for the purpose of this research. Reliability and validity of both tests
will be discussed. An independent samples t-test showed that there was no significant difference in the pre-test
scores (PKTi) of the students in the experimental group (M=9.95, SD=4.52) and the control group (M=10.67,
SD=4.57); t (108) =-0.831, p=.408.
The topics taught during the research were: (1) Mass and Density and (2) Pressure. Both topics are determined
by the regular primary school curriculum. One teacher was teaching both groups (experimental and control)
while the lessons were prepared by the teacher and the research team together. These lessons were realized by
the teacher during the regular class hours. Since the teacher had to be trained to use the TQHL charts in class he
had to be informed about research. The teacher was probably able to anticipate proposed hypothesis, but regard-
less this fact, the expected results were not specified to him/her. Researchers have no reason to think that the
teacher influenced on the results of the research in any other way than using suggested teaching interventions.
During the research, researchers were constantly in the contact with the teacher and were assisting if needed.
In order to introduce the mKWL strategy to the students, the teacher filled in the TQHL chart on the black-
board and each student wrote down for him-/herself the same chart. When introducing the mKWL strategy to
the students, the teacher wrote in the TQHL chart on the blackboard and each student wrote the same chart
for him-/herself at his/her desk. The teacher additionally explained to the students that they should write in the
T column not only those things they know undoubtedly, but their opinion and ideas as well. This column was
very useful for Serbian students because they are rarely connecting teaching content with their prior knowledge
(although students have experiential knowledge or knowledge about the same content taught within other
school subjects) (Milošević & Luković, 2006). Nevertheless, they usually have fear to make a mistake when they
need to express their opinion. Furthermore, this column gave the teacher the information about students’ pos-
sible misconceptions about the assigned teaching unit.
The teacher and the students filled in the Q column by writing down all the questions the students thought
about. In the H column they listed students’ proposals of how they can get the answers to these questions.
The most common students’ proposals for inquiry were searching internet, reading textbooks, conducting ex-
periments. In order to fill the L column students had to summarize and recall what they learned. For two more
weeks the students worked in the groups and the teacher was helping them with their TQHL charts. The teacher
reminded students about chart columns when needed. Afterwards, each student was ready to write the TQHL
charts individually. When students became trained for this strategy, some teaching units were realized using
950
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 946-957)
the TQHL charts while students worked in the groups (or even as a whole class activity) and others were realized
using the TQHL charts while students worked individually. Moreover, students started using the TQHL charts for
homework and even for independent learning of the given teaching units. During the classes the teacher helped
students only by providing them the opportunity to implement inquiry they have chosen. If the students were
working individually during one physics class (or for homework), the next class was dedicated for the analysis
of the same teaching unit. Each student analyzed his/her chart and then the whole class was included in the
discussion about different questions, inquiries and conclusions that students had. Afterwards, each student had
to insert into the L column some new information that he/she had adopted.
The problem that the teacher has encountered while using the TQHL charts was the lack of time for the
realization of the teaching unit within a school hour. Besides, the teacher stated that much more time is needed
to prepare lessons when this strategy is being used. The teacher must anticipate all possible ideas for students’
inquiry and prepare materials for experiments that students might propose, and also provide different study
materials and internet access (whereas most schools in the Republic of Serbia do not have internet access).
Examples of chart columns written by one student for the teaching unit “Atmospheric pressure” are given:
Column What I Think and what I know:
•• It has something to do with weather forecast.
•• It is expressed in millibars.
•• The air is everywhere around us.
•• The air has its weight.
•• I suppose that atmospheric pressure is pressure exerted by air.
•• Atmospheric pressure is not the same somewhere on the mountain and on the sea level.
Column What Questions I have:
•• What is correlation between atmospheric pressure and weather?
•• Why the atmospheric pressure is not the same somewhere on the mountain and on the sea level?
Column How can I find out:
•• Look up on the internet.
Column What I Learned:
•• Atmospheric pressure is measured by barometer and it can be expressed in millimeters of mercury
as well as in other units.
•• Usually if the atmospheric pressure is high it will be warm and sunny, and if the atmospheric pressure
is low, the weather will be bad.
•• Atmospheric pressure is not the same somewhere on the mountain and on the sea level because it
is not the same height of the air column that exerts pressure by its weight in these two cases.
Two physics knowledge tests were constructed for the purpose of this research: pre-test and post-test. Both
tests consist of 12 items in the form of multiple-choice tasks. The researchers have estimated reliability and va-
lidity of both tests. The obtained Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the pre-test and the post-test are .74 and .68,
respectively. According to Murphy and Davidshofer (1988) Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is, even low, acceptable
above .60. Moreover, Nunnally (1967) stated that self-developed scales are acceptable with Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient of .60. Although the obtained values for the pre-test and the post-test are relatively low, they indi-
cate that the tests have acceptable reliability. Since scale constructed for this research consists of 12 items and
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient strongly depends on the number of items, and since in the pilot research these coef-
ficients were over .75 for both tests (.75 for the pre-test and .72 for the post-test), the researchers retained those
12 chosen items in the tests. Based on the students’ understanding of the test items in the pilot research, some
minor revisions were made in the formulations of the test items. Further, as proposed by Segedinac, Segedinac,
Konjović and Savić (2011; as cited in Hrin, Fahmy, Segedinac & Milenković, 2015), the expert team was formed
in order to estimate the validity of the applied tests. Two primary school physics teachers, a school pedagogue
(school pedagogue, among other things, assists teachers with pedagogy and advices about teaching) and a
university professor constituted the expert team. According to this expert team, the test items were appropriate
for sixth-grade students, formulations were precise and easy to understand. Moreover, the tests complied both
with the school curriculum and the available physics books, hence the formed expert team confirmed that the
tests were valid. The time assigned for the pre-test and the post-test was the same – one class hour (45 minutes).
951
(P. 946-957) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
The following are the examples of the test items in the level of knowledge, comprehension and applica-
tion, respectively:
1. The SI unit for pressure is:
а) Kilogram (kg)
b) Newton (N)
(c) Pascal (Pa)
2. If two bodies have equal masses, and the contact surface of the first body and the floor is greater than
the contact surface of the second body and the floor:
a) The pressure exerted by the first body is greater than the pressure exerted by the second body
(b) The pressure exerted by the second body is greater than the pressure exerted by the first body
c) We cannot know which body exerts greater pressure
3. A table on four legs has weight of 40 N. Each leg sets against the floor with the area of 0.001 m2. What
pressure the table exerts on the floor?
a) 400 Pa
b) 1000 Pa
(c) 10 000 Pa
d) 40 000 Pa
Data Analysis

The obtained data were treated statistically using the software package IBM SPSS. A score in the physics
knowledge test given for pre-testing (PKTi) and a score in the physics knowledge test given for post-testing (PKTf )
are examined within this research. These variables were described using descriptive statistics. Since the variables
follow a normal distribution, a paired samples t-test was used in order to compare the PKTi and the PKTf for the
experimental group, as well as for the control group. In order to compare the post-test scores between the students
in the experimental and the control groups, an independent samples t-test was performed. Additionally, percentage
of the correct answers on the PKTi and the PKTf items in both groups is shown in the form of histogram. Students’
test scores, both PKTi and PKTf, could range from 0 to 20 points. Higher score on the test denotes greater physics
achievement.
Results of Research
The students in the experimental group increased their test scores (from the PKTi to the PKTf ) by 4.12 points,
as indicated in Table 3. A paired-samples t-test was performed to compare the PKTf and the PKTi scores. There was
a significant difference in the PKTf (M=14.07, SD=4.20) and the PKTi (M=9.95, SD=4.52) scores for the students in
the experimental group; t(55)=-5.20, p<.0001.
However, there was no significant difference between the PKTf (M=11.17, SD=4.49) and the PKTi (M=10.67,
SD=4.57) scores for the students in the control group; t(53)=-1.88, p=.065.
Table 3. Basic descriptive statistics related to Physics Knowledge Test scores.
Control group Experimental group
PKTi PKTf PKTi PKTf
N 54 54 56 56
Mean 10.67 11.17 9.95 14.07
Standard deviation 4.57 4.49 4.52 4.20
Minimum 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0
Maximum 20.0 20.0 19.0 20.0
Standardized skewness 0.12 -0.05 0.27 -0.46
Standardized kurtosis -0.81 -0.71 -0.81 -0.56
952
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 946-957)
An independent-samples t-test was performed to compare the PKTf scores between the students in the
experimental and the control group. There was a significant difference in the PKTf scores of the students in the
experimental group (M=14.07, SD=4.20) and the control group (M=11.17, SD=4.49), in favor of the students in the
experimental group; t(108)=-3.505, p=.001.
According to these results it can be suggested that the use of the mKWL strategy increases students’ physics
achievement if achievement refers to teacher’s assessment of students’ achieving learning objectives based on
test results and therefore is reflected in students’ marks in physics.
Additionally, there is an evident difference between histograms that show percentage of the correctly answered
test items in the experimental and control groups on the PKTi (Figure 2) and on the PKTf (Figure 3).
Figure 2: Comparison of percentage of the correctly answered test items in the experimental and control
groups on the PKTi.
There is no apparent difference in percentage of the correctly answered test items in the experimental and
the control group on the PKTi. For some items more successful were the students in the experimental group and
for other items more successful were the students in the control group.
Figure 3: Comparison of percentage of the correctly answered test items in the experimental and control
groups on the PKTf.
953
(P. 946-957) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Figure 3 shows comparison of percentage of correct answers on the PKTf items in the experimental and control
groups. There were only three questions that students of both groups have answered equally good. Two of those
were the questions in the domain of knowledge that required recalling facts. In higher levels of knowledge, it is
shown that the students in the experimental group were more successful.
Discussion
Numerous studies are carried out to examine how enriching and improving teaching strategies can help in
teaching physics, and science in general (Cvjeticanin, Obadovic & Rancic, 2015; Popović, Miljanović, Županec &
Pribićević, 2014; Sağlam, 2010).
The effect of the mKWL strategy on sixth-grade students’ achievement in physics is examined in this research.
It is shown that two groups of students had similar prior knowledge regarding some physics topics. That was
expected since the students in both groups were taught by the same physics teacher in the same manner (before
this research).
Based on Table 3, it can be observed that the mean post-test score in the physics knowledge test of the
group of students taught using the TQHL charts is 20.6% higher than their mean pre-test score in the physics
knowledge test. That difference reflects results in higher average mark of the students in the experimental group.
It was expected that students will achieve better results in physics after using the TQHL strategy, because different
studies indicated that this strategy enables students to activate their prior knowledge, choose the problem they
are interested in and choose the method of inquiry. Students easier realize connection between prior knowledge
and new knowledge. Since the students’ interests are considered, students’ motivation is enhanced. However, it is
questionable whether the post-test scores were better only for the fact that the use of the TQHL charts was new
and therefore interesting to students. It cannot be stated whether continuous use of this strategy would result in
even better scores (since the students would be better trained to use the strategy) or in poorer ones (if students
lose interest for using the strategy).
As the students taught using direct teaching were taught in the way they were used to, it was expected that
there would not be significant difference between the pre-test and the post-test scores.
The results revealed that the post-test scores of students taught using the TQHL charts was 14.5% higher
than the post-test scores of students taught using direct teaching (Table 3). This was precisely the result that was
expected together with the first one. It can be suggested that this better achievement is the result of the use of
the TQHL charts.
Based on Figure 3, it can be observed that after the implementation of this strategy, the students achieved
better results at all levels of knowledge. The use of the TQHL charts can help students acquire functional knowl-
edge. Students use prior knowledge to design and implement inquiry, thus students practice the application of
knowledge. In case of using the TQHL charts one finds that high levels of student engagement results with higher
levels of knowledge compared to the case where students are mainly trying to memorize facts during the use of
direct teaching.
There are no other studies that examined the usage of the same mKWL startegy in physics learning, hence
these findings can be compared only with findings of similar studies. The findings of this research are consistent
with the findings of other researchers that have examined the efficiency of the KWL strategy or its modifications
to enhance students’ achievement in various academic disciplines. The main difference between this research and
the similar ones is that the use of the TQHL charts was particularly examined within this research, and it is proposed
as an appropriate strategy for teaching physics.
The findings of this research are in parallel with the findings of various researchers who showed that the use
of the KWL strategy increased students’ achievement in science (Akyüz 2004; Taslidere & Eryilmaz, 2012; Reichel,
1994; as cited in Tok, 2013). Akyüz (2004) examined students’ achievement regarding the topic Heat and Tempera-
ture when the KWL strategy was used, and suggested that the use of this strategy increased ninth-grade students’
achievement. Taslidere and Eryilmaz (2012) showed that integrating the KWL strategy and the conceptual physics
approach improves students’ achievement in Optics. This research is carried out with ninth-grade students. Ac-
cording to Reichel (1994; as cited in Tok, 2013) students subjected to the KWL strategy perform better in science.
Tok (2013) showed the positive effect of using the KWL strategy on the sixth-grade students’ achievement in
mathematics, students’ metacognition and mathematics anxiety. Davis (1993) suggested that proposing questions
954
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 946-957)
and giving answers promote content comprehension, which largely reflects on physics achievement. It is shown
that the KWL strategy is effective in increasing sixth-grade students’ physics achievement and their metacognition
(Zouhor, Bogdanović & Segedinac, 2016).
Sumardiono (2014) showed that the application of the KWLH charts made students automatically sharpen
their critical thinking such that they were able to filter what they need in comprehending and solving the physics
tasks. This strategy encourages students to think about the possible ways of expanding their knowledge (Weaver,
1994) and it supports the organization of new information (Cavner, 2013). Therefore, the KWLH is an effective
teaching strategy (Walker Tileston, 2004; Sumardiono, 2013). Adoptions of the KWL strategy that can enhance
students’ achievement in science are the KLEW(S) (Hershberger et al., 2006; Hershberger & Zembal-Saul, 2015)
and KNWS (Sumardiono, 2014). According to Crowther and Cannon (2004) the use of the THC strategy in primary
school improves learning sciences and literacy.
The implication of the results of this research is that sixth-grade students’ achievement in physics is higher
when students are taught using the TQHL charts rather than direct teaching, or in other words, better marks in
physics are expected when using a proposed strategy. Based on that, it can be suggested that using the mKWL
strategy in teaching physics has a positive effect on students’ achievement.
Conclusions
The problem of low students’ achievement in primary school physics can be overcome, but it will take the time
and effort of the researchers in education, as well as the physics teachers. Negative perceptions of the teaching
practice tend to arrive when teachers rely only on direct teaching. The researchers should find the strategies that
may be better suited to particular lessons, and the teachers should implement those strategies in practice. The use
of appropriate strategy can improve students’ comprehension and increase students’ achievement. The research
directed to examine the effect of the mKWL strategy (TQHL charts) on physics achievement is carried out. While
using the TQHL charts, the students in the experimental group made connections of their prior knowledge and
applied it to the new contents. Moreover, students became trained to think as scientists, as well as to implement
inquiry process. All this contributed to the acquiring of applicable physics knowledge and enhanced students’
physics achievement in the experimental group. Based on the results of research, it can be stated that using the
mKWL strategy in the sixth-grade physics class increases students’ physics achievement. It helps students to be
successful in learning physics contents.
A limitation of this research is related to the sampling of the groups. The groups were pre-constituted and not
selected by random choice. Moreover, the groups were not completely isolated since students were able to commu-
nicate outside the school. In addition, this research included only sixth-grade students and just two physics topics.
The implications for the practice and the further research derive from the results of this research. It can be
suggested to implement the described strategy in teaching physics in order to improve students’ achievement.
Additionally, teachers can use the TQHL charts in order to notice possible students’ misconceptions about teaching
contents and to assess students’ prior knowledge. The teachers can be successful in using the proposed strategy in
class if they receive needed material and training about the TQHL charts. Therefore, it is necessary to carry out the
additional teachers’ professional development. The teachers should teach students not only about the given top-
ics but about using useful learning strategy as well. As soon as students adopt using the TQHL charts during their
physics class, they will use the KWL strategy or its adequate modifications for learning other subjects as well. The
problem of applying this strategy in primary schools in the Republic of Serbia is reflected in limited time available
for the realization of each teaching unit. This problem can be overcome by teacher’s good planning and organiz-
ing skills. Although the application of the TQHL charts requires from teachers more time in order to prepare their
lessons, the use of the TQHL charts helps students to successfully acquire teaching contents.
This research raises new questions and gives some new directions for the further research, that should
include wider teaching contents and different grade levels for obtaining additional results regarding this issue.
Since the use of the TQHL charts is not sufficiently studied, more findings about using this strategy will be gained
by extending this research. Further research can investigate the effects of described strategy on attitudes toward
science, students’ motivation, students’ metacognition, cognitive load or other variables. Using the mKWL strategy
in teaching physics can have more positive effects than indicated in this research.
955
(P. 946-957) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by Grant No. 179010 (The Quality of Education System in Serbia from European
Perspective) financed by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia.
References
Al-Khateeb, O. S. M., & Idrees, M. W. K. (2010). The impact of using KWL strategy on grade ten female students’ reading compre-
hension of religious concepts. European Journal of Social Sciences, 12, 471-489.
Akyüz, V. (2004). The effects of textbook style and reading strategy on students’ achievement and attitudes towards heat and
temperature (Dissertation). Ankara: Middle East Technical University.
Akerson, V. (2001). Teaching science when your principal says, “Teach language arts.” Science and Children, 38 (7), 42-47.
Ancell, C., Guttersrud, O., Henriksen E., & Isnes A. (2004). Physics: Frightful, but fun. Pupils’ and teachers’ views of physics and
physics teaching. Science Education, 88 (5), 683-706.
Blachowicz, C., & Ogle, D. (2008). Reading comprehension: Strategies for independent learners. New York: Guilford Press.
Bošnjak, M., Obadović, D. Ž., & Bogdanović, I. (2016). Application of inquiry-based instruction in the initial science teaching.
Teme, 40 (1), 265-279.
Bryan, J. (1998). K-W-L: Questioning the known. The Reading Teacher, 51 (7), 618-620.
Cavner, D. (2013). Using the KWLH strategy in the early childhood classroom. Exchange, 211, 64-74.
Checkley, D. (2010). High school students’ perceptions of physics (Thesis). Alberta: University of Lethbridge.
Crowther, D. T., & Cannon, J. (2004). Strategy makeover: K-W-L to T-H-C. Science and Children, 42 (1), 42-44.
Cvjeticanin, S., Obadovic, D., & Rancic, I. (2015). Učinkovitost učeničkih i demonstracijskih pokusa u početnom fizičko-kemijskom
obrazovanju učenika razredne nastave [The efficiency of student-led and demonstration experiments in initial physics-
chemistry education in primary school]. Hrvatski časopis za odgoj i obrazovanje, 17 (Sp.Ed.3), 11-39.
Davis, G. (1993). Tools for teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Ekwensi, F., Moranski, J., & Townsend-Sweet, M. (2006). E-learning concepts and techniques. Bloomsburg University of Pennsylva-
nia’s Department of Instructional Technology.
Erinosho, S. Y. (2013). How do students perceive the difficulty of physics in secondary school? An exploratory study in Nigeria.
International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education, Special Issue, 3 (3), 1510-1515.
Foote, C. J., Vermette, P. J., & Battaglia, C. F. (2001). Constructivist strategies: Meeting standards and engaging adolescent minds.
Larchmont: Eye on Education.
Gammill, D. M. (2006). Learning to write way. The Reading Teacher, 59 (8), 754-762.
Hayes, M. (2002). Elementary preservice teachers’ struggles to define inquiry-based science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 13 (2), 147-165.
Hershberger, K., Zembal-Saul, C., & Starr. M. L. (2006). Evidence helps the KWL get a KLEW. Science and Children, 43 (5), 50-53.
Hershberger K., & Zembal-Saul C. (2015). Methods and strategies: KLEWS to explanation-building in science. Science and Children,
52 (6), 66-71.
Hrin, T. N., Fahmy, A. F. M., Segedinac, M. D., & Milenković, D. D. (2015) Systemic synthesis questions [SSynQs] as tools to help
students to build their cognitive structures in a systemic manner. Research in Science Education, 46 (4), 525-546.
Martorella, P. H., Beal, C. M. A., & Bolick, C. M. (2005). Teaching social studies in middle and secondary schools. New Jersey: Merrill
Prentice Hall.
Milošević, N., & Luković, I. (2006). Learning context and achievement in physics. Nastava i vaspitanje, 55 (2), 136-154.
Munck, M. (2007). Science pedagogy, teacher attitudes, and student success. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 19 (2), 13-24.
Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O. (1988). Psychological testing: Principles and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Ogle, D. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher, 39 (6), 564-570.
Ogle, D. (1987). K-W-L Plus: A strategy for comprehension and summarization. Journal of Reading, 30 (7), 626-631.
Ogle, D. (2009). Creating contexts for inquiry: From KWL to PRC2. Knowledge Quest, 38 (1), 56–61.
Popović, Z., Miljanović, T., Županec, V., & Pribićević, T. (2014). Stavovi i mišljenja učenika gimnazije o aktivnoj nastavi biologije
[Attitudes and opinions of grammar school students about active biology teaching]. Pedagogija, 69 (2), 261-267.
Reichel, A. G. (1994). Performance assessment: Five practical approaches. Science and Children, 22, 21-25.
Riswanto, Risnawati, & Lismayanti, D. (2014). The effect of using KWL (Know, Want, Learned) strategy on EFL students’ reading
comprehension achievement. Journal of International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 4 (7), 225-233.
Sağlam, M. (2010). Students’ performance awareness, motivational orientations and learning strategies in a problem-based
electromagnetism course. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11 (1), Article 16, 1-18.
Segedinac, M., Segedinac, M., Konjović, Z., & Savić, G. (2011). A formal approach to organization of educational objectives.
Psihologija, 44 (4), 307-323.
Selçuk S. G. (2010). Correlation study of physics achievement, learning strategy, attitude and gender in an introductory physics
course. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11 (2), Article 4, 1-16.
Sumardiono, D. (2013). Using KWLH technique to understand local descriptive texts in teaching reading: Enhancing teachers’
share through social media. Jurnal inovasi pendidikan, 1 (2), 32-39.
956
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 946-957)
Sumardiono, D. (2014, March). Success in comprehending and solving reading texts of physics: Using KNWS strategy to strengthen
critical thinking. Paper presented at the 6th National English Language Teachers and Lecturers (NELTAL) Conference, State
University of Malang, Indonesia.
Szabo, S. (2006). KWHL: A student-driven evolution of the KWL. American Secondary Education, 34 (3), 57-67.
Taslidere E., & Eryilmaz A. (2012). The relative effectiveness of integrated reading study strategy and conceptual physics approach.
Research in Science Education, 42 (2), 181-199.
Tok, S. (2013). Effects of the know-want-learn strategy on students’ mathematics achievement, anxiety and metacognitive skills.
Metacognition Learning, 8, 193-212.
Tran, T. T. D. (2015). Trying K-W-L strategy on teaching reading comprehension to passive students in Vietnam. International
Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3 (6), 481-492.
Walker Tileston, D. (2004). What every teacher should know about effective teaching strategies. California: Corwin Press.
Weaver, C. (1994). Reading process and practice: From socio-psycholinguistics to whole language. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching
(pp. 315-327). New York: MacMillan.
Williams, C., Stanisstreet, M., Spall, K., Boyes, E., & Dickson, D. (2003). Why aren’t secondary students interested in physics? Physics
Education, 38 (4), 324-329.
Yumuşak, N., Sungur, S., & Çakıroğlu, J. (2007). Turkish high school students’ biology achievement in relation to academic self-
regulation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13, 53-69.
Zouhor, Z., Bogdanović, I., & Segedinac M. (2016). Effects of the know-want-learn strategy on primary school students’ metacog-
nition and physics achievement. Journal of Subject Didactics, 1 (1), 39-49.
MSc, PhD Student, Faculty of Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Trg

Zekri A.M. Zouhor Dositeja Obradovića 4, Novi Sad, Serbia.
E-mail: zekri.zouhor@gmail.com
Ivana Z. Bogdanović PhD, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Sciences, University of Novi Sad,
(Corresponding author) Trg Dositeja Obradovića 4, Novi Sad, Serbia.
E-mail: ivana.bogdanovic@df.uns.ac.rs
Sonja J. Skuban PhD, Associate Professor, Faculty of Sciences, University of Novi Sad,
Trg Dositeja Obradovića 4, Novi Sad, Serbia.
E-mail: sogi@uns.ac.rs
Milica V. Pavkov-Hrvojević PhD, Full Professor, Faculty of Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Trg
Dositeja Obradovića 4, Novi Sad, Serbia.
E-mail: milica@df.uns.ac.rs
957
THE LABORATORY WORK
STYLE’S INFLUENCE ON
STUDENTS’ COMMUNICATION
Abstract. More knowledge of how the Jan Andersson,

actual design of the laboratory work influ-
ence students’ communication, is needed to
Margareta Enghag
design and implement physics laboratory
work lessons. The aim with this quantitative
research, conducted at a Swedish upper
secondary school, was to explore how
the design of the laboratory work affects
students’ communication. Twenty students
Introduction
divided into five groups participated in
this natural case study and were video
Studies about laboratory work in science education have, over the last
recorded while performing four practical
fifteen years, been the subject of a large body of research (for example Abra-
tasks with the theme uniformly acceler-
hams & Millar, 2008; Dillon, 2008; Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004; Jacobsen, 2010).
ated motion, designed by their teacher. The
Parallel to this, the number of studies about communication in the science
four workstations were categorised based
classroom has grown considerably, becoming a research domain of its own
on three predefined descriptors: outcome,
(for example, Bennet, Hogarth, Lubben, Campbell & Robinson, 2010; Dawes &
approach and procedure. Students’ work at
Staarman, 2009; Kind, Kind, Hofstein & Wilson, 2011; Mercer, 2010; Oyoo, 2012.
Researchers in the field of laboratory work and in the field of communication
each workstation was coded according to
stress the importance of science teachers eliciting students to communicate
five defined activities: planning, preparing
about science and giving them opportunities to perform laboratory work. If
equipment, collecting data, processing
students’ communication is affected by the context of laboratory work, this
data and analysis of results. The activi-
might have consequences for the efficiency of the lesson, both in aspects of
ties were thereafter divided into shorter
learning outcomes and of new experiences for students.
episodes that were coded for three different
Terms as practical work, laboratory work and experimental work are
types of communication: disputational talk,
often used arbitrary (Hodson, 1988). In this research, the term laboratory
cumulative talk and exploratory talk. The
work is used to describe any type of scientific teaching and learning activity
result shows that the amount of explora-
in which students, working either individually or in small groups, are involved
tory talk students engaged in are influ-
in manipulating and/or observing real objects and materials (Abrahams &
enced by the style of the laboratory work
Reiss, 2012).
and the character of the activity. Based on
The design of the laboratory work depends on the teacher’s purpose
these research results, teachers can better
with the science lesson. The extensive European report about laboratory work
accustom the laboratory work to facilitate
in science education (Séré, Leach, Niedderer, Psillos, Tiberghien, Vicentini,
fruitful physics discussions which endorse
1998) lists three broad purposes of laboratory work, as expressed by teach-
students’ learning.
ers: 1) Developing students’ knowledge of the behaviour of the natural world,
Keywords: different styles of laboratory
2) Learning to do empirical investigations and 3) Learning to handle laboratory
work, different types of talk, quantitative
equipment. Another argument for the purpose of laboratory work in physics
analysis of students’ communication.
has been to enhance students’ ability to link theory to practice (Boud, Dunn,
& Hegarty-Hazel, 1986; Lunetta, 1998). It is noteworthy that none of the
aforementioned purposes of laboratory work concerns giving students op-
Jan Andersson
Karlstad University, Sweden portunities to talk physics with each other. Tiberghien, Veillard, Le Maréchal,
Margareta Enghag Buty and Millar (2001) mean that the main purpose of all laboratory work
Stockholm University, Sweden should be to create links between the domain of observables to the domain
of ideas. Students should be able to describe what they have done and
958
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ THE LABORATORY WORK STYLE’S INFLUENCE ON STUDENTS’ COMMUNICATION
(P. 958-979)
observed. They should also be able to discuss the practical work and employ the ideas meant to be developed, or
be able to use these ideas in a different context (Tiberghien et al., 2001). This might implicate that students need
time to talk and discuss.
Abrahams and Millar (2008) do not expressly use the term communication but instead state that science is
about the interplay of individual observation and ideas, where practical work plays an important role in helping
the student establish links between these two domains. By ideas, Abrahams and Reiss (2012) refer to the process of
thinking and talking about objects and materials, using scientific terminology and theoretical entities or constructs,
which are not themselves directly observable. Could not student interplay between observations and ideas being
enhanced by communication between students?
Scott, Mortimer, and Ametller (2011) argue that link-making is defined by 1) how the learner makes links
between existing knowledge and new ideas, but also 2) that learning conceptual scientific knowledge involves
recognising how the scientific concepts themselves fit together in an interlinking system (Scott et al., 2011). Accord-
ing to Driver (1989) students come to their science classes with prior conceptions that may differ substantially from
the ideas being taught, and these conceptions may be resistant to change. Laboratory work most likely possesses
qualifications and can act as a pedagogical tool, facilitating the link-making process and stimulating changes in
students’ prior conceptual perceptions. This link-making process can occur at two levels and is an indicator of the
effectiveness of the laboratory work in terms of doing and learning outcomes (Abrahams & Millar, 2008).
A laboratory task can be effective at the first level from the point of “doing”, which means that students do
what the teacher intended for them to do. At the second level, a laboratory task can be effective from a “learning”
perspective, whereby they learn what the teacher intended for them to learn. Later, if students can, in another
situation, discuss and use the knowledge, which the laboratory tasks were meant to develop, the tasks are said
to be effective (Tiberghien et al., 2001). Kind et al. (2011) state that the quality of students’ argumentation during
laboratory work also reflects the quality of their investigations. This view of effectiveness highlights the importance
of research concerning student communication during practical work.
Traditionally, practical work in physics is accomplished as small group work, which naturally involves verbal
communication among students. Bennett et al., (2010) argue that for small group discussions to be effective, stu-
dents need to be explicitly taught how to develop arguments and characteristics associated with effective group
discussions. Katchevich, Hofstein and Mamlok-Naaman (2013) argue that if students are engaged in activities that
provide them with opportunities to develop argumentative skills, they also learn how to conduct a meaningful
conversation with peers. Mercer, Dawes and Staarman (2009) stress the importance of teachers ensuring that group
activities are well designed to elicit debate and discussion. Activities should not only draw on students’ existing
knowledge, but also expand that knowledge by introducing and making links to new ideas.
More research concerning the link between students’ communication and laboratory work are needed to
further unravel and clarify the complexity of laboratory work in physics education. This research contributes with
new knowledge within this area by examining how the type of laboratory work in physics influences students’
interaction and communication.
Different Styles of Laboratory Work
Discussions about different styles of laboratory work have mostly concerned degrees of freedom, where closed
labs have zero or low degrees of freedom compared to more open-ended labs (Herron, 1971; Schwab, 1962). Instead
of classifying different styles of laboratory work through degrees of freedom, Domin (1999) uses descriptors such
as Outcome, Approach and Procedure to distinguish four different styles of laboratory work, which are labelled as
expository, inquiry, discovery and problem-based instruction style. A predetermined outcome implies that both
the instructor and the students know the outcome of the work. An undetermined outcome involves investigations
where students, and sometimes the teacher, do not know the actual result in advance. The approach can be either
deductive or inductive according to Domin (1999). A deductive approach is applied when students use a general
principle toward understanding a specific phenomenon. An inductive approach is used when students draw
conclusions based on what they have observed. In some cases, the students follow a procedure provided either
by the teacher or other learning materials, which dictates what to do and how to do it. If, instead, the students
design the procedure, they decide themselves what needs to be done and how to do it. Based on the analysis of
the three descriptors, a laboratory exercise can be categorised into one of four different styles, defined as follows.
Expository style. Students are asked to perform laboratory work that verifies scientific facts. These facts are
959
THE LABORATORY WORK STYLE’S INFLUENCE ON STUDENTS’ COMMUNICATION ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/
(P. 958-979)
introduced prior to the laboratory work in textbooks and during lectures. The teacher usually gives students thor-
ough instructions with regard to both what they are supposed to do and how they are expected to complete the
task. The students then follow the teacher’s instructions and compare their own results from the laboratory work
against the expected outcome. This is the most common style of doing laboratory work (Séré et al., 1998), and is
often called a cookbook lab because it requires students to follow a recipe-like instruction (Royuk & Brooks, 2003).
The cognitive skills required and developed by such laboratory tasks are far more practical than theoretical in nature
(Roth, Mcginn, & Bowen, 1996). One reason for this is that students spend more time determining whether they
obtained the correct results than they spend thinking, planning and organizing the experiment (Domin, 1999).
Inquiry style. The teacher gives the students an assignment in which they are asked to investigate certain
factors that demonstrate a specific variable or concept. The task should be vague enough so that students
have to design their own experiment, including collecting and analysing their own data. The inquiry style is
characterised by an undetermined outcome, an inductive approach and a student-generated procedure. This
style of doing practical work resembles true scientific investigation, in the sense that the outcome is unknown
(Domin,1999). Students’ involvement increases when they are responsible for designing and implementing an
investigation. The inquiry style therefore requires more time, and makes greater demands on students, teach-
ers, and school facilities.
Discovery style. Without any theoretical introduction, the students are asked to follow a given instruction,
telling them what to do and what data to collect. Based on the collected data, the students are expected to draw
conclusions. This experience, together with post-lab discussions, gives the students the opportunity to discover and
understand the underlying concepts. This style of laboratory work is characterised by a predetermined outcome,
an inductive approach and a given procedure. This style is also referred to as guided-inquiry. According to Domin
(1999) this form of learning has been heavily criticised. One reason is that when one student in a group discovers
the principle of interest, the others will most likely be given the information.
Problem-based style. Students are given a problem to solve. They are expected to do so by applying theories
from readings and prior lectures. By solving the problem, students are expected to gain a better understanding
of the underlying concepts. This style of laboratory work is characterised by predetermined outcome, a deductive
approach and a student-generated procedure. Using a problem-based style requires that students have good
conceptual understanding and can use their knowledge to solve problems and answer questions. In this case stu-
dents must create their own procedures to solve the problem, and Domin (1999) means that emphasis is placed
on developing testable hypotheses, rather than obtaining correct results.
Domin’s three descriptors were used in this research to identify and distinguish the different styles of labora-
tory work students are working with during a 90-minute physics lesson. It is important to stress that goal with
this research was not primarily to make comparisons between Domin’s different styles of laboratory work in turns
of learning outcomes. Instead, the main objective was to investigate whether and how different styles of labora-
tory work promote different types of communication, where language is an important link to the construction of
knowledge.
Different Styles of Communication
Spoken language is one of several communicative modes, probably the most important (Jewitt, Kress, Ogborn,
& Tsatsarelis, 2010; Mercer, 2010). The conversation students make in small groups during practical work captures
the communication that occurs when students construct meaning from new experiences and new knowledge
afforded by tasks and activities. For participants to gain entry into a critical discussion, they must first agree to
pursue an issue or topic on which they have divergent opinions. Thus, an initial requirement is that participants
produce arguments articulating divergent perspectives, which can then lead to agreement on an issue or topic to
discuss (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1987).
The different types of communication can be seen as the discourse that reveals both different forms of activi-
ties students are engaged in, and on a deeper level, their intentions and interactions to make meaning. Mercer and
Littleton (2007) elaborate how collective construction of knowledge is achieved, and how engagement in dialogue
shapes students’ educational progress and intellectual development. Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and Bahktin’s
dialogism form the foundation to explain these ideas (Bakhtin, 1986; Vygotsky, 1978). Lemke (1990) expressed the
importance of talk in a physics classroom in a way that has become cited frequently:
960
(P. 958-979)
Learning science means learning to talk science. It also means learning to use this specialized conceptual language in
reading and writing, in reasoning and problem solving, and in guiding practical action in the laboratory and in daily
life. It means learning to communicate in the language of science and act as a member of the community of people
who do so (Lemke, 1990 ,p.1).
Mercer (1995) describes three ways of talking and reasoning and presents these as three analytical categories,
which are useful for the study of discourse when students talk in small groups.
Disputational talk could be described as individualised decision-making in contrast to searching for agree-
ment and common knowledge. This discourse is characterised by disagreement and exchanges of assertions and
counter-assertions and is characterized by a debate. The relationship is competitive, where the defence of individu-
als’ ideas are prioritized over consideration of others’ explanations.
Cumulative talk is built up by repetitions, confirmations and elaborations. Like exploratory talk, it allows for
construction of common knowledge by accumulation. In the cumulative discourse the speakers build positively
but uncritically on what others have said. Information and ideas are shared in the process of constructing knowl-
edge, but without being challenged.
Exploratory talk is seen as the valuable type of conversation in which statements and suggestions are offered
for joint consideration, and the speakers show critical and constructive engagement in each other’s ideas. Alternate
viewpoints are often suggested and the quest for knowledge is more viable through such reasoning and talk.
A further and more detailed description of these talk types is presented by Andersson & Enghag (2017), who
performed a discourse analysis of students’ talk during laboratory work, to find qualitative differences among the
talk-types, at both a linguistic and cognitive level. The three types of talk were in this research used to quantitatively
analyse students’ communication during their laboratory work.
Purpose and Research Questions
The aim of this research was to examine students’ communication during different styles of laboratory work in
physics. The purpose was to better understand the relation between the style of the laboratory work, the activities
it generates and talk-types in use by answering the following questions:
1. How does the style of the laboratory work relate with the talk-type between students?
2. What activities does the laboratory work generate and how do the activities relate with the talk-types
between students?
More research is needed to better understand how the physics laboratory work can be improved to enhance
students’ learning. Searching for a possible relation between the design of the laboratory work and the quality
of students’ communication is therefore important. Such information provides knowledge about how student
development of competencies during laboratory work could be facilitated in a more systematic way.
Investigating Four Laboratory Workstations by Analysis of Styles, Activities and Talk-Types
A quantitative approach was used to find answers to the research questions, where descriptive statistical
analysis was used to discover similarities and differences in students’ way of communicating during their work at
the four different workstations. Statistical comparisons tests were then conducted to establish if signs of occurring
differences in fact were statistical significant.
The style of the laboratory work was in a first step identified by analysing the worksheets’ content, with
particular regard to how the tasks and questions were formulated, by searching for descriptors as outcome, ap-
proach and procedure. Thereafter in a second step, the recorded films of students’ work were studied, in order to
inductively identify and define different activities which students were engaged in during the process of laboratory
work. Finally, the relation between both laboratory styles and activities in relation to talk-types was established.
Five hours of student’s communication during this laboratory lesson, were analysed in this research.
961
(P. 958-979)
Participants, Learning Environment and Procedure
The research was conducted at a Swedish upper secondary municipal school with a total of 600 students.
The school’s natural science and social science programs dominate the curriculum, but more practically oriented
programs also exist. The students who participated in this research were 16 to 17 years old and attended their
first physics course as a part of a science program. The students were informed about ethical guidelines from the
Swedish Research Council, and had given their written permission to take part in the studies. The teacher divided
the class of 20 students into five groups of four. The teacher did not take students’ individual abilities into con-
sideration when constructing the groups, but instead divided them according to the class participant list. At this
school, laboratory work in physics was scheduled once every two weeks. During laboratory work lessons, the entire
class was divided in half. One half started by doing experiments in physics and the other half in chemistry. After 90
minutes the two groups switched subjects. At the time of observation, the students had just started working with
the topic of uniformly accelerated motion, and had not done any laboratory work in this field prior to this lesson at
the upper secondary school. The teacher had planned and prepared a lesson consisting of four different laboratory
tasks with the theme motion. Choices of laboratory work and preparation of the lessons were done entirely by the
teacher himself. No form of intervention was thus undertaken, making this a natural case study. The four different
laboratory workstations were placed in separate rooms to enable good audio recording conditions. A camera was
positioned in each room to continuously record students’ interaction and discussions. When introducing the lesson,
the teacher informed the students about the division of groups and handed out a worksheet (see Appendix). Brief
methodology instructions were then given to the students at each workstation. The students had 60 minutes in
total to their work, 15 minutes at each station. The remaining 30 minutes was used for introduction and closure of
the lesson. The data this research builds upon, is part of a more extensive project, concerning the physics labora-
tory work’s role in students’ learning at upper secondary level. The laboratory lesson described in this research
was thus not designed to consist of four different styles of laboratory work, as defined by Domin (1999). During
the recording of students’ work at the different workstations, a clear difference in students’ way of interacting was
noted. Based on this observation we afterwards began to investigate if and how the four workstations differed in
its design, and if it could have influenced students’ way of talking.
Generalizability, Reliability and Validity
Regarding generalizability, this research does not formulate broad claims, but invites readers of research to
make connections between elements of the research and their own experiences. The results from this research
are intended to indicate a possible existent of a relation between the style of the laboratory work, the activities
and the talk it generates. The work of five different groups, in the analysis referred to as group A, B, C, D and E,
with four students in each group was analysed to strengthen the reliability of the study. The co-author performed
inter-rater reliability studies, in dividing the groups recordings into sequences with the same activity and thereafter
into episodes based on talk types. A third researcher, not involved in the actual analysis, was asked to perform an
additional inter-rater reliability test, were 15 episodes was coded for type of communication, which resulted in an
87% overall agreement. The validity of the study is strengthened using predefined analytical instruments as Domin’s
categorisation scheme to identify different styles of laboratory work and Mercer’s approach to distinguish three dif-
ferent types of talk. Statistical comparison tests, such as two-way ANOVA and t-tests were also performed to search
for possible significant differences between the styles of the laboratory work, activities and groups of students, in
relation to the different types of talk student were engaged in. The total amount of time coded as cumulative talk
and exploratory talk, was for each type of laboratory style and group of students summarised and compared, to
see if any significant difference existed between the factors. The same approach was used to see if there was any
difference between the distribution of the talk-types, with respect to the different activities students were engaged
in. More and larger studies with the same approach are though needed to further claim the results generalisations.
Results of Research
Each of the four laboratory workstations were analysed in accordance with the three steps: laboratory styles,
activities and talk-types, described in the methods section.
962
(P. 958-979)
Laboratory Styles
Three of the four laboratory workstations agreed with Domin’s descriptors, two as expository style of work
and one as discovery. One of the workstations did not fulfil Abraham and Reiss’ (2012) criteria for being a labora-
tory work, in the sense that students did not manipulate and/or observe real objects and materials. Domin’s three
descriptors could still be found and recognised within the particular workstation, making us categorise it as a
problem based style of task. Each one of the workstations will be described in detail below.
Activities
Thorough and repeated studies of the first group’s transcribed communication, together with the correspond-
ing computer-based categorisation of video recordings of all the five groups, resulted in five identified activities:
Planning, Preparing Equipment, Collecting Data, Processing Data and Analysis of Results. Descriptions of the
activities are given in Table 1.
Table 1. Activities (Indicators: Talk and observed actions seen on the video).
Activity Description
Planning Students become acquainted with the task and go through what to do and how to do it. Students
jointly decide how to carry out a data collection, or discuss what data is needed to solve a given task.
Preparing Equipment Students set up equipment to collect necessary data.
Collecting Data Students collect data by doing some sort of measurements or attempts, using available equipment.
Processing Data Time spent when students process data, given or collected. Derive a mathematical expression,
calculate a value, or draw diagrams.
Analysis of Results Time spent where students answer questions in the worksheet or discuss the meaning and accuracy
of the results at different levels, or answer questions in the worksheet.
The video recordings from each group work at each station were analysed in three steps.
I. The video recording was firstly divided into sequences based on which one of the five activities students
were engaged in. Students could for example start by using the first 4 minutes to plan their work, fol-
lowed by 6 minutes of collecting data and ending their work by using 5 minutes to process their data.
II. In a second step of the analysis each one of those activity sequences were further divided into shorter
episodes, describing more specific what students were doing and talking about at that moment of
time. An episode could for example be where students attempt to measure a height or talk about a
calculated result meaning.
III. Finally, each episode was coded for the three different types of talk students were engaged in at that
moment of time.
Activities and Talk-types for Each Station
The categorisation of the individual five groups work at each station, based on activities and talk types, was
then compiled to clustered stacked column charts. The analysis and results that follow are presented separately
for each station. A summary of the results is given at the end of this section.
Station 1: The Tape Timer
Description and analysis of the task. The task was to calculate a value of the gravitational acceleration g, by
using a tape timer to register a 1.5 meter fall of a 1kg weight, and then discuss if and why the value deviates from
9.82 (see Appendix). The students were equipped with a tape timer, a power supply unit, a 1kg weight and a roll
of paper strip. Prior to the lesson, the teacher had prepared the equipment by setting up the tape timer and con-
963
(P. 958-979)
necting it to a power supply. During the introduction the teacher showed the students how to thread the paper
strip in the tape timer and described how to analyse the markings on the paper strip. The teacher thoroughly
explained how the students should collect the data and what they were expected to calculate. The outcome was
given as the students were told to compare their value to the gravitational acceleration constant. The approach
can be considered to be deductive as the students were given a formula to use for calculations. The student fol-
lowed a given procedure since the teacher initially informed them clearly and step-by-step, on what to do and
how to calculate the acceleration. This laboratory work has been categorised as a typical Expository style, based
on the three descriptors.
Analysis of students’ activities. Four of the groups immediately started by preparing the tape timer. One group
started out by briefly talking through what they were supposed to do before preparing for their data collection.
Most of the groups made two attempts after which they selected the strip with the clearest dots. The students
placed the paper strip on the table, counted fifty dots and measured the displacement. All students appeared to
be well aware of the work process and completed the task within the given time frame. All the groups realized that
they had to solve the given equation, y=at2/2 for a. All calculations were done individually, but the students used
each other to check their algebraic and numerical calculations and finally arrived at the results within the range of
9.4 to 10.2 m/s2. The groups managed to calculate a value for the acceleration of the falling weight, but one group
used considerably more time preparing the equipment and therefore had no time to analyse their end result. The
task written in the worksheet was to calculate a value for g. The link between the acceleration a and the quantity
of the gravitational acceleration g was a topic of discussion in three of five groups. Also, the unit for acceleration
was not clear to all students, and this started discussion in some of the groups.
Figure 1: Tape Timer. Individual group activities and talk-types categorised with time as unit of analysis.
During this laboratory work all groups were engaged in four of the five defined activities (see figure 1). Gen-
erally, the students seemed to be well aware of the work process and completed the task within the given time
frame. The lack of time spent on planning is most likely a consequence of the teacher’s thorough introduction.
Overall, the linear structure of this laboratory work was evident as the groups started and completed one activity
after another. Most groups began by Preparing Equipment, followed by Collecting Data, and Processing Data,
and ended their work with Analysis of Results. Overall, students spent the most time on Processing Data, which
corresponded to 35% of the time (see figure 2). 26 % of the time was coded as collecting data, while preparing
equipment and analysis of results each consumed 21% of the time.
964
(P. 958-979)
Figure 2: Tape Timer. Summary of activities and talk-types categorised with time as unit of analysis.
Analysis of students’ communication. Each of the activities were also quantitatively analysed based on talk-type.
46 of 64 episodes were categorised as cumulative talk, which is equivalent to 80%, with time as unit of analysis.
18 episodes were coded as exploratory talk, corresponding to 20% of the total time (see figure 2). The common
characteristic for these exploratory talk episodes was that the students discussed how to solve the equation y=at2/2
for a, and questioned parts of their results. The exploratory talks solely occurred during the activities Processing
Data and Analysis of results (see figure 2). In the 46 episodes coded as cumulative talk the students were working
purposefully, following the instruction given by the teacher.
Station 2: The Position-Time Graph
Description and analysis of the task. The worksheet consisted of a story about a person named Karin who was
walking around on her farm performing different chores. The students’ task was to describe and represent sequences
of these events in a position-time graph (see Appendix). The instruction contained four parts, one of which was
formulated as a question. None of the parts required any sort of calculations. Rather, the students were asked to
draw, describe and indirectly analyse the limitations of the position-time diagrams. The main task was to describe
and represent Karin’s motion by drawing a position-time graph. The approach presented in the instruction was
defined as deductive, since students had to use their conceptual knowledge about displacement and velocity as
vectors. The procedure in this activity was categorised as student-generated. The worksheet was informative but
did not give any guidance as to how to draw the graph. The descriptor outcome was categorised as undetermined,
since the students created a graph based on their interpretations. This activity could not be classified directly into
one of Domin’s four styles of laboratory work. But the style that closest matched the structure of this task was the
problem-based type, which requires students to use and reflect on their knowledge to solve a problem.
965
(P. 958-979)
Figure 3: Position-Time Graph. Individual group activities and talk-types categorised with time as unit of
analysis.
Analysis of students’ activities. This task differed from the others in that students did not use any equipment.
All five groups began by reading the instruction and then talking about how to proceed with the task. In these first
episodes two groups independently discussed which quantities they did and did not know. They both arrived at the
conclusion that they knew displacement but not time, and that they would have to decide Karin’s velocity them-
selves. Other groups discussed how much time the person in the story used for the different chores; these activities
were coded as Planning and corresponded to 9% of the total time (see figure 3). All groups continued their work
by drawing a position–time graph. One group worked together to create a position-time by using the whiteboard.
The students in the other four groups all created their graphs individually, while simultaneously discussing how
to interpret and represent the story as a graph. The majority of the work during this laboratory task was coded as
processing data, corresponding to 84% of the total time. Two of the groups took time at the end of their work to
discuss their results. These two episodes were coded as analysis of results, and amounted to 9% of the total time.
Figure 4: Position-Time Graph. Summary of activities and talk-types categorised with time as unit of analysis.
966
(P. 958-979)
Analysis of students’ communication. In this laboratory workstation, which was categorised as problem-based,
the students had more intense discussions. In total, the work of all the groups was here inductively divided into
70 episodes of which 36 episodes, 59% of the time, were coded as cumulative talk and 32 episodes, 37% of the
time, were categorised as exploratory talk. Two episodes were coded as disputational talk, corresponding to 4% of
the total time (see figure 4). The drawing of the position-time graph generated several exploratory talks, in which
some of the discussions concerned whether a motion could be represented with a partial negative position. The
topic of these discussions stemmed from the actual task but diverged into another context. On these occasions,
students used their prior experience to clarify and strengthen their explanations and arguments. A few of these
talks also turned into disputational talks (see figure 4). The cumulative talk occurred most frequently when students
thought aloud as they drew their own diagrams and checked to see whether the others in the group were doing
their graphs in a similar way.
Station 3: The Motion Detector
Description and analysis of the task. The students were given a paper with 16 different position-time graphs.
The task was to imitate those graphs by walking in front of a motion detector (see Appendix). The detector was
connected to a computer and a program simultaneously drew a corresponding position-time graph and a veloc-
ity-time graph, as the distance between the person and the detector changed. The outcome of the activity was
predetermined, and the procedure was categorised as given, since the students had been given graphs to imitate
a motion with the help of a detector. In this case students drew conclusions based on experience, thus making
the approach inductive. According to Domin’s table, the descriptors indicate that this station could be defined as
a discovery style of laboratory work.
Analysis of students’ activities. The students found their roles quickly. One or two students usually took a place
at the computer. Another student chose to walk in front of the motion detector and the fourth student took notes.
This division of work within the groups usually persisted throughout the activity. Sometimes the students took turns
walking in front of the detector. In the beginning, the teacher was often present and gave additional instructions
about the equipment. The students seemed to have little difficulty in interpreting the graphs. Rather, the challenge
for the students became trying to reproduce the given graph as accurately as possible. All data processing was
exclusively done by a computer, which allowed the students to instantly analyse and comment on the graphs after
each run. As a consequence, the students occasionally applied a trial and error approach, where instead of doing
a thorough analysis, they chose to delete a graph and just try again based on intuition. The students worked for
about 15 minutes and were engaged in several different activities during this time (see figure 5). This task gener-
ated significantly more, and consequently shorter episodes compared to the other three stations. In total, work of
the five groups was coded into 188 episodes. Usually the students quickly talked through how interpret a graph
as a motion, and then they immediately tested their theories by using the detector. The analysis of their results
was, for the most part, brief, and involved either a confirmation of their predictions or how to make changes to
improve the result. The following represents the cycle of activities: Planning, collecting data and analysis of results
were repeated for each graph. Students in group B differed from the rest by choosing to work through three graphs
and then sit down together around a table to analyse their results, which caused their time spent on the activities
collecting data and analysis of results to diverge from the other four groups (see figure 5). In total, the percentage
of time the students spent on each activity can be broken down as follows: Collecting Data 24%, Planning 20%,
Preparing Equipment 8%, and Analysis of Results 48%.
967
(P. 958-979)
Figure 5: Motion Detector. Individual groups activities and talk-types categorised with time as unit of analysis.
Analysis of students’ communication. In this task, which was categorised as a discovery style of laboratory work,
66% of the talk was cumulative, primarily involving direct instruction on what to do and how to walk in front of
the detector. Much of the talk consisted of comments about what they were seeing on the screen, making the
dialogue less consistent since they were not addressing their comments to anyone in particular. The remaining
34% of the talk was of an exploratory nature, where the students mainly interpreted graphs in the planning phase
or during analysis of results (see figure 6). During the activities preparing equipment and collecting data, students
used cumulative talk exclusively. All the episodes coded as cumulative talk are content-related in the sense that
discussions always concern the actual task. The communication shifted back and forth between cumulative talk
and exploratory talk as a result of the repetitive work process.
Figure 6: Motion Detector. Summary of activities and talk-types categorised with time as unit of analysis.
968
(P. 958-979)
Station 4: The Free Fall
Description and analysis of the task. The task was to determine the velocity and acceleration of two objects
falling to the ground, a ping-pong ball and a metal ball, by using a tape measure and three stopwatches. Students
were also expected to discuss and compare their results with the value 9.82 (see Appendix). The students were
instructed to measure the height from the window in the physics lab to the ground outside, and use the stopwatch
to measure the fall time of the two objects. Students’ tasks were to calculate accelerations and velocities and make
unit transformations and decide which of the objects had the greatest acceleration. These worksheet questions,
especially those that involved repeated measurements and calculations, consumed most of the available time
and could be considered the main questions to be answered in this exercise. However, the question “Why does it
deviate from 9.82?” differs in this aspect from the rest. This “Why?” question required reasoning and encouraged
students to engage in discussions. No other task or question in this worksheet encouraged students to share or
clarify their thoughts and understanding of acceleration as a concept. The procedure for the students to follow
was given, since the teacher provided instructions on what to do and how to do it. The approach was deductive in
the sense that they applied a formula to perform the calculations. The outcomes for all questions were undeter-
mined but the value 9.82 was given as a reference for the acceleration calculations. The laboratory type that best
conforms to this activity is the expository style. We inductively found 20 episodes based on activities during this
15-minute laboratory assignment.
Analysis of student activities. The five groups divided the work similarly. One student took a stopwatch and
walked outside to measure the fall times and the height, and to throw the balls back up to the window. Two stu-
dents, each with a stopwatch, stood by the window where they counted down, dropped the balls and measured
the time. The fourth student took notes. Students in each group measured the distance from the window to the
ground. Then they dropped the metal ball and the ping pong ball and measured the fall time. Four of the groups
performed two measurements on both the ping pong ball and the metal ball. Group E spent considerably more
time on Planning and Collecting Data than the other groups (see fig 7), and as a consequence they did not have
enough time for Processing Data and Analysis of Results. Combined, the five groups used 38% of the time for Col-
lecting Data. During the activity coded as Processing Data, corresponding to 34%, students sat down together
and individually solved the equation s=at2/2 for a. All the groups that calculated the accelerations obtained results
within the range of 10 to 13 m/s2. The probable cause of this large deviation in comparison to the gravitational
acceleration constant is most likely the students’ time measurements. Some groups discussed this deviation during
the activity coded as Analysis of Results, but the unit of acceleration was discussed in all the groups. 21% of the
time was used for Analysis of Results. Overall, the groups’ work process was similar to the first workstation called
Tape Timer. Both stations prompted a linear structure in completing the task - students started and finished one
activity before moving to the next.
Figure 7: Free Fall. Individual groups activities and talk-types categorised with time as unit of analysis.
969
(P. 958-979)
Analysis of students’ communication. 82 % of the talk was found to be of a cumulative kind, and 18 % of an
exploratory type that contained more conceptual physics content (see figure 8). Comparisons between activities
and talk-types indicate that collecting data and processing data predominantly generate talk of mainly cumulative
character. The students moved into exploratory talk mainly when they reflected on the validity of their results and
unit for acceleration. All the exploratory talks related to the actual work. None of the students in the five groups
made links to previous experiences during discussions of their results. The students were clearly affected by the
short time set for this activity, since they seemed to rush through the measurements, ignoring raised questions
about the validity of measured times.
Figure 8: Free Fall. Summary of activities and talk-types categorised with time as unit of analysis.
Summary of Results
One purpose of this research was to answer the following first research question:
How does the style of the laboratory work relate with the talk-type between students?
All four tasks combined, and distributed over 5 hours generated 71.5% cumulative talk, 27.3% exploratory talk
and 1.2% disputational talk. Figure 9 shows how the three talk types are distributed across the four laboratory tasks.

Figure 9: Summary of distribution of talk-types across the four laboratory tasks.
970
(P. 958-979)
Three different styles of laboratory work were identified. Expository, Discovery and Problem-Based style. Both
the Tape Timer station and the Free Fall station were categorised as Expository styles of laboratory work. These two
workstations generated 81.5% cumulative talk and 18.5% exploratory talk. The Problem-based style station 2 – Posi-
tion Time Graph generated the most exploratory talk at 37% and 59% cumulative talk. 4% of the talk at station 2 was
coded as disputational talk. The discovery-based style station 3 – Motion Detector generated 66% cumulative talk
and 34% exploratory talk. In stations 1 and 4, which are identified as the expository style, the teacher gave thorough
instructions for how to carry out the work, which meant that the students engaged in very little planning activity
themselves (see figure 10). At stations 2 and 3, which were categorised as problem-based and discovery styles of
laboratory work, respectively, the teacher gave thorough instructions for what the students were supposed to do but
did not mention anything about how they should proceed with the work. In general, the students moved into more
exploratory talk during the problem-based and discovery styles of laboratory work, compared to the expository style.
Figure 10: How the 15 minutes at each station was distributed over activities and talk-types.
Two separate, two-way ANOVA, tests were conducted to establish if there was any significant difference be-
tween the identified laboratory styles with respect to cumulative and exploratory talk, for the different groups of
students. Too few episodes were coded as disputational talk in order to make a statistical comparison test between
the laboratory styles with respect to disputational type of talk.
The first ANOVA test was performed to see if there was any significant difference between expository,
problem-based and discovery styles of laboratory work with respect to the five-group communication, coded as
cumulative talk. The result shows that there was no significant difference between the three styles of laboratory
work with respect to how the cumulative talk is distributed. There was also no significant difference between the
five groups, with respect to how the students’ cumulative talk was distributed among the three identified styles
of laboratory work.
971
(P. 958-979)
The second two-way ANOVA test was performed to examine if there was any significant difference between
the style of the laboratory work and between the five groups, with respect to talk coded as exploratory talk. Each
of the five groups’ total time of exploratory talk were summarised for each of the four workstations (see table 2)
Table 2. Total time in seconds, coded as exploratory talk for each of the five groups, distributed over the
different workstations.
Station 1 Tape Station 2 Station 3 Station 4

Group Average
timer Position-Time Graph Motion Detector Free Fall
A 124 494 301 201 280

B 234 345 512 93 296
C 108 245 202 232 197
D 227 346 275 208 264
E 175 233 284 0 173
Average 174 333 315 147
The result shows that there is a significant difference (p < .05), between the different laboratory styles with
respect to how the exploratory talk is distributed (see table 3). There was no significant difference between the
groups of students.
Table 3. Two-Factor ANOVA without replication, for episodes at each workstation and group, coded as ex-
ploratory talk.
Source of
SS df MS F p-value F crit
Variation
Rows 46610,2 4 11652.55 1.35 .31 3.26

Columns 136248,95 3 45416.32 5.27 .015 3.49
Error 103353,8 12 8612.82
Total 286212,95 19
Paired sample t-tests were also conducted between the different workstations with respect to time coded
as exploratory talk. A significant difference was found between the expository workstation 1 and workstation 2,
categorised as problem based; t(4) = -2.92, p = .043. There was also a significant difference between expository
workstation 1 and workstation 3, coded as discovery style of laboratory work; t (4) = -3.53, p = .024. No significant
difference was found between the two expository workstations 1 and 4, and between the problem based workstation
2 and the workstation 3, categorised as discovery style of laboratory work. A significant difference was also found
between workstation 2 and 4; t(4) = 3.71, p =.021. No significant difference was found between station 3 and 4.
All sequences from the different laboratory work coded as activities and episodes were also summarised in
order to answer the second research question:
What activities does the laboratory work generate and how do the activities relate with the talk-types between
students?
The diagram in figure 11 shows that cumulative talk dominated in all activities. The activities Planning, process-
ing data and analysis of results also seem to promote more talk of an exploratory nature than the other activities.
Analysis of results is the only activity where all four stations are represented. Processing data was the primary activity
during station 1, and station 3 and generated mainly talk of a cumulative character. Activities such as preparing
equipment and collecting data generated only talk of a cumulative character. Processing Data generated mainly
cumulative talk and was the dominating activity in station 1. Use of computer equipment in station 3 meant that
students did not need to process any data themselves. The computer software transformed the data into diagrams
automatically, and consequently more time was devoted to other activities such as analysis of results with mainly
972
(P. 958-979)
cumulative talk. Comparisons of talk-types distributed over the activities show that preparing equipment and col-
lecting data generated cumulative talk exclusively. Exploratory talk occurred mainly during planning, processing data
and analysis of results. The amount of disputational talk was fairly low and only occurred during processing data.
Figure 11: Summary of activities and talk-types categorised with time as unit of analysis.
Two separate statistical ANOVA tests were performed to examine if there were any significant differences
between the activities and between the five groups, with respect to the total time of talk, coded as cumulative
and exploratory talk respectively. The different groups’ total talk time coded as cumulative talk was summarised
for each different activity (see table 4). The largest amount of cumulative talk was found in the activity processing
data and the smallest amount of cumulative talk was found in the activity planning.
Table 4. Total time in seconds, coded as cumulative talk for each of the five groups, distributed over the dif-
ferent activities.
Preparing Processing Analysis of

Group Planning Collecting Data Average
Equipment Data Results
A 53 311 689 714 452 444
B 133 127 509 1048 814 526

C 155 291 872 1031 455 561
D 145 172 763 850 401 466
E 271 420 953 770 120 507
Average 151 264 757 883 448
The ANOVA test showed (see table 5) that the amount of cumulative talk students used varied between the
different laboratory activities with statistical significance; (p < .05).
973
(P. 958-979)
Table 5. Two-Factor ANOVA without replication, for episodes in each activity and group, coded as cumulative
talk.
Source of
Variation
Rows 43636.56 4 10909.14 0.36 .84 3.01
Columns 1961589.36 4 490397.34 16.06 .000018 3.01

Error 488414.64 16 30525.92
Total 2493640.56 24
The same approach was used for the groups’ total talk time coded as exploratory, where the time was sum-
marised for each group with respect to each activity (see table 6). The largest amount of exploratory talk was found
in the activities analysis of results and processing data, while the activities preparing equipment and collecting
data did not generate any exploratory talk at all.
Table 6. Total time in seconds, coded as exploratory talk for each of the five groups, distributed over the
different activities.
Preparing Processing Analysis of

Group Planning Collecting Data Average
Equipment Data Results
A 212 0 0 323 585 224

B 114 0 0 386 684 237
C 73 0 0 336 378 157

D 188 0 0 560 308 211
E 201 0 0 408 83 138
Average 158 0 0 403 408
The ANOVA test showed (see table 7) that the amount of exploratory talk students used varied between the
different laboratory activities with statistical significance; (p < .05).
Table 7. Two-Factor ANOVA without replication, for episodes in each activity and group, coded as exploratory
talk.
Source of
Variation
Rows 37288.16 4 9322.04 0.63 .65 3.01

Columns 828674.56 4 207168.64 13.96 .000044 3.01
Error 237417.44 16 14838.59
Total 1103380.16 24
Discussion
Method Discussion
By using Domin’s categorisation scheme with the three descriptors outcome, approach and procedure a
clearer differentiation of the four workstations could be made. The workstations were categorised into three dif-
ferent styles of laboratory work, still the workstations seemed to generate similar activities, which resulted in five
defined activities. These activities were found to promote different amount of cumulative and explorative talk.
The result of this study cannot be used to make broader claims, but indicates that there is a connection between
974
(P. 958-979)
the design of the laboratory work and the way it influences students to communicate with each other. A more
controlled study such as an intervention where different styles of laboratory work are used to address the same
task is worth pursuing in the future.
Result Discussion
The research sought to examine whether the style of the laboratory work related with students’ communication.
The analysis indicates that the three different styles identified promote similar activities, but differ in the amount
of time students use for a specific activity. For example, in laboratory work with an Expository style (station 4),
students used most of the time to process collected data, but used no time to plan their work. In laboratory work
with discovery style (station 3) they used time for planning but no time to process data.
The research also shows that the character of the actual activities taking place as students accomplish the
laboratory task influences the communication. Based on the findings, it is clear that the style of laboratory work
is an important factor that serves to encourage different types of communication between the students. This re-
search did not encompass influences of other factors, such as the teacher’s ability to inspire and guide students’ in
their discussions, or different themes of inquiry, which most likely also have an impact on the quality of students’
communication.
It is important to stress that even if three different styles of laboratory styles were identified in this research,
the degrees of freedom remained low, since the teacher decided what they were supposed to do in all four given
tasks. The teacher informed the students what they were supposed to do for each of the four given tasks. In addi-
tion, for the two expository tasks, the teacher also emphasized how they should proceed with the work. Students
were never explicitly told what they were supposed to learn, which according to Jacobsen (2010), could have an
impact on students’ learning outcomes. Despite this, the laboratory tasks used in this research were effective in
sense that the students did what the teacher intended for them to do, according to research about the effective-
ness of laboratory work (Abrahams & Millar, 2008; Abrahams & Reiss, 2012).
Problem-based and discovery-based styles seem to generate more exploratory talk than the traditional exposi-
tory style of work, which is in alignment with Katchevich et al. (2013) who found that students’ discourse during
inquiry experiments in chemistry was richer in arguments in comparison to confirmatory-type experiments. This
does not imply that all expository styles of laboratory work should be eschewed. The quality of students’ discus-
sions also depends on the quality of their investigations (Kind et al., 2011). Before students can be expected to
devote themselves to truly inquiry-based investigations, they also need to be taught and trained in how to perform
a systematic investigation. When students possess these tools, and feel familiar within the physics discourse, the
quality of their physics talk can be expected to improve. Laboratory work encompassing expository, problem-
based and discovery styles may, if used with variation, help students understand different aspects of physics as a
disciplinary discourse.
When Edwards and Mercer (1987) highlight that two thirds of the lesson time is generally used for talk and that
two thirds of this time is the teacher’s talk, it becomes evident that the time used for students to discuss physics,
particularly with each other, should be considered as very important moments. Mercer (2004) means that exploratory
talk is the most valuable form of educational conversation, which gives students opportunities to reflect upon old
knowledge and transform it into new knowledge. The research shows that activities such as planning, processing
data and analysis of results produce talk of an exploratory character, but for this to happen physics teachers must
realise the inherent educational value of mastering the language of physics and start to design the laboratory
work accordingly. Oyoo (2012) points out that for effective teaching to occur, the teachers need to attend more
to the nature of the instructional language of the science classroom. Maloney and Simon (2006) advocate group
activities in science education where students have the opportunity to develop the ability to reason. Based on
this research results, it is clear that the context of laboratory work can create an appropriate environment for joint
consideration and reflection. Both teachers and students need to understand the importance of communicating
physics to apprehend a better conceptual understanding of the subject, which is not the present case (Högström,
Ottander & Benckert, 2010; Oyoo, 2012).
During laboratory work, the students in the physics classroom have plenty of opportunities to communicate,
since students often work in small groups to complete laboratory tasks. The research on efficacy of laboratory
work focuses on whether students accomplish what the teacher intended for them to do and learn. Quite often,
learning outcomes are evaluated as gains in conceptual knowledge, and criticised to be low. If engagement in
975
(P. 958-979)
dialogue shapes students’ educational progress and intellectual development in general (Mercer & Littleton, 2007)
and talking physics is the key to learning physics, in the sense that you become a person who can communicate
with others about the physics discipline, then the analysis of how and what students discuss during practical work
is relevant knowledge. The next step in this research will be to analyse the three talk types at both a linguistic and
a cognitive level, based on interaction and content, to see if that could be a viable approach to further exploring
how different talk-types shape students understanding and progression.
Even if cumulative talk is also seen as striving for consensus, this talk type is not considered to have as much
educational value as exploratory talk (Mercer, 2004). The research shows that a majority of the talk between students
during laboratory work is of cumulative character. During activities such as preparing equipment and collecting
data the cumulative talk seems to inform them about their next step, as they are seeking and sharing informa-
tion. In general, cumulative talk seems to keep the students on track and guide them forward. An interpretation is
that, in a laboratory context, these cumulative talk sequences can act as a base and reference for students in their
forthcoming exploratory talk dialogues. In order for this to occur, students must be given time and opportunities
for joint consideration and reflection upon their work.
Disputational talk as a form of organised debate has been a pedagogical tool when teaching students
argumentation skills. In this research, very few episodes were coded as disputational talk, which most likely is a
consequence of the relatively short time students spent at each workstation. Even so we can see that the ability to
engage in scientific argumentation is important, but so is the ability to argue from a value-based and experiential
perspective. If students’ communication had been studied over a longer period of time, more disputational talk of
such character could be expected to be found in activities where students also often engage in exploratory talks.
In activities such as planning and analysis of results, the quality of students’ conversations is related to and revolves
around the individual student’s own interpretation of physics and conceptual understanding. It is therefore impor-
tant that teachers design and further develop laboratory activities that support these forms of communication.
Conclusions and Implications
There is an existing gap between the research field of physics laboratory work and the field of students’ com-
munication. More knowledge is needed about students’ communication during laboratory work, for researchers and
teachers to be able to design and implement effective physics laboratory work lessons. This research is a contribu-
tion in that respect, as it shows that different laboratory work activities promote different types of communication
between the students. Based on the results from this research it is therefore recommended that physics teachers
should consider students’ communication as an important didactical purpose.
This finding is important from several aspects:
•• It emphasises the design of the laboratory work from a sociocultural perspective, where students’
interaction is fundamental for new knowledge to evolve. Students have in general few opportunities
to naturally and freely use and practice their physics language, which is necessary if students are ex-
pected to embrace the special discourse of physics. Moments where students engage in exploratory
talks are thus desirable and valuable. It is during these discussions students challenge their existing
understanding and create new knowledge.
•• By comprehending the importance of letting students communicate physics, teachers can with knowl-
edge of this research easier design modules of laboratory work that fosters conceptual understanding
through peer interaction. The effectiveness of the physics laboratory work can hence be expected
to increase, if it incorporates more activities that promote exploratory talk amongst the students. By
redesigning laboratory tasks, so that students use more time to activities such as planning, processing
data and analysis of results, more exploratory talk between students can be expected to occur. Problem-
based types of laboratory work is favourable in that respect where students are given a concrete task to
solve, or a question to answer. Students are in such situations contested to suggest different methods
and discuss its possibilities and limitations.
This research contributes with an additional piece of the puzzle, concerning the effectiveness of the physics
laboratory work. More qualitative research concerning students’ communication during laboratory work is though
needed to better understand to what extend and in what way these different talk types contribute to students’
learning.
976
(P. 958-979)
Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful to the teachers and students who took part in the research and for their interest in
the results. The authors are also grateful for earlier review comments.
References
Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and
learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30 (14), 1945–1969.
Abrahams, I., & Reiss, M. J. (2012). Practical work: Its effectiveness in primary and secondary schools in England. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 49 (8), 1035–1055.
Andersson, J., & Enghag, M. (2017). The relation between students’ communicative moves during laboratory work in physics and
outcomes of their actions. International Journal of Science Education, 39 (2), 158–180.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). The problem of speech genres. In speech genres and other late essays (pp. 60–102). University of Texas Press.
Bennett, J., Hogarth, S., Lubben, F., Campbell, B., & Robinson, A. (2010). Talking science: The research evidence on the use of small
group discussions in science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 32 (1), 69–95.
Boud, D., Dunn, J., & Hegarty-Hazel, E. (1986). Teaching in laboratories. Surrey, England, SHRE/NFER-Nelson.
Dillon, J. (2008). A review the research on practical work in school science. Retrieved from http://www.score-education.org/down-
loads/practical_work/review_of_research.pdf.
Domin, D. (1999). A review of laboratory instruction styles. Journal of Chemical Education, 76 (4), 543.
Driver, R. (1989). Students’ conceptions and the learning of science. International Journal of Science Education, 11 (5), 481–490.
Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Methuen/
Routledge.
Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1987). Teaching argumentation analysis and critical thinking in the Netherlands. Informal
Logic, 9 (2&3), 57–69.
Herron, M. D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. School Review, 79 (2), 171–212.
Hodson, D. (1988). Experiments in science and science teaching. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 20, 53–66.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Educa-
tion, 88 (1), 28–54.
Högström, P., Ottander, C., & Benckert, S. (2010). Labwork and learning in secondary school chemistry: The importance of teacher
and student interaction. Research in Science Education, 40 (4), 505–523.
Jacobsen, L. (2010). Linking physics labwork activities to their potential learning outcomes: does a declaration make a difference?
Roskilde: Roskilde Universitet. Retrieved from http://milne.ruc.dk/ImfufaTekster/pdf/476web.pdf.
Jewitt, C., Kress, G., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2010). Exploring learning through visual, actional and linguistic communication:
The multimodal environment of a science classroom. Educational Review, 53, 37–41.
Katchevich, D., Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2013). Argumentation in the chemistry laboratory: Inquiry and confirmatory
experiments. Research in Science Education, 43 (1), 317–345.
Kind, P. M., Kind, V., Hofstein, A., & Wilson, J. (2011). Peer argumentation in the school science laboratory-Exploring effects of task
features. International Journal of Science Education, 33 (18), 2527–2558.
Lavonen, J., Jauhiainen, J., Koponen, I. T., & Kurki-Suonio, K. (2004). Effect of a long-term in-service training program on teach-
ers’ beliefs about the role of experiments in physics education. International Journal of Science Education, 26 (3), 309–328.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Coperation.
Lunetta, V. N. (1998). The school science laboratory: Historical perspectives and contexts for contemporary teaching. International
Handbook of Science Education, 1, 249–262.
Maloney, J., & Simon, S. (2006). Mapping children’s discussions of evidence in science to assess collaboration and argumentation.
International Journal of Science Education, 28 (15), 1817–1841.
Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 1 (2), 137–168.
Mercer, N. (2010). The analysis of classroom talk: methods and methodologies. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80
(1), 1–14.
Mercer, N., Dawes, L., & Staarman, J. K. (2009). Dialogic teaching in the primary science classroom. Language and Education, 23
(4), 353–369.
Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. London: Routledge.
Oyoo, S. O. (2012). Language in science classrooms: An analysis of physics teachers’ use of and beliefs about language. Research
in Science Education, 42 (5), 849–873.
Roth, W., Mcginn, M. K., & Bowen, G. M. (1996). Applications of science and technology studies: Effecting change in science
education. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 21 (4), 454–484.
Royuk, B., & Brooks, D. W. (2003). Cookbook Procedures in MBL Physics Exercises. Journal of Science and Technology, 12 (3), 317–324.
Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
977
(P. 958-979)
Scott, P., Mortimer, E., & Ametller, J. (2011). Pedagogical link making: a fundamental aspect of teaching and learning scientific
conceptual knowledge. Studies in Science Education, 47 (1), 3–36.
Swedish national agency for education (2011). Subject - physics course syllabus. Retrieved from http://www.skolverket.se/.
Séré, M.-G., Leach, J., Niedderer, H., Psillos, D., Thierghien, A., & Vicentini, M. (1998). Improving science education: Issues and research
on innovative empirical and computer-based approaches to labwork in Europe. Final report from Labwork in Science Education.
Tiberghien, A., Veillard, L., Le Maréchal, J.-F., Buty, C., & Millar, R. (2001). An analysis of labwork tasks used in science teaching at
upper secondary school and university levels in several European countries. Science Education, 85 (5), 483–508.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Appendix
Laboratory work - Motion
Station 1: Determining a value of the gravitational acceleration g.
Material: tape-timer equipment, 1-kg weight, ruler.

Mount a 1,5 meter-long paper strip on the tape-timer and attach the weight that will fall down on the foam mate-
rial. Let a student turn on the tape-timer and then drop the weight. Start measuring where you can see dots from
the tape-timer and measure the distance to the fiftieth point. This is the distance the weight has fallen during half
a second. Use these values when you solve the formula y=at²/2 for a. What is the value of g? Does it deviate from
9,82? Why?
Station 2: Position -Time graph after a story
Material: Worksheet
In order to describe a motion with a position-time graph the motion has to be a linear, the entire motion must take
place along one and same path, that does not need to be straight.
The Task: Describe the following events in a position-time graph.
“Karin and Sven live on a small farm in Alfta, were Karin takes care of some cows. Think of the farm seen from
above according to figure 1.
‘Karin has just finished an early breakfast at the kitchen table. She stands up to go out and milk the cows.
Just as she enters through the farm door the phone rings, so she must run back and answer. After the call
see notice that the fire in the wooden stove is about to go out, so she walks to the woodshed and retrieves
some firewood, then back to the kitchen and makes a fire. Thereafter she goes back out to the barn, gets hay
for the cows and milks them.’
a) See figure. Draw a path that Karin can follow until she answer the phone.
b) Describe how Karin must walk when she goes to get firewood and makes a fire so you can continue
the diagram until she comes to the barn door the third time.
c) Why must the diagram be finished then?
d) Draw the diagram. Let it begin when Karin stands up at the kitchen table. You can improvise distances
and times that are reasonable.”
978
(P. 958-979)
Figure 1
Station 3: Position-time-graph and velocity-time-graph with Go-motion.
Material: Computer, Go-motion

Beside the equipment there are papers with 16 different graphs. The purpose with this laboratory work is to try
and imitate the distance-time graphs by walking in front of a motion detector. Which graphs are easy, and which
are difficult to imitate? Why? Under the distance-time graph there is a velocity-time graph. With what velocities
have you moved? What does positive and negative velocity mean? What is the difference to speed?
Station 4: Free fall (almost)
Material: tape measure, stopwatch, metal ball, ping-pong ball.

Measure the height from the window in the classroom down to the ground outside. Use a stopwatch to check
the fall-time for the metal ball and the ping-pong ball as they are dropped from the window. What is the balls ac-
celerations if you use the formula y=at²/2 and solve it for a? Why does the value deviate from g=9,82? Which one
of the balls has the greatest acceleration? What is the balls velocity at impact with ground if you use the formula
v=at? What is the velocity in km/h?
Jan Andersson PhD Student in Science Education at the Department of

Engineering and Physics, Karlstad University, Universitetsgatan 2,
SE-651 88 Karlstad, Sweden.
E-mail: jan.andersson@kau.se
Margareta Enghag PhD, Senior Lecturer in Science Education at the Department of
Mathematics and Science Education, Stockholm University, SE-106
91 Stockholm, Sweden.
E-mail: margareta.enghag@mnd.su.se
979
EXAMINATION OF THE
QUESTIONS USED IN
SCIENCE LESSONS AND
ARGUMENTATION LEVELS OF
STUDENTS
Abstract. In this research the argumenta- Ibrahim Erdogan,

tion levels of the 5th, 6th and 7th grade stu- Ayse Ciftci,
dents and the questions of the teachers and Mustafa Sami Topcu
students were examined. The sample group
of the research was selected according to
the homogeneous sampling method. This
research is a descriptive research. The data
were collected by using a voice recorder.
The data of this research were evaluated
according to the descriptive analysis ap-
Introduction
proach. As a result of the analysis, it was
determined that the students used Level 1
That the application of learned subjects in science lessons to everyday
argumentation which has the lowest qual-
life and information is understood judged and internalized by students are
ity more frequently in comparison with the
some of the main goals of science education. One of the approaches that
higher ones and used the claim component
may develop the high-order thinking skills such as decision making, scientific
more than other arguments and did not use
inquiry, critical, analytical and logical thinking and solving daily life problems
the backing, qualifier, and rebuttal com-
is argumentation-based learning approach depending on the constructivist
ponents. Furthermore, it was found that
learning theory. Argumentation has an important role in the social construc-
the questioning rates of the teachers were
tion of knowledge in science classes as students have the opportunity to
higher in comparison with the students and
structure knowledge by discussing together in the argumentation process.
the questions of the teachers and students
Therefore, that learning and applying the rules of the discussing by students
were usually at the levels of remembering
in a science class where the small and large group discussions have occurred
and understanding. One of the factors
will contribute to the development of individuals who are science literate, is
that caused the argumentation level of the
the most general aim of science education (Kaya & Kılıç, 2008).
students to be low may have been that the
That the students from Turkey are below average in science literacy
teachers asked questions which were ori-
in internationally conducted exams such as PISA and TIMSS indicates that
ented to remembering. Therefore, the high
science achievements of the students are low. According to the results of
level questions that ensure the initiation
TIMSS (2011) which measures knowledge, application and reasoning abilities,
and continuation of the argumentation
although the students from Turkey have exhibited an improvement compared
process should be inquired in the lessons.
to previous years in terms of grades from science field in 2011, the average
Keywords: argumentation level, teachers grade point is 463 in the fourth-grades and 483 in the eighth-grades and
and students’ questions, science lessons, these results are below the TIMSS average scale (Oral & McGivney, 2013). Ac-
middle school students. cording to the results of PISA (2012), which measures high-order skills such
as scientific inquiry, scientific explanation, use of the learned things in daily
life, the ratio of the students with the level 1 and below in terms of science
Ibrahim Erdogan, Ayse Ciftci literacy decreased between the years of 2006 and 2012 in Turkey. But, this
Mus Alparslan University, Turkey ratio is still well above the ratio of students with level 1 and below in average
Mustafa Sami Topcu of OECD (Ministry of National Education of Turkey, 2012). That the argumen-
Yıldız Technical University, Turkey
tation process making the students be active takes part in the educational
environment, can lead to the progression in science literacy.
980
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONS USED IN SCIENCE LESSONS AND ARGUMENTATION
LEVELS OF STUDENTS
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 980-993)
Argumentation consists of the mounting an argument and the supporting and refuting processes of this
argument. According to Driver, Newton & Osborne (2000), argumentation is the basic practice of science and
scientists. Argumentation is a series of speeches that are made in order to explain the two opposite status that are
converse to each other, or it is an activity that is made in order to arrive at rational, logical decisions (Kaya & Kılıç,
2008). According to Berland & Reiser (2009), argumentation is a social activity that helps an individual to interpret
the knowledge. According to Topçu (2015), the argumentation consists of the claims developed by students about
scientific phenomena, and reasoning concerning to how and why these claims can be supported. Starting from
these definitions, authors of this research can state the argumentation as a process that teaches the individual
thinking and reasoning and consists of processes of defense or rebuttal of ideas in the context of evidences and
makes science become a social action.
There are 6 components in Toulmin’s Argumentation Model. While the data, claim and warrant which are
first three of these 6 components are the basic components of an argument, the backings, rebuttal and qualifiers
which are the other three components, are subsidiary components (Kaya & Kılıç, 2008). The definitions of these
components, which take part in this model and the examples concerning these components given by Toulmin
(1958), are shown in Figure 1 (Simon, Erduran & Osborne, 2006).
Figure 1: Toulmin argumentation model.
Teachers and Students’ Questions and Argumentation
Argumentation requires responding to claims, arguments and opposite arguments, making explanations,
asking questions and refuting alternative ideas (Chin & Osborne, 2010). “Questions” is one of the most important
factors in providing communication in the learning environments. The questions of teachers and students in the
classroom environment play a fundamental role at the starting and progressing of the argumentation process.
The studies that have been done show that teachers usually have used closed-ended questions that do not refer
students to the process of thinking at level of phenomenal knowledge (Blosser, 2000; Eliasson, Karlsson & Sørensen,
981
EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONS USED IN SCIENCE LESSONS AND ARGUMENTATION ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/
LEVELS OF STUDENTS
(P. 980-993) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
2017). However, in learning environments, the teachers’ asking open-ended questions, is required to start and
maintain the argumentation process.
Students are not being able to produce arguments that are insufficient in number and quality, and have diffi-
culty during producing arguments (Patronis, Potari & Spiliotopoulou, 1999). Teachers’ asking closed-ended questions
that do not guide to a thinking process, can lead to students’ having difficulty in producing arguments. It is also
stated that the students have difficulty in producing questions requiring higher thinking skills (Chin & Osborne,
2010). Therefore, it is important that the students are provided with the necessary support in asking questions and
producing arguments and training them in the scope of this subject. In addition, showing attention to the issue
of teachers’ being educated about effective questioning and argumentation in the teacher training programs, will
contribute to students’ establishing the qualified arguments. It is because of the fact that, the effective questioning
structures that guide them to thinking process both facilitate the creation of a discussion environment and the
generation of detailed and extensive arguments (Wang, 2005; Chun & Osborne, 2010).
Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy
There are two dimensions which are called knowledge and cognitive process in this classification which was
reordered in 2001. The knowledge dimension shows the content of the learning outcome. The cognitive process
dimension shows how the learning outcome will be realized. The factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, pro-
cedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge take part in the knowledge dimension. While, in the cognitive
process dimension, there are steps of remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating and creating.
When compared to the old taxonomy, it is seen that the steps of creating and evaluation have changed their place.
These steps and their explanations are given in Table 1 in detail.
Table 1. Structure of the revised taxonomy.
Knowledge Dimension Cognitive Process Dimension
1. Factual Knowledge - They are the basic elements 1. Remember – Retrieval of relevant information from
for students to identify a discipline or solve long-term memory.
problems in discipline.
2. Conceptual Knowledge - Ensuring the 2. Understand - Determination the meaning of teaching

interrelationships among the basic elements within messages, including oral, written and graphical
a larger structure working together. communication.
3. Procedural Knowledge - How things are done; 3. Apply - Executing or using a function in a given state.
Using skills of the research methods and criteria,
algorithms, techniques and methods.
4. Metacognitive Knowledge - One’s knowledge and 4. Analyze - Separating the parts that make up the
awareness concerning own cognition, as well as material, and identifying how they correlate with each
cognition, in general. other, with the general structure, or with the purpose.
5. Evaluate - Making judgment by depending on criteria

and standards.
6. Create - Creating a new and consistent whole, or

bringing the elements together to make an original
product.
** This table is taken from the research of Krathwohl (2002).
Problem of Research, Previous Findings, Research Questions
The researches on the use of the argumentation-based learning approach in science education in the na-
tional and international field were usually examined, the effect of argumentation on learning the concept (Aslan,
2010; Çınar & Bayraktar, 2014; Driver et al, 2000; Kaya, 2012; Kıngır, 2011; Okumuş, 2012; Sadler, 2006; Teichert &
Stacy, 2002; Venville & Dawson, 2010), academic achievement (Kıngır, 2011; Öğreten & Sağır, 2014; Özkara, 2011;
982
LEVELS OF STUDENTS
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 980-993)
Üstünkaya & Savran Gencer, 2012; Yeşildağ Hasançebi & Günel, 2013) scientific knowledge skills (Ulu & Bayram, 2015),
scientific process skills (Özkara, 2011) and quality of argument (Cetin, 2014; Kaya, 2012; Robertshaw & Campbell,
2013; Simon et al., 2006). Researches on argumentation in science education are generally aimed at examining
the effects of argumentation after the activities based on argumentation were applied (e.g. Cetin, 2014; Munford,
2002; Osborne, Erduran & Simon, 2004; Simon et al., 2006). However, in the literature survey, it was determined
that the number of researches in which the subject was studied without making any implementation concerning
the argumentation were little (Aslan, 2014). In addition, although there are a lot of researches in order to examine
the skills of argumentation in the national and international literature, it was determined that there was a limited
number of research on the questions used in the classroom environment, and argumentation process (Günel,
Kıngır & Geban, 2012). In the light of the deficiencies that were mentioned above, in this research, it was tried to
learn about the level of argumentation applied in the classroom environment and examine the argumentation
skills of students and the questions used in the classroom environment. Hence, this research is important in terms
of contributing to a small number of studies on the co-examination of teacher-student questions and argumen-
tation skills, and providing ready-made data to researchers about “what level of argumentation is being applied
in classroom environment”. The aim of this research is to examine the questions used in science courses and the
argumentation skills of 5th, 6th and 7th grade students. In accordance with this general purpose, the answers were
sought for the following research questions:
1. What is the level of argumentation skills of 5th, 6th and 7th grade students?
2. What is the level of the questions that are used in the science courses in 5th, 6th and 7th grades?
General Background
This research was carried out in February and March in the spring semester of the 2014-2015 academic year.
Qualitative research was preferred for in depth-examination of the subject in the research. This research is a de-
scriptive research and it is a situation determination. According to Arıkan (2007), descriptive researches reflect the
situation as it is. Within this context, the level of questions used in science classes and the argumentation level of
the students were tried to be described without intervention.
Sample
The participants of this research, which was conducted in the academic year of 2014-2015, were selected
according to the analogous sampling method which is one of the purposeful sampling methods. The sample of
the research consists of 4 middle schools with similar socioeconomic levels and academic achievement. The 129
students (70 girls and 59 boys) from the 5th grade, 127 students (58 girls and 69 boys) from the 6th grade and 131
students (65 girls and 66 boys) from the 7th grade were included in the research. A total of 12 science teachers, 6
female and 6 male, participated in the research. Besides, the voice recorder was used in the research, which was
made with the permission of the teachers and students.
Data sources that were used in the research were audio recordings taken in the lessons. In this research, 5th,
6th and 7th grade students from each school were selected, and audio recordings were taken in science classes
for 1920 minutes, namely 48 lesson hours in 12 different classes. The researcher noted student expressions during
the course in order to prevent data loss. The research was carried out in the subject of “Spread of Sound and Light”,
“Traveling the World of the Creatures and Knowing Them” and “Indispensable of Our Life: Electricity” in 5th grade,
in the subject of “Reproduction, Growth and Development in Plants and Animals” and “Matter and Heat” in the 6th
grade and in the subject of “Structure and Properties of Matter” in the 7th grade.
The audio recordings were transferred to the computer and the transcripts were given to the teachers for
examining them. Some parts of them were removed from the documents due to the objections to transcripts. A
total of 187 pages of written documents were prepared.
983
LEVELS OF STUDENTS
(P. 980-993) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Data Analysis

The data set that was obtained from the research was evaluated according to the descriptive analysis
approach. The purpose of this analysis type is to present the findings to the reader in an organized and interpreted
way (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2013). The qualitative data was converted to quantitative data by calculating frequency (f )
and percentage (%).
In the first instance, student expressions were coded with argumentation components such as counter-
argument, data, warrant, backings, qualifiers and rebuttal which are in the Toulmin Argumentation Model (1958).
Later on, these arguments were separated into the levels, according to the rubric which was developed by Erduran,
Simon & Osborne (2004). The rubric, that was used in evaluating the quality of the arguments, is shown in Table 2.
All written documents are coded by two researchers independent of each other. The inter-encoder reliability was
calculated by the formula of [Miles and Huberman (1994: 64)] ([Consensus / Consensus + Divergence] * 100), and it
was found as 91%. The researchers tried to compromise by discussing in the parts where there was no consensus.
As a result of the discussions that were made, the parts that cannot be reached as consensus were removed from
written documents. The questions used in the classroom environment were analyzed according to the “Bloom’s
Revised Taxonomy” (see Table 1). The encoder reliability in the analysis of the questions according to the Bloom’s
Taxonomy was calculated as 96%.
The errors that may have occurred were tried to be reduced by the data encoded by two researchers to ensure
reliability in the research. In order to ensure the validity of the research,
1. It was mentioned in detail about how the research findings are obtained.
2. In order to eliminate the deficiencies of voice recording process, such as missing some words of par-
ticipants because of low voice or hoarse voice, dialogs were put down on paper by researcher.
3. Direct quotations were made from the arguments of students and questions used in the classroom
environment.
Table 2. Argumentation levels (Erduran et al. (2004)).

Level 1: In this level, there is only a claim, or there are other claims that are presented against to a
claim. Data, warrant, backings and rebuttal do not take part at this level.
Level 2: This level includes claim and another claim in which data, warrant and backings are used
against to this claim. But it does not contain any rebuttal.
Level 3: It includes the claim and the claim or counterclaim including data, warrant, backings and weak
rebuttal against to this claim.
Level 4: It means arguments with a claim including explicitly identified rebuttals. This level may have
the counterclaims.
Level 5: This level of argumentation includes a broader argumentation involving more than one
rebuttal and the use of all argumentation components.
Results of Research
Argumentation Components
The use of frequency of the argumentation components of 5th, 6th, and 7th grades is given in Figure 1. Ac-
cording to Figure 1, the claim component was used as 519 times in the 5th grade, as 399 times in the 6th grade
and as 644 times in the 7th grade. It is seen that the counterargument component is rarely used, and the number
of use is 7 in the 5th grade, 12 in the 6th grade and 13 in the 7th grade. As the class level increased, the frequency
of the data component increased. But the same situation was not valid for the warrant component, because the
warrant component was mostly used by 5th grade students. This component was used 49 times in the 5th grade,
35 times in the 7th grade, and 5 times as a very low rate in the 6th grade. Backings, qualifier and rebuttal compo-
nents were not used in any class.
984
LEVELS OF STUDENTS
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 980-993)
Table 1. Frequencies of the argumentation components.
Counter-
Claim Data Warrant Backing Qualifier Rebuttal
claim
5th Grade 519 7 4 49 0 0 0

6 Grade
th
399 12 18 5 0 0 0
7th Grade 644 13 47 35 0 0 0
Argumentation Levels
Level 3, Level 4 and Level 5 arguments were not reached in the recorded data in this research. Therefore, the
dialogue examples involving Level 1 and Level 2 argumentation are given below.
Examples of Level 1 Argumentation
Dialogue 1:
“Teacher: What does the Electroscope do?
Student 15: My teacher, the electroscope indicates the charge. (Claim)
Student 20: No, it indicates whether it is charged or not. (Counterclaim)
Teacher: What is the electroscope? The device that shows electrical charge of substance is termed as an elec-
troscope. Well, what we name the electroscope if its leaves are closed?
Student 3: Neutral. (Claim)
Teacher: What if it is open?
Student 8: charged. (Claim)
Teacher: We cannot say anything certain. It could be positively charged, or it could be negatively charged “.
Dialogue 2:
“Teacher: Seeds are formed after the ovule is developed; and when the ovary is developed, the fruit is formed.
The fruit is formed by the ovary being covered with pulp. As you see, first pollination, and then fertilization
occurred, and afterwards the seed and the fruit are formed. Alright, kids, we have a subject named spreading
the seeds. How is the seed spread? Please use your imagination a little.
Student 4: It spreads by budding. (Claim)
Teacher: For example, can not the seed in İzmir come to Mus? Students: It can. (Claim)
Student 7: It may come with the wind, I think. (Claim)
Teacher: Of course, it depends on the seed. If it is a peach seed, it will not be spread with the wind. However,
some seeds are small. They can be spread from one place to another with the wind.
Student 14: It can be spread by the cloud. (Claim)
Teacher: How is it spread by the cloud?
Student 14: It is spread by passing over the cloud. (Claim)
Student 21: It is transported by water and animals. (Claim)
Teacher: How do the animals transport?
Student 12: They are transported by bees. (Claim)
Student 11: It can be carried by trucks. (Claim)”.
985
LEVELS OF STUDENTS
(P. 980-993) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Examples of Level 2 Argumentation
Dialogue 1:
“Teacher: Then what is to the bulb brightness? A battery can operate a light bulb, right? There is a bat-
tery for per bulb. The brightness of the three of them may be equal. What do you understand from the
figure that I draw?
Student 5: It gives a moderate light in that way. But, the light bulb in figure II gives more light, since three bat-
teries are connected to it. (Claim, Warrant)
Teacher: Another idea?
Student 13: My teacher, it gives less light because there is only one battery in Figure I. Whereas, there are three
batteries in the second figure. (Claim, Warrant)”.
Dialogue 2:
“Teacher: One of the reptiles changes color according to the danger when there is a danger in the environment.
For example, it turns green when it climbs to the green leaf, and turns brown when it is holding the trunk of
the tree. Which animal is this? It is a chameleon. What do we call the name of this behavior? It comes from
camouflage. We call it being camouflaged. Being camouflaged is hiding. Why does the chameleon change
color? What if it doesn’t change colors like other creatures? Why does it need to hide?
Student 2: They hide because they want to be protected from danger. (Claim, Warrant)
Teacher: What else could it be?
Student 17: They hide to prevent being bait. (Claim, Warrant)
Teacher: Yes, this is the first one. Not to be hunted by enemies, not to be bait.
Student 22: They hide to hunt other living things so that other creatures cannot see them. (Claim, Warrant)
Teacher: Yes, for example, what is the chameleon fed with? With flies. If the fly sees it, it will not come closer to
the chameleon. So that, it is hidden.”
Findings regarding how many times each of the argumentation levels was used by 5th, 6th, and 7th grade
students are given in Figure 2. If we express as a percentage; it is seen that the 5th grade students used level 1 at
the rate of 90.8% and level 2 at the rate of 9.2%, the 6th grade students used level 1 at the rate of 98.8% and level
2 at the rate of 1.2% and the 7th grade students used level 1 at the rate of 94.8% and level 2 at the rate of 5.2%. It
is seen that level 3, level 4 and level 5 were never used.
Table 2. Frequencies of the argumentation levels.
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
5th Grade 479 49 0 0 0

6 Grade
th
408 5 0 0 0
7 Grade
th
629 35 0 0 0
Teachers and Students’ Question Levels
The sample questions are given below, in order to show how the questions are analyzed in the research.
Students’ Questions:
“What is the substance in the structure of the coin? (Factual knowledge, Remember)
Are the eggs of the fish soft? (Factual knowledge, Remember)
986
LEVELS OF STUDENTS
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 980-993)
Do fish wait upon their juveniles? (Factual knowledge, Remember)

Cannot we satisfy our need for water by eating mushrooms, which are 90% water, as our bodies are 70% water?
(Conceptual Knowledge-Understand)
Are there the same amounts of spaces in all of the flowers? (Conceptual knowledge -Understand)
Can the flowers survive if there is no daytime? (Conceptual Knowledge-Understand)”
Teachers’ Questions:
“Which kind of parts does the flower consist of? (Factual knowledge, Remember)
Is atomic mass determined by the atomic nucleus or determined by the layers in which electrons exist? (Factual
knowledge, Understand)
What are the differences and similarities between sexual and asexual reproduction? (Conceptual Knowledge,
Understand)
Can we say that there are at least two different particles in an atom? (Conceptual Knowledge, Evaluate)
Can the atom break up? (Conceptual Knowledge, Evaluate)
When we increase the number of bulbs, what is the reason for the decrease in brightness? (Conceptual
Knowledge, Analyze)
When we think about the mass of protons, neutrons and electrons, how many thousand grams of weight does
the atomic nucleus have? (Procedural Knowledge, Apply)
What kind of solution do you develop to protect endangered species? (Conceptual Knowledge, Create)
What do carbon dioxide, water, and sunlight constitute together? (Factual Knowledge -Remember)
What are the benefits obtained from the plants? (Factual Knowledge -Remember)”
Findings that are related to the questions of science teachers for the 5th grade are given in Figure 3. When
we look at the distribution of questions asked by science teachers in the 5th grades during the course according
to “Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy”, it was determined that 50.2% of the 463 questions were in the remembering step,
38.4% of them in the understanding step, 7.1% of them in the analysis step, 3.4% of them in the evaluation step
and 0.9% of them in the metacognitive step and no questions were given concerning the application step. When
the questions were analyzed according to the knowledge domain, it was determined that 52.3% of them were
in the factual knowledge domain and 47.7% of them were in conceptual knowledge domain. It was found that
questions containing metacognitive and procedural information were not used.
Table 3. Frequencies of the question levels of science teachers in 5th grades.
Remember Understand Apply Analyze Evaluate Create
Factual 232 10 0 0 0 0
Conceptual 0 168 0 33 16 4
Procedural 0 0 0 0 0 0
Metacognitive 0 0 0 0 0 0
Findings that are related to questions of students in the 5th grades are given in Figure 4. According to the
cognitive process domain, 30.9% of the questions that 5th grade students asked in the lessons are in the remem-
bering step, 61.8% of them are in the understanding step and 7.3% of them are in the analysis step. It is seen that
questions about application, evaluation and creation steps were not given. According to the knowledge domain,
it was determined that 30.9% of the questions were in the factual knowledge domain and 69.1% of them were
in the conceptual knowledge domain. It was found that questions containing the metacognitive and procedural
knowledge were not used.
987
LEVELS OF STUDENTS
(P. 980-993) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Table 4. Frequencies of the question levels of 5th grade students.
Factual 17 0 0 0 0 0
Conceptual 0 34 0 4 0 0
Findings that are related to questions of teachers of the 6th grade are given in Figure 5. When we look at
the distribution of the questions that were asked by science teachers during lessons in the 6th grade according
to Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, it was determined that 53.4% of the 432 questions were in the remembering step,
40.5% of them were in the understanding step, 4.9% of them were in the analysis step and 1.2% of them were in
the evaluation step which are the steps of cognitive step, and no questions were used regarding the application
and the creating step. When the questions are analyzed according to the knowledge domain, it was determined
that 55.7% of them were in the factual knowledge domain and 44.3% were in conceptual knowledge domain. It
was found that questions containing the metacognitive and procedural information were not used.
Factual 231 10 0 0 0 0
Findings that are related to questions of students in the 6th grades are given in Figure 6. According to the
cognitive process domain, 61.9% of the questions that were asked by 6th grade students during the lessons were
in the remembering step, 35.8% of them were in the understanding step and 2.3% of them were in the analysis
step. It is seen that questions concerning application, evaluation and creating step were not used. According to
the knowledge domain, 78.6% of the questions were in the factual knowledge domain and 21.4% of them were in
the conceptual knowledge domain. It was found that the questions containing the metacognitive and procedural
knowledge were not used.
Factual 26 7 0 0 0 0
Findings that are related to questions of teachers of the 7th grades are given in Figure 7. When looking at
the distribution of questions that were asked by the science teachers in 7th grades according to Bloom’s Revised
Taxonomy, it was determined that 45.4% of the 536 questions were in the remembering step, 34.1% of them were
in the understanding step, 13.1% of them were in the application step, 3.7% of them were in the analysis step and
3.7% of them were in the evaluation step which are in the cognitive domain, and no questions were used concern-
ing the creating step. When the questions were analyzed according to the knowledge domain, it was determined
that 50.3% of them were in the factual knowledge domain, 45.2% of them were in the conceptual knowledge
domain and 4.5% of them were in the procedural knowledge domain. It was seen that questions containing the
metacognitive were not used.
988
LEVELS OF STUDENTS
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 980-993)
Factual 242 28 0 0 0 0
Conceptual 1 155 46 20 20 0
Findings that are related to questions of students in the 7th grade are given in Figure 8. According to the
cognitive process domain, 52.8% of the questions that were asked by 7th grade students in the lessons were in
the remembering step, 41.7% of them were in the understanding step, 2.8% of them were in the analysis step and
2.7% of them were in the evaluation step. It is seen that the questions concerning the application and creating
steps were not used. According to the knowledge domain, it was determined that 61.1% of the questions were in
the factual knowledge domain and 38.9% of them were in the conceptual knowledge domain. It was found that
the questions containing the metacognitive and procedural knowledge were not used.
Factual 19 3 0 0 0 0
Discussion
In this research, it was determined that the students were successful in using the claim component (Abi-El-
Mona & Abi-El-Khalick, 2006; Aslan, 2014; Aymen Peker, Apaydın & Taş, 2012; Öğreten & Sağır, 2014) but they failed
at using the rebuttal component which shows the quality of argumentation (Aymen Peker et al., 2012; Öğreten &
Sağır 2014). That the rebuttal component has an important place for determining the quality of the argumentation,
has been emphasized by many researchers (Erduran et al., 2004; Kuhn, 1991; Osborne et al., 2004). In addition, it was
determined that the backing and qualifier components were never used, and the counterclaim, data and warrant
components were used at a low rate. By applying activities based on argumentation in learning environments, it
may be ensured increasing in the usage level of these components.
It was determined that students used the arguments at Level 1 and Level 2 and they did not use the argu-
ments at Level 3, Level 4 and Level 5, the highest quality ones. It was identified that the students generally failed to
produce quality arguments. That Turkish students’ scores have been below the average at the TIMSS exam which
measures knowledge, application, reasoning skills and also that they score below average at PISA exam which
measures scientific inquiry, scientific explanation and using scientific proof, can be explained by the fact that
argumentation-based learning approach has not been used during the lessons. Because, by ensuring the argu-
mentation process to be used in the educational environment, students can make progress in terms of scientific
reasoning and showing scientific evidence for their claims.
Factors such as teacher questions, research group, and the fact that the units are different may be influential
in the results. If the modern approaches are used substituted for of traditional teaching methods, if the classroom
size is reduced, if the face to face seating order is formed instead of traditional seating order in the classroom and
if the group study is encouraged, students can produce arguments having better quality in the discussions along
with social interaction. Vygotsky defends that social circle should be created in the classroom, students should
study together, and they should discuss the meanings that they give to concepts in order to carry out an effec-
tive science education and teaching (Çakıcı, 2012). Similarly, Kaya and Kılıç (2010) defend that students should
enter into dialogues that support the discussion process in order to the effective science teaching can be realized.
989
LEVELS OF STUDENTS
(P. 980-993) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Consequently, teachers should ensure that the activities based on argumentation that provide an environment of
social interaction are included in their lessons.
In this research, it was determined that 91.5% of the 1564 questions asked in 12 classes throughout 48 lessons
belonged to the teachers and the others belonged to the students in a very low rate like 8.5%. In addition, it was
determined that most of the questions of teachers and students were oriented to the level of the factual knowledge-
remembering and conceptual knowledge-understanding and it was usually determined that they were oriented
to the reminding of knowledge. Similarly, the conclusion was reached that the majority of the questions usually
were at the level of remembering in the other studies investigating questions of teachers (Dindar & Demir, 2006;
Özcan & Oluk, 2007; Ayvacı & Türkdoğan, 2010). The questions that support the argumentation process should be
included in the lessons for the explanation and internalization of knowledge. Teachers should ask the questions
that support the argumentation process such as “Why do you think so?”, “How do you support your opinion?”. Günel,
Kıngır and Geban (2012) determined that questioning strategies of teachers and the level of application were ef-
fective on the formation and continuance of the negotiation process in the classroom, and they were determined
that there is a relationship between the questioning strategy of teacher and the questions generated by students.
In addition, Kılıç (2016), in his research in which he investigated questions of teachers in the classrooms where the
argument-based science learning approach was applied, determined that the metacognitive questions were the
most effective question type in responding of students at the high cognitive level.
While the questions of teachers were fewer in the discussions that were created by the students, the rate of
the questions of students were more (van Zee, Iwasyk, Kurose, Simpson & Wild, 2001). However, in the researches,
similar to the results that were obtained from this research, it is stated that the questions of teachers are too much in
classroom environments (Erdoğan, 2009; Floyd, 1960) and the questions of students are fewer (Dillon, 1988; Lemke,
1990). Whereas, questions of students contribute to the discussion process (van Zee et al., 2001). The questions
of students are important in terms of negotiations between students and between teacher and students (Günel
et al., 2012), and they support argumentation and critical thinking (Chin & Osborne, 2010). Therefore, a classroom
environment where students can easily ask their questions should be created by the teachers (Arnold, 2016).
Since the discussion is an inherent part of science, it is necessary for teachers to be guiding for students in the
mounting of argument, defending and discussion culture. Wang (2005) reached the conclusion in his research that
the effective question structures and the discussion have improved intellectual thinking of students and facilitated
the knowledge configuration process. Moreover, argumentation production of students should be supported not
only by the question structure but also supported by using different argumentation components such as claims,
data, warrant and backings (Chin & Osborne, 2010).
Conclusions
The results obtained from this research indicated that the questions of teachers and students were mostly
information oriented, that questioning rates of the teachers were high and that both questioning rates and argu-
mentation levels of students were low. Additionally, this research shows that students are successful in presenting
claims, while they fail to use argumentation items such as data, warrant, and rebuttal.
In science education, it is important for students to be active, ask questions, build quality arguments, and
express their thoughts in a comfortable way. Argumentation and effective question structures guide students to the
thinking process. One of the reasons for the low argumentation levels of the students may be the fact that teachers
ask questions that are often information-based. Therefore, prospective teachers and teachers should continuously
be informed about effective questioning and argumentation practices and they should be trained regarding these
practices. This research is important because it provides information on the questions used in science classes and
the argumentation level of students; and contributes to the studies on the subject, which are in a limited number.
It is also thought that this research will be a guide for the studies on questioning and argumentation.
Recommendations
Recommendations for Implementation
1. Teachers should encourage their students to ask questions, since the questions are indicative of interest
and curiosity, and because they improve the scientific inquiry skills.
990
LEVELS OF STUDENTS
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 980-993)
2. Prospective teachers with the pre-service trainings and teachers with in-service trainings should be
informed about how they will apply the argumentation in learning environments.
3. Teachers should allow the activities that provide to comprise of the argumentation atmosphere.
4. Since new knowledge is structured by using the foreknowledge, teachers should try to remind their
foreknowledge to students.
5. The argumentation method can be used more effectively if the learning environments and materials
are organized in a way that the students are active in the classes and are engaged in scientific practices.
6. Because of the fact that the argumentation process is based on the active participation of the students,
teachers can use this process to identify and eliminate the deficiencies of the students.
Recommendations for Future Research
1. The reasons for not implementing the argumentation in classes and not using the question structures
that provide the development of high-level thinking skills can be examined in more detail by carrying
out interviews with teachers and students, in the future studies.
2. The development of the argumentation skills can be examined by giving argumentation trainings to
the students.
3. The changes in question levels can be examined by training the teachers.
4. The students’ argumentation skills can be assessed by using the dilemmatic daily life problems.
5. In this study, the quality of the arguments established by the students was examined through verbal
argumentation in the classroom environment. In another study, the level of argumentation of teachers
and students can be examined through written argumentation.
6. Similar studies can also be conducted at primary, high school and university levels and the issue that
whether the degree of argumentation varies proportionally with the age and class level can be ana-
lyzed comparatively.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the teachers and students, who participated in the research.
References
Abi-El-Mona, I., & Abi-El-Khalick, F. (2006). Argumentation discourse in a high school chemistry classroom. School Science and
Mathematics, 106 (8), 349-361.
Arıkan, R. (2007). Araştırma teknikleri ve rapor hazırlama [Research techniques and report preparation]. Ankara: Asil Yayın Dağıtım.
Arnold, L. (2016). Strategies to support student argument and argumentative writing in a secondary STEM classroom. MS thesis,
State University of New York, USA.
Aslan, S. (2010). Tartışma esaslı öğretim yaklaşımının öğrencilerin kavramsal algılarına etkisi [The effect of argument based teach-
ing approach on conceptual perception of students]. Kastamonu Education Journal, 18 (2), 467-500.
Aslan, S. (2014). Analysis of students’ written scientific argument generate and evaluation skills. Journal of Theory and Practice
in Education, 10 (1), 41-74.
Aymen Peker, A., Apaydın, Z., & Taş, E. (2012). Isı yalıtımını argümantasyonla anlama: İlköğretim 6. sınıf öğrencileri ile durum
çalışması [Understanding of heat insulation with argumentation: Case study with primary 6th grade students]. Dicle Uni-
versity Social Sciences Institute Journal, 4 (8), 79-100.
Ayvacı, H. Ş., & Türkdoğan, A. (2010). Yeniden yapılandırılan Bloom taksonomisine göre fen ve teknoloji dersi yazılı sorularının
incelenmesi [Investigation of written exam questions according to restructured Bloom taxonomy]. Journal of Turkish Sci-
ence Education, 7 (1), 13-25.
Balcı, A. (2015). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma: Yöntem teknik ve ilkeler [Research in social sciences: Methods, techniques and princi-
ples]. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Publishing.
Berland, L. K., & Reisier, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93 (1), 26-55.
Blosser, P. E. (2000). How to ask the right questions. Arlington: NSTA Press.
Cetin, P. S. (2014). Explicit argumentation instruction to facilitate conceptual understanding and argumentation skills. Research
in Science and Technological Education, 32 (1), 1-20.
Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students’ questions: Case studies in science classrooms. The
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19 (2), 230-284.
Çakıcı, Y. (2012). Fen ve teknoloji öğretiminde yapılandırmacı yaklaşım [Costructivist approach in science and technology teach-
ing]. In Ö. Taşkın (Ed.), Fen ve teknoloji öğretiminde yeni yaklaşımlar [New approaches in science and technology teaching]
991
LEVELS OF STUDENTS
(P. 980-993) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
(pp. 275-293). Ankara: Pegem A Publishing.

Çınar, D., & Bayraktar, Ş. (2014). Evaluation of the effects of argumentation based science teaching on 5th grade students’ con-
ceptual understanding of the subjects related to “matter and change”. International Journal of Education in Mathematics,
Science and Technology, 2 (1), 49-77.
Dillon, J. T. (1988). The remedial status of student questioning. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 20, 197-210.
Dindar, H., & Demir, M. (2006). Beşinci sınıf öğretmenlerinin fen bilgisi dersi sınav sorularının Bloom taksonomisine göre
değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of fifth grade primary teachers’ questions in science exams according to Blooms’ taxono-
my]. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty, 26 (3), 87-96.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84
(3), 287-312.
Eliasson, N., Karlsson, K. G., & Sørensen, H. (2017). The role of questions in the science classroom–how girls and boys respond to
teachers’ questions. International Journal of Science Education, 39 (4), 433-452.
Erdoğan, İ. (2009). Altıncı ve yedinci sınıf öğrencilerinin fen bilgisi, matematik ve Türkçe dersindeki hareketlerinin incelenmesi
[Investigation of sixth and seventh grade students’ actions at the science, mathematics and Turkish lessons]. Kastamonu
Education Journal, 17 (3), 955-966.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). Tapping into argumentation: developments in the application of Toulmin’s Argument
Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88 (6), 915-933.
Floyd, W.D. (1960). An analysis of the oral questioning activity in selected Colorado primary classrooms. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Colorado State University, USA.
Kaya, E. (2012). Argümantasyona dayalı etkinliklerin öğretmen adaylarının kimyasal denge konusunu anlamalarına etkisi [The ef-
fect of argumentation-based activities on teacher candidates’ understanding of chemical balance]. Paper presented at X.
National Science and Mathematics Education Congress, Niğde, Turkey.
Kaya O. N., & Kılıç, Z. (2008). Etkin bir fen öğretimi için tartışmacı söylev [Argumentative discourse for the effective teaching of
science]. Ahi Evran University Kırşehir Education Faculty Journal, 9 (3), 89-100.
Kaya, O. N., & Kılıç, Z. (2010). Fen sınıflarında meydana gelen diyaloglar ve öğrenme üzerine etkileri [Types of dialogs and their
effects on learning in science classrooms]. Kastamonu Education Journal, 18 (1), 115 – 130.
Kılıç, B. (2016). Investigating questioning patterns of teachers through their pedagogical progression in argument-based inquiry
classrooms. MS thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
Kıngır, S. (2011). Using the science writing heuristic approach to promote student understanding in chemical changes and
mixtures. PhD thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41 (4), 212-218.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood: Ablex.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications.
Ministry of National Education of Turkey (2012). Milli eğitim bakanlığı, yenilik ve eğitim teknolojileri genel müdürlüğü, PISA 2012
ulusal ön raporu [Ministry of National Education, Directorate General of Innovation and Education Technologies, PISA 2012
national preliminary report]. Ankara, Turkey.
Munford, D. (2002). Situated argumentation, learning and science education: A case study of prospective teachers’ experiences
in an innovative science course. (Doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, USA.
Okumuş, S. (2012). “Maddenin halleri ve ısı” ünitesinin bilimsel tartışma (argümantasyon) modeli ile öğretiminin öğrenci başarısına
ve anlama düzeylerine etkisi [The effects of argumentation model on students achievement and understanding level on
the unit of states of matter and heat]. MS thesis, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey.
Oral, I., & McGivney, E. (2013). Türkiye’de matematik ve fen bilimleri alanlarında öğrenci performansı ve başarının belirleyicileri
[Student performance in mathematics and science in Turkey and determinants of success]. Report, İstanbul: Education
Reform Initiative.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 41 (10), 994-1020.
Öğreten, B., & Sağır, Ş. (2014). Argümantasyona dayalı fen öğretiminin etkililiğinin incelenmesi [Examining the effectiveness of
argumentation based science teaching]. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 11 (1), 75-100.
Özcan, S., & Oluk, S. (2007). İlköğretim fen bilgisi derslerinde kullanılan soruların Piaget ve Bloom taksonomisine göre analizi
[Analysis of questions used in science lessons at primary school according to Piaget and Bloom taxonomy]. Dicle University
Journal of Ziya Gökalp Faculty of Education, 8, 61-68.
Özkara, D. (2011). Basınç konusunun sekizinci sınıf öğrencilerine bilimsel argümantasyona dayalı etkinlikler ile öğretilmesi
[Teaching pressure subject to eight class students with activities based on scientific argumentation]. MS thesis, Adıyaman
University, Adıyaman, Turkey.
Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students’ argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: Implica-
tions for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21 (7), 745-754.
Robertshaw, B., Campbell, T. (2013). Constructing arguments: Investigating pre-service science teachers’ argumentation skills in
a socio-scientific context. Science Education International, 24(2), 195-211.
Sadler, T.D. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education,
17 (4), 323- 346.
992
LEVELS OF STUDENTS
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 980-993)
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom.
International Journal of Science Education, 28 (2–3), 235–260.
Teichert, M., & Stacy, A. M. (2002). Promoting understanding of chemical bonding and spontaneity through student explanation
and integration of ideas. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 464-496.
Topçu, M.S. (2015). Sosyobilimsel konular ve öğretimi [Teaching of socio-scientific issues]. Ankara: Pegem A Publishing.
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ulu, C., & Bayram, H. (2015). Effects of teaching method based on the science writing heuristic approach on science process
skills. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 30(1), 282-298.
Üstünkaya, I., & Savran Gencer, A. (2012). İlköğretim 6. sınıf seviyesinde bilimsel tartışma (argumentation) odaklı etkinliklerle
dolaşım sistemi konusunun öğretiminin akademik başarıya etkisi [The impact of argumentation based activities on academic
achievement of 6th grade students in the teaching of the circulatory system]. Paper presented at X. National Science and
Mathematics Education Congress, Niğde, Turkey.
van Zee, E., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson D., & Wild, J. (2001). Student and teacher questioning during conversations in science.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (2), 159–190.
Wang, C. H. (2005). Questioning skills facilitate online synchronous discussions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21 (4),
303-313.
Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal
reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (8), 952-977.
Yeşildağ Hasançebi, F., & Günel, M. (2013). Argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme yaklaşımının dezavantajlı öğrencilerin fen
bilgisi başarılarına etkisi [Effects of argumentation based inquiry approach on disadvantaged students’ science achive-
ment]. Elementary Education Online, 12 (4), 1056-1073.
Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences].
Ankara: Seçkin Publishing.
Received: August 29, 2017 Accepted: October 28, 2017
Ibrahim Erdogan PhD, Prof. Dr., Education Faculty, Department of Mathematics and
Science Education, Mus Alparslan University, 49250, Mus, Turkey.
E-mail: erdoibrahim@hotmail.com
Ayse Ciftci PhD Candidate, Research Assistant, Education Faculty, Department
of Mathematics and Science Education, Mus Alparslan University,
49250, Mus, Turkey.
E-mail: a.ciftci@alparslan.edu.tr
Mustafa Sami Topcu PhD, Prof. Dr., Education Faculty, Department of Mathematics and
Science Education, Yıldız Technical University, 34000, Istanbul,
Turkey.
E-mail: mstopcu@yildiz.edu.tr
993
THE EFFECT OF INQUIRY-
BASED LEARNING ON GIFTED
AND TALENTED STUDENTS’
UNDERSTANDING OF ACIDS-
BASES CONCEPTS AND
MOTIVATION
Abstract. Inquiry-based learning is a Sinem Dinçol Özgür,

usable approach in developing gifted and
Ayhan Yılmaz
talented students’ learning and one that
overlaps with their properties and learning
needs. The aim of this research was to

examine the effect of guided inquiry-based
Introduction
learning approach compared with that of
traditional teacher-centered instruction on
As science arouses the curiosity of gifted and talented students regard-
gifted and talented eighth grade students’
ing their natural environment and objects, such students take an interest in
understanding of acids-bases concepts and
the subject (Smutny & von Fremd, 2004). Today’s science education empha-
motivation towards science learning. A no-
sizes learning, which enables students to learn by going through their own
nequivalent control group design was used
exploratory processes and by taking an active part in these processes (Chang,
in the research. The participants were 40
Sung, & Lee, 2003). The quality of science education is important in unveiling
gifted and talented eighth grade students
and developing the potential of gifted and talented students. Those who
from one Science and Art Center in Ankara/
learn through high-quality science education have the opportunity to use
Turkey. There were two different groups:
basic skills in meaningful contexts and to form a life-long interest (Cronin,
the experimental group and the control
Patton, & Wood, 2007); to develop higher-order thinking and problem-solving
group. The Acids and Bases Diagnostic Test
skills (Carnine, 1992; Woodward & Noell, 1992) and to develop experimental
and Students’ Motivation towards Science
experiences in constructing the knowledge with which they integrate new
Learning questionnaire were used in the re-
ideas, associations and details (Jenkins, Stein, & Osborn, 1981, cited in Pol-
search as data collection tools. Before and
loway, Serna, Patton, & Bailey, 2013). Chiappetta (1997) said that a learning
after the implementation, the tools were
environment, in which students are curious and make an effort to learn,
administered as pre-test and post-test to
should be observed in a science classroom and pointed out that students
both groups. For data analysis the indepen-
should ask questions, resolve inconsistencies, form models, share their ideas,
dent samples t-test and multivariate analy-
discuss their knowledge and solve problems in such an environment. The
sis of variance (MANOVA) was used. The
researcher also stresses that the “vision of science teaching” is associated
results showed that there was a statistical
with the term “inquiry.”“Inquiry-based learning,” enabling learners to structure
significant difference between the groups in
their knowledge by including them in the nature of science (Roth, 1992), is
favor of the experimental group.
based on the constructivist approach. In the constructivist approach, which
Keywords: guided inquiry-based learning, is based on philosophy and psychology (Fosnot, 1992), the learners actively
acids-bases concepts, gifted and talented construct knowledge (Brooks & Brooks, 1999; Harris & Alexander 1998; Tynjälä,
students, achievement, motivation towards 1999). Previous studies have found that when learners actively participate
science learning. in the learning process using this approach, they assume more responsibil-
ity for their learning, they learn permanently, and their ability to apply their
knowledge to other fields also develops (Bodner, 1990; Hand & Treagust,
1991; Laverty & McGarwey, 1991).
Sinem Dinçol Özgür, The term “inquiry” has gained increasing importance in educational
Ayhan Yılmaz
Hacettepe University, Turkey studies since it first appeared in the early 20th century, and it has become
one of the approaches that researchers study (Anderson, 2002; Barron &
Darling-Hammond, 2008; Barrow, 2006). Anderson (2002) states that in the
994
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ THE EFFECT OF INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING ON GIFTED AND TALENTED STUDENTS’
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 994-1008)
late 20th century good science teaching and learning became explicitly and increasingly associated with the term
inquiry. Inquiry is described as an active process in which children actively investigate, by inquiring about their own
world, asking questions and answering their own questions (McBride, Bhatti, Hannan, & Feinberg, 2004). Perry and
Richardson (2001) define inquiry-based learning as learning the process of transforming data into useful knowledge
by asking questions, researching and analyzing knowledge, whereas Barron and Darling-Hammond (2008) define
it as one of the active learning approaches, which is student-centered and is based on asking questions, critical
thinking and problem solving.
In recent years, inquiry-based science teaching has been considered as the main teaching method at pri-
mary and secondary school levels (Rocard et al., 2007). Inquiry-based learning has also led to changes in science
teaching. The changes emerge with the active use of scientific process skills and critical thinking skills, instead of
memorizing the concepts; hence, meaningful learning is achieved (American Association for the Advancement of
Science [AAAS], 1993; National Research Council [NRC], 1996). Accordingly, students form explanations through
critical and logical thinking in the process of inquiry and in this way they develop their understanding of science
(Harlen, 2004). Inquiry-based science teaching facilitates the understanding of basic principles, theories and con-
cepts; instilling the ability to ask questions and to answer them; developing positive attitudes towards science and
understanding the nature of science (Chiappetta & Adams, 2004). Inquiry-based learning is a usable approach in
developing gifted and talented students’ learning and one that overlaps with their properties and learning needs
(Eysink, Gersen, & Gijlers, 2015; Trna, 2014; VanTassel-Baska & Brown, 2007).
Inquiry-based learning environments result in an increase in learners’ interest and motivation in a course, in
addition to helping them learn in depth and learn meaningfully and conceptually (Alvarado & Herr, 2003). Motiva-
tion, which is one of the most important elements in learning environments (Maehr, 1984; Freedman, 1997) and one
of the most important factors influencing students’ achievement (Karlsson, 1996), is defined as a process in which
goal-oriented activities are encouraged and sustainability is assured (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). It was found that
factors, such as students’ interest in a subject, their success or failure in developing a scientific understanding, their
general goals and affective inclinations, curricula and social goals, influenced students’ motivation (Hynd, Holschuh,
& Nist, 2000; Lee & Brophy, 1996; Nolen & Haladyna, 1990). This is because, for students who learn science, motiva-
tion plays a central role in the process of their conceptual change, in their critical thinking, in learning strategies
and in science achievement (Pintrich, Marx, & Boyle, 1993; Lee & Brophy, 1996; Wigfield & Wentzel, 2007; Wolters,
1999) and is a significant factor in their learning (Bonney, Kempler, Zusho, Coppola, & Pintrich, 2005). Therefore, in
addition to factors influencing their cognitive process, factors that raise students’ motivation should be included
in learning environments (Anderman & Young, 1994; Lee & Brophy, 1996; Pintrich et al., 1993; Tuan, Chin, Tsai, &
Cheng, 2005; Zusho, Pintrich, & Coppola, 2003).
Significance and Aim of the Research
On reviewing the literature, it was found that students had difficulty in understanding “acids and bases”, an
important subject in the field of science and chemistry, and they could not fully understand the subject and had
misconceptions about it (Acar-Sesen & Tarhan, 2011; Bradley & Mosimege, 1998; Cartrette & Mayo, 2011; Çetingül
& Geban, 2005; Demircioğlu, Ayas, & Demircioğlu, 2005; Furio-Mas, Calatayud, Guisasola, & Furio-Gomez, 2005;
Kousathana, Demerouti, & Tsaparlis, 2005; McClary & Talanquer 2011; Bretz & McClary, 2014; Nakhleh, 1994; Nakhleh
& Krajcik, 1994; Özmen, Demircioğlu, & Coll, 2009; Pınarbaşı, 2007; Rahayu, Chandrasegaran, Treagust, Kita, & Ibnu,
2011; Ross & Munby 1991; Sheppard, 1997; Smith & Metz, 1996; Vidyapati & Seetharamappa, 1995). In Turkey, the
subject of acids-bases is taught to students for the first time at grade 8 within the scope of a science course. Since
students’ prior knowledge and their misconceptions have an effect on their subsequent learning (Andersson,
1986; Griffiths & Preston, 1992; Saunders & Shepardson, 1987), it is important for them to have prior knowledge
and understanding in acids-bases to understand the other subjects of chemistry.
The motivation of gifted and talented students, who differ from their peers in such properties as asking
too many questions, curiosity and extraordinary ideas, using knowledge to support their ideas, inferencing and
putting forward new ideas, creativity and desire to learn how things work (Trna, 2014), have a determining role
in improving their giftedness (Mönks & Ypenburg, 2002, cited in, Trna, 2014). Classroom environments where stu-
dents are responsible for their own learning, rather than classroom environments where there is active teaching,
are important for gifted and talented students, who are supposed to have intrinsic motivation and high abilities
to regulate their own learning process (Yoon, 2009). It has been pointed out that no other course domains can
995
THE EFFECT OF INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING ON GIFTED AND TALENTED STUDENTS’ ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/
(P. 994-1008) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
influence and stimulate or force gifted and talented students as sciences do (VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2006).
Such students should receive education in learning environments that are arranged in a way that directs them to
the domain of sciences and learn meaningfully, according to their needs. VanTassel-Baska (2006) states that the
unqualified and inadequate teaching of science at primary school level results in losing students who are inter-
ested in sciences. Therefore, the effective and differentiated learning environments that can be designed in this
field will result in the improvement of gifted and talented students’ curiosity, interest, knowledge, their desire to
do research, their creative inference and problem solving skills, as well as increasing their motivation for science.
Furthermore, designing learning environments for such students, implementing them and assessing the results
will certainly guide educators working in this field. While only a restricted number of studies were found in the
literature that involved inquiry-based learning activities conducted with gifted and talented students (Eysink et al.,
2015; Reger, 2006; Trna, 2014; Wolfe, 1990; Yoon, 2009; Quade Denny, 2011), no studies were encountered in which
activities for gifted and talented students were designed or applied in relation to acids-bases, and in which results
were evaluated in guided inquiry learning environments. Therefore, the aim of this research was to examine the
effect of guided inquiry-based learning approach compared with that of traditional teacher-centered instruction
on gifted and talented eighth grade students’ understanding of acids-bases concepts and motivation towards
science learning. In this respect, the research questions are as follows:
1. Are there any statistically significant differences between students’ Acids and Bases Diagnostic Test
post-test scores according to the teaching methods?
2. Are there any statistically significant differences between students’ motivation towards science learning
(self-efficacy, active learning strategies, science learning value, performance goal, achievement goal,
learning environment stimulation) according to the teaching methods?
Research Design
In this research, the “Nonequivalent control group pretest-posttest design” was used, in which two treatment
groups are pretested, administered a treatment and post-tested (Gay & Airasian, 2000). As summarized in Table 1,
one group was randomly assigned to the experimental group, where 20 students (15 males and 5 females) were
taught using the guided inquiry-based learning approach; the other group was randomly assigned to the control
group, where 20 students (14 males and 6 females) were instructed using the traditional approach.
Students in both groups were administered the Acids and Bases Diagnostic Test (ABDT) and the Students’
Motivation towards Science Learning (SMTSL) questionnaire as pre-test and post-test.
Table 1. Nonequivalent control group design.
Treatment
Groups
Pre-test Post-test
•• ABDT Guided inquiry based learning •• ABDT

Experimental Group
•• SMTSL approach •• SMTSL
•• ABDT Traditional teacher- centered •• ABDT

Control Group
•• SMTSL instruction •• SMTSL
Participants
This research was conducted with 40 gifted and talented eighth grade students (29 male and 11 female) at-
tending the Science and Art Centre in Ankara. The participants were approximately 13-14 years old. In 2016 there
were 83 Science and Art Centers in 69 provinces for gifted and talented children in Turkey (Ministry of National
Education [MNE], 2015-2016 Science and Art Centers Students Identification Guide), and primary and secondary
school students, who have been identified as gifted and talented, go to these centers after school hours and at
996
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 994-1008)
weekends (MNE, 2007). The MNE- Guide for Science and Art Centers (2007) defines Science and Art Centers as
independent private institutions of education that have been opened to ensure that gifted and talented children/
students of pre-school, primary and secondary school age can become aware of their individual capabilities and
use their capabilities to the maximum, by improving them.
Instruments
Acids and bases diagnostic test (ABDT): A two-tier diagnostic test was developed by the researcher to determine
the students’ levels of understanding on the subject of acids-bases and development in their levels of knowledge.
In the first tier of the test, the students were asked to choose the correct alternative. In the second tier, they were
asked to choose the correct reason for their choice in the first tier and if there was not a choice to explain their
reason, they were asked to write their reason in the blank space provided for the last alternative. The test was
evaluated by assigning “1” point to correct answers to both tiers of the test and “0” point to incorrect answers to
both tiers or to one tier. The maximum achievable score from the test was 20 and the minimum score was 0. The
test covers the topics of the properties of acids and bases, the names and formulas of acids and bases, acid-base
reactions, the measurement of acidity and basicity and acids and bases in daily life. While preparing the test, the
literature was reviewed and the statements concerning “acids and bases” about which students had misconceptions
(Bradley & Mosimege, 1998; Canpolat, Pınarbaşı, Bayrakçeken, & Geban, 2004; Cros et al., 1986; Çetingül & Geban,
2005; Demirci & Özmen, 2012; Demircioğlu et al., 2005; Köseoğlu, Budak, & Kavak, 2002; Morgil, Yılmaz, Şen, &
Yavuz, 2002; Nakhleh & Krajcik, 1994; Özmen et al., 2009; Ross & Munby, 1991; Sheppard, 2006; Smith & Metz, 1996;
Tarhan & Acar-Sesen, 2012; Yahşi, 2006), were included in the test as distractors. Thus, a 20-item test at the level of
the students was prepared. In order to provide construct validity, learning outcomes and misconceptions related
to subject of acids-bases were determined and also the tables of specification were prepared, using the science
textbooks (Ünver, 2014; Erbaş, 2015) that were being used in Turkey. To attain content and face validity, experts
from Chemistry Education and Science Education analyzed the developed test. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability
coefficient for the test was found to be 0.831.
Sample questions:
1) Which of the following is not a property of acids?
A) They feel slippery on the skin.
B) They taste sour.
C) They turn blue litmus paper into red.
The reason for the answer above:
A) Causing the feeling of slipperiness on contacting the skin is of the properties of bases.
B) Acids taste bitter but bases taste sour.
C) Turning blue litmus paper into red is a property of bases. Acids turn red litmus paper into blue.
D) I think, …………………………………………………………………………..
2) Which of the following materials can be used to remove the limescale layer in the teapots?
A) Vinegar B) Soapy water
The reason for the answer above:
A) The limescale is acidic, soap is basic. The result of neutralization reactions between the limescale layer
and the soap, the limescale layers are removed.
B) The limescale is basic and vinegar is acidic. The result of neutralization reactions between the limescale
layer and vinegar, the limescale layers are removed.
C) The limescale and soapy water are basic. A base can only lose its effect with a base.
D) I think, …………………………………………………………………………..
Students’ Motivation towards Science Learning (SMTSL) Questionnaire: “Students’ Motivation Towards Science
Learning” questionnaire, developed by Tuan, Chin and Shieh (2005) and adapted into Turkish by Yılmaz and
Huyugüzel-Çavaş (2007), was used to determine the students’ motivation for science learning. The questionnaire
consists of 33 items with a five-point Likert-type scale (1= strongly disagree; 5= strongly agree) and 6 factors, which
are “self-efficacy (7-item), active learning strategies (7-item), science learning value (5-item), performance goal
997
(P. 994-1008) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
(3-item), achievement goal (5-item), learning environment stimulation (6-item).” The Cronbach’s alpha reliability
coefficients were calculated for the overall scale as 0.87; the self-efficacy factor as 0.71; the active learning strate-
gies factor as 0.85; the science learning value factor as 0.74; the performance goal factor as 0.54; the achievement
goal factor as 0.77 and the learning environment stimulation factor as 0.77 (Yılmaz & Huyugüzel-Çavaş, 2007).
Procedure
The guided inquiry learning approach was used in experimental group and traditional teaching method
was used in control group. Six weeks of teaching were designed for each group. The instructional activities were
developed by the researchers and reviewed by two experts from science education and chemistry education to
examine the compliance of activities in terms of content and students’-level. Activities prepared in this research
are based on the topics and concepts shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Topics and concepts/terms under the title of acids-bases while designing the application process.
Topics Concepts/ Terms
•• The Properties of Acids and Bases •• Acid

•• The Names and formulas of Acids and Bases •• Base
•• Acid-Base Reactions •• Salt
•• The measurement of Acidity and basicity •• Neutralization
•• Acids and Bases in Daily Life •• Titration
•• Acid Rains •• Indicator
•• pH
•• pOH
•• Weak acid/ Weak base
•• Strong acid / Strong base
The participants had not previously learned the subject of acids-bases. The same teacher conducted the
applications in the experimental and control groups. Two groups were observed for controlling teacher effect, and
treatment verification. The ABDT and SMTSL questionnaires were given to the students as a pre-test, two weeks
before teaching the subject of acids-bases and as a post-test, one week after the application.
Application Process in the Experimental Group
The subject of acids-bases was taught through guided inquiry activities in the experimental group. The fol-
lowing activities were prepared for the topics:
•• Which concepts is it related to?

•• I wonder, and I explore…
•• Is there a measure for acidity and basicity?
•• Where did the acid and base go?
•• I could not decide on whether it is useful or harmful…
•• Is there acid rain?
Guided inquiry, one of inquiry-based learning levels, is the level of inquiry at which the teacher introduces a
problem. The choice of methods used for solution is left to the students; the students are given the opportunity
to discover, research, create knowledge and learn meaningfully and thus they are motivated (Llwellyn, 2007;
Spaulding, 2001). The teacher leads the students at this stage with questions and gives them guidance (Lim, 2001).
The inquiry cycle (Figure 1), which was designed by Llewellyn (2007, 2014) as a guide in planning the inquiry-
based learning environments, was used in performing the guided inquiry activities.
998
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 994-1008)
Figure 1: Inquiry cycle (Llewellyn, 2007, 2014).
The stages of the inquiry cycle taken by the students during the activities (Llewellyn, 2007, 2014) and the roles
they and the teacher adopted while going through the stages were as in the following:
A Sample Activity: “Is there a measure for acidity and basicity?”
The aim of this activity is to make sure that students are able to comprehend the concepts of pH and pOH,
which are the measures of acidity and basicity and the relations between them, that they can read the pH scale and
that they become aware of the approximate pH values of the materials they encounter in daily life. The pictures of
various materials used in daily life, together with their pH values, are shown on the activity paper.
Diluted NaOH solution, HCl solution, NH3 solution and laundry bleach, liquid soap, anti-limescale, vinegar,
orange juice, bottled water of various brands in beakers and pH paper and litmus paper were prepared in the labo-
ratory for each group. While working the students used aprons, gloves and goggles. As the students conducted
each activity in groups, they were divided into groups of four prior to the applications.
1. Inquisition: The first stage of the Inquiry Cycle; the students begin the process of inquiry. It is important for
students taking part in inquiry cycle activities for the first time to be guided by the teacher. The students study the
activity paper given to them and ask questions (for example, Is there a measure for acidity? Is there a measure of
basicity? etc.). The teacher’s role is to be a listener, he does not give direct answers to the students’ questions, but
encourages and guides the students to ask questions by offering explanatory and probing questions. The students
discuss the answers in groups and write them down.
2. Acquisition: The second stage of the Inquiry Cycle; the students ask themselves the question “what knowl-
edge do I have in order to answer this question?” and share their prior knowledge to enable them to answer the
questions. They brainstorm with guidance from their teacher and have in-group and inter-group discussions. In
this process they can ask the teacher questions about things they do not know but the teacher helps the students
to reach the answer by leading them, instead of directly giving the answers.
3. Supposition: During the third stage of the Inquiry Cycle; students make guesses and hypothesize, in order
to find answers to the research questions.
The students make guesses (set up hypotheses) such as, “I think the materials we use in daily life are of a ba-
sic character” or “I think the pH value is used only for acidity measure” by using their knowledge gained from the
previous stage, so as to find answers to the research questions.
4. Implementation: The fourth stage of the Inquiry Cycle, involves the students’ planning and the implementa-
tion of their plans to answer the research questions. While the students investigate the answers to their questions,
they review resources (books or the internet) if there is a lack of knowledge. The teacher can make brief explana-
tions to advise the students during their research.
The students plan the type of research they are going to carry out (searching for resources, making experiments,
observations, etc.) to test their hypotheses, in the light of the information they obtained. Then they implement their
plan (e.g. they determine the pH values of the materials with pH paper…). When an experiment for concentrated
acids or bases has been designed, the teacher can conduct it in the fume cupboard.
5. Summation: During the fifth stage of the Inquiry Cycle; the students record their experiments, their conclu-
999
(P. 994-1008) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
sions and observations for their research questions and hypotheses. Then they interpret them by analyzing them,
such as: it is acidic when the pH value is between 0 and 7, neutral when it is 7, basic when it is between 7 and 14.
6. Exhibition: During the sixth stage of the Inquiry Cycle; the students share the results they have obtained
and the new knowledge they have acquired with their peers and their teacher.
A group spokesman orally shares the knowledge from each application, such as: “the measure of acidity and
basicity that we asked about at the beginning is explained with the concepts of pH and pOH. Both concepts tell
us about acidity and basicity. We have reviewed resources and made experiments to reach this understanding…”
In conclusion, the students acquire knowledge about pH and pOH concepts by using the cycle of inquiry. The
teacher makes a summary by asking questions so that lacking or mistaken parts can be re-arranged after sharing
the results.
Application Process in the Control Group
When teaching the subject of acids-bases to the control group, the traditional teaching method, in which
the teacher is active, was used. In this method, the teacher taught the subject of acids-bases to the students by
instruction at the board, by giving examples and by supporting the teaching with visuals from the internet when
necessary. In addition to this, the teacher asked students questions and led the students to in-class discussions.
For instance, during the activity, “Is there a measure for acidity and basicity”, students in control group made only
confirmatory experiments without questioning, inquiry, awareness of their prior knowledge, group discussions,
hypotheses, planning and implementing their plans to answer the questions, interpreting their conclusions by
analyzing their observation and sharing their results. The teacher then explained the results that were obtained, and
answered the students’ questions. At the end of the class, the teacher summarized the purpose of the lesson.
Data Analysis

Having checked whether or not the assumptions of normality, equality of variance, equality of covariance
matrices and independency of observation were met, analyses were performed. Prior to the applications in the
experimental and the control groups, Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and independent sample t-test
analyses were made, in order to find whether or not there were any differences between the scores for the depen-
dent variables (six factors score and total score of SMTSL questionnaire, ABDT score). The MANOVA analysis was
made to find whether or not there were any statistically significant differences between the experimental group
and the control group students’ six factors scores of the SMTSL questionnaire (self-efficacy, active learning strate-
gies, science learning value, performance goal, achievement goal, learning environment stimulation), whereas an
independent samples t-test was made in order to find whether there were any statistically significant differences
between the SMTSL total scores and the ABDT post-test scores.
Results of Research
Prior to the applications in the experimental and the control groups, the analysis results on whether or not there
was any difference between the scores for the dependent variables are presented below. It was found that there
were no statistically significant differences between the students’ ABDT pre-test scores, which may be considered
as an indicator of the students’ prior knowledge of acids-bases (t(38)= 0.917, p> .05 (p= .365). The MANOVA results
suggest that there were no statistically significant differences between the experimental and control group students’
pre-test scores in self-efficacy, active learning strategies, science learning value, performance goal, achievement
goal and learning environment stimulation factors of motivation, Wilks Lambda (˄)= .760, F(26,33)=1.740, p>.01
(p = .143). There were no statistically significant differences between the students’ SMTSL questionnaire total pre-
test scores either, t (38) = .648, p > .01 (p= .521).
In relation to the first research question, the effects of guided inquiry learning activities on the gifted and
talented students’ understanding the subject of acids-bases was found through the ABDT. According to Table 3,
the mean scores of the ABDT post-test were calculated as = 17.65 for the experimental group students, and as
= 14.05 for the control group students. Independent samples t-test results show that there were significant dif-
ferences between the ABDT post-test scores, according to the teaching methods, t=6.315, p < .05. Following the
analyses, the value for eta-square (the size of effect, ɳ2) was calculated as ɳ2=0.51. The value shows how much of
1000
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 994-1008)
the variance in the dependent variable is explained by the independent variable and accordingly, the values in
the .01-.06 range mean small, .06 means medium, and .14 and above mean large (Cohen, 1988, cited in Akbulut,
2010). Thus, the size of the effect is quite large.
Table 3. Independent sample t- test results of students for ABDT- post-test scores.
Levene’s Test
Group N SD df t p
F p
Experimental 20 17.65 1.4964 38 6.315 .0001 .519 .447

Control 20 14.05 2.0641
With regard to the second research question, the MANOVA indicated that there were significant differences
between the gifted and talented students’ post-test scores for self-efficacy, active learning strategies, science
learning value, performance goal, achievement goal and learning environment stimulation according to whether
they learned through guided inquiry or the traditional method, Wilks Lambda (˄)= .408, F(6, 33)= 7.976, p< .01.
Pallant (2010) said that a more reliable measure of alpha level should be determined while examining variance
analysis tables, and suggested that the standard alpha level should be divided by the number of analyses made and
the tables should be examined according to the alpha value found. In this research, the alpha value was found to be
.008 on dividing the normal alpha level by the number of tests given (.05/6). An examination of Table 4, according
to this new alpha value, demonstrates that there are significant differences between the experimental group and
the control group students’ post-test scores for self-efficacy, science learning value, performance goal and learning
environment stimulation (p< .008). It could be said that by using partial eta-square values, 30.4% of self-efficacy
post test scores, 22.8% of science learning value post test scores, 38.4% of performance goal post test scores and
29.4% of learning environment stimulation post test scores are explained by the variable of the teaching methods.
Table 4. Tests of between subject effects.
Dependent Variable Type III Sum Mean

Source df F p Partial Eta-Squared
(post- test) of Squares Square
Self-efficacy 156.025 1 156.025 16.564 .0001 .304

Active learning
21.025 1 21.025 1.483 .231 .038
strategies
Science learning value 65.025 1 65.025 11.244 .002 .228
Group
Performance goal 108.900 1 108.900 23.687 .0001 .384
Achievement goal 1.225 1 1.225 .092 .763 .002
Learning environment
144.400 1 144.400 15.809 .0001 .294
stimulation
Also, the sources for the significant difference between groups can be examined in the table of Estimated
Marginal Means (Table 5).
Table 5. Estimated marginal means.
%95 Confidence Interval

Dependent variable Group Mean Std. Error
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Experimental 33.450 .686 32.061 34.839

Self-efficacy
Control 29.500 .686 28.111 30.889
1001
(P. 994-1008) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
%95 Confidence Interval

Dependent variable Group Mean Std. Error
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Experimental 31.300 .842 29.596 33.004

Active learning strategies
Control 29.850 .842 28.146 31.554
Experimental 23.200 .538 22.111 24.289
Science learning value
Control 20.650 .686 19.561 21.739
Performance goal Experimental 13.550 .479 12.579 14.521

Control 10.250 .479 9.279 11.221
Experimental 20.900 .815 19.250 22.550
Achievement goal
Control 20.550 .815 18.900 22.200
Learning environment Experimental 26.650 .676 25.282 28.018

stimulation Control 22.850 .676 21.482 24.218
According to Table 5, the significant difference between the experimental group and the control group students’
post-test scores for self-efficacy, science learning value, performance goal and learning environment stimulation
shown in Table 4 is in favor of the experimental group students.
The results for the independent samples t-test, which was performed so as to find whether or not there were
any statistically significant differences between the experimental group and the control group students’ SMTSL
questionnaire post-test total scores, are shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Independent sample t- test results of students for SMTSL questionnaire post-test total scores.
Levene’s Test
Group N SD df t p
F p
Experimental 20 149.05 11.104 .564 .457

38 3.965 .0001
Control 20 133.65 13.358
According to Table 6, the students’ SMTSL post-test total scores differ significantly between the experimental
and the control group students (according to teaching methods), t (38) = 3.965, p<.01. Thus, the experimental
group students’ scores ((X) ̅= 149.05) are higher than those of the control group students’ scores ((X) ̅= 133.65).
This finding can be interpreted to show a significant correlation between the SMTSL questionnaire total scores
and the method of teaching. Following the analyses, the effect size was calculated as ɳ2= 0.29. Thus, the size of
the effect is quite large.
Discussion
It was found that the level of achievement attained by the students in the experimental group, where the
guided inquiry learning approach was used, was significantly higher than those in the control group, where the
traditional learning method was employed. Inquiry-based learning is considered to be an approach that may be
used in the improvement of gifted and talented students’ learning and one that overlaps with their characteris-
tics and learning needs (Eysink et al., 2015; Trna, 2014; VanTassel-Baska & Brown, 2007). It was also stated by MNE
(2014) that evidence-based teaching strategies, such as critical thinking, creative thinking, problem solving and
inquiry-based research, should be used with gifted and talented students so that certain gains could be obtained.
In a review of the literature, the availability of studies in which the inquiry-based learning approach is used,
supports our findings. The researchers in these studies found that the approach is effective in students’ learning
and the approach results also increase in concept learning and students’ achievement (Alvarado & Herr 2003; Brady-
Orcutt, 1997; Chang & Mao, 1999; Gibson & Chase, 2002; Koksal & Berberoglu, 2014; Kowalczyk, 2003; Lawson, 2010;
1002
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 994-1008)
Lord & Orkwiszewski, 2006; Mao & Chang, 1998; Shymansky, Hedges, & Woodworth, 1990; Tretter & Jones, 2003;
Yager & Akcay, 2010). Harlen (2004), states that students think critically and logically in the inquiry process, and that
they improve their understanding of science in this way. With the use of inquiry-based learning, students’ abilities
to make comments and to apply their learning into other fields develop, and they learn permanently and deeply
by playing active roles in the process (Bodner, 1990; Colburn, 2004; Hand & Treagust, 1991; Laverty & McGarwey,
1991; Leonard 2000; Mullen, Rutledge, & Swain, 2003). Having analyzed 138 studies conducted between 1984 and
2000, Minner, Levy and Century (2010) synthesized the studies and found that with the application of inquiry-
based science learning at various levels 51% of the studies had a positive effect on students’ content learning and
on assuring permanent learning. It was found in the studies that inquiry-based learning had more positive effects
on students’ achievement than traditional teaching (Basağa, Geban, & Tekkaya, 1994; Khan, Hussain, Ali, Majoka,
& Ramzan, 2011; Koksal & Berberoglu, 2014; Richarson & Renner, 1970). Koksal and Berberoglu (2014) found that
guided inquiry learning led to an increase in both the students’ understanding of science concepts and their inquiry
skills, in contrast to the traditional learning approach.
Likewise, the results obtained in this research also demonstrate that the guided inquiry learning approach is
influential in the increase in gifted and talented students’ motivation for science learning. Previous studies concluded
that gifted and talented students’ low motivation was among the problems encountered during teaching (Sak,
2010; Siegle & McCoach, 2005). Gifted and talented students’ motivation influences their achievement (Phillips &
Lindsay, 2006) and plays a determining role in improving their giftedness (Mönks & Ypenburg, 2002, cited in Trna,
2014). Learning and teaching approaches have a significant effect on the increase of such students’ motivation
(Phillips & Lindsay, 2006). Trna (2014) recommends inquiry-based learning in science education as a suitable ap-
proach for increasing gifted and talented students’ motivation and assuring their improvement and points out
that inquiry-based science learning is an appropriate approach for all students, including those who are gifted and
talented. Strong influences in the motivation of learners are the primary reason for arguing in favor of inquiry-based
learning (Spronken-Smith, 2007). Learners are more stimulated to learn during the inquiry process, in accordance
with their curiosity, and are therefore more motivated (Ciardiello, 2003). Inquiry-based learning, which is based
on the constructivist approach, motivates students with the hands-on activities it contains (Minner et al., 2010).
Studies have also demonstrated that constructivist learning environments and learner-centered activities, rather
than traditional methods (Ames, 1992; Bednar, Coughlin, Evans, & Sievers, 2002; Cluck & Hess, 2003; Kim, 2005;
Pintrich et al., 1993; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002) are influential in increasing students’ motivation.
It was found that there were significant differences in the four factors of the SMTSL questionnaire. The first
factor of the SMTSL questionnaire is self-efficacy, which represents the gifted and talented students’ beliefs in their
individual efficacy; the second factor of the SMTSL questionnaire is science learning value, which enables students
to gain the problem solving skills, to have inquiry based experiences, to think on their own and to find the ap-
propriacy of science to their daily life; the third factor of the SMTSL questionnaire is the performance goal, which
represents students’ goals in learning science, as competition with other students and as attracting the teacher’s
interest and the last factor of the SMTSL questionnaire is learning environment stimulation, which contains factors
such as the curriculum, teaching methods and interactions between students affecting students’ motivation in
learning environments. In studies concerning students’ motivation for learning in science education, it was found
that factors such as students’ interest in a subject, their success or failure in developing a scientific conception, their
general goals and affective orientations, curriculum and social objectives, all affected their motivation (Hynd et
al., 2000; Lee & Brophy, 1996; Nolen & Haladyna, 1990). In the literature it was emphasized that students displayed
success and put more effort into in-class activities if they had high motivation and positive attitudes (Green, Nel-
son, Martin, & Marsh, 2006; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Wolters & Rosenthal, 2000). Pintrich and Schunk (2002) refer
to teachers’ teaching strategies, teacher-student and student-student interactions, which are the elements of the
learning environment, as elements influencing motivation for learning the in-class activities. When students find
learning tasks valuable and meaningful, they are eager to actively participate in learning tasks (Tuan, Chin, & Shieh,
2005). It was found that inquiry-based learning applications were influential on the increasing in students’ interest
in a course and that students found the classes enjoyable and instructive (Ronning, 1998; Gibson & Chase, 2002;
Keefer, 2002; Kyle, Bonnstetter, McCloskey, & Fults, 1985; Tatar & Kuru, 2009). Kyle et al. (1985) state that 75% of the
students who were exposed to the inquiry-based learning approach found science enjoyable and exciting, whereas
50% of the students who were not exposed to this approach found science boring. They also state that students
who participated in inquiry-based learning environments had positive perspectives with regard to science and
scientists. Gibson and Chase (2002), on the other hand, state that 70% of the students attending an inquiry-based
1003
(P. 994-1008) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
science camp were pleased with the activities made in the camp and that learning through inquiry is influential in
increasing the students’ interest in science and in developing positive attitudes towards learning.

Conclusions
This research examined the effect of guided inquiry-based learning approach compared with that of traditional
teaching method on gifted and talented eighth grade students’ understanding of acids-bases concepts and moti-
vation towards science learning. The results show that the guided inquiry learning activities which designed and
applied in this research in relation to acids-bases were effective in the gifted and talented students’ understanding
the subject of acids-bases and influential in the increase in these students’ motivation for science learning. In this
context, it is recommended that inquiry-based learning environments for gifted and talented students are designed
for different subjects in which students have difficulty and the effects of those environments on such students’
understanding, motivation and attitudes are analyzed. Considering that there are only a limited number of stud-
ies investigating gifted and talented students’ learning processes and the teaching models for such students, the
results of this research may be considered as providing guidance for educators who work in this field.
Acknowledgements
This research includes a part of first author’s doctoral dissertation namely “The effect of inquiry based learning
on gifted and talented students’ understanding of acids - bases concepts and motivation towards science learning”
and was supported by Research Fund of Hacettepe University. (Project number: SDK- 2016 - 9529).
References
Acar-Sesen, B., & Tarhan, L. (2011). Active-learning versus teacher-centered instruction for learning acids and bases. Research in
Science & Technological Education, 29 (2), 205–226.
Akbulut, Y. (2010). Sosyal bilimlerde SPSS uygulamaları [SPSS applications in social sciences]. İstanbul: İdeal Kültür Yayıncılık.
Alvarado, A. E., & Herr, P. R. (2003). Inquiry-based learning using everyday objects: hands-on instructional strategies that promote
active learning in grades 3-8. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] (1993). Project 2061: Benchmarks for science literacy. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
Anderson, R. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 1–12.
Andersson, B. (1986). Pupils’ explanations of some aspects of chemical reactions. Science Education, 70 (5), 549-563.
Anderman, E. M., & Young, A. J. (1994). Motivation and strategy use in science: Individual differences and classroom effects.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31 (8), 811-831.
Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teaching for meaningful learning: A review of research on inquiry-based and cooperative
learning (Book Excerpt). Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/pdfs/edutopia-teaching-for-meaningful-learning.pdf.
Barrow, L. H. (2006). A brief history of inquiry: From Dewey to standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 265-278.
Basağa, H., Geban, Ö., & Tekkaya, C. (1994). The effect of the inquiry teaching method on biochemistry and science process skills
achievements. Biochemical Education, 22 (1), 29-32.
Bednar, J., Coughlin, J., Evans, E., & Sievers, T. (2002). Improving student motivation and achievement in mathematics through teach-
ing to the multiple intelligences. (Report No. SE-066-490). Master of Arts Action Research Project, Saint Xavier University and
SkyLight Professional Development Field-BasedMaster’s Program. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED466408).
Bodner, G. M. (1990). Why good teaching fails and hard-working students do not always succeed? Spectrum, 28 (1), 27–32.
Bonney, C. R., Kempler, T. M., Zusho, A., Coppola, B. P., & Pintrich P. R. (2005). Student learning in science classrooms: What role
does motivation play? In, S. Alsop (Eds.), Beyond cartesian dualism: Encountering affect in the teaching and learning of science
(pp. 83-97). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
Bradley, J. D., & Mosimege, M. D. (1998). Misconceptions in acids and bases: A comparative study of student teachers with dif-
ferent chemistry backgrounds. South African Journal of Chemistry, 51 (3), 137-145.
Brady-Orcutt, J. C. (1997). A case study on inquiry-based science education and students’ feelings of success. Unpublished Master’s
Thesis. San Jose State University, USA.
Bretz, S. L., & McClary, L. (2014). Students’ understandings of acid strength: How meaningful is reliability when measuring alter-
native conceptions? Journal of Chemical Education, 92 (2), 212-219.
Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
1004
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 994-1008)
Canpolat, N., Pınarbaşı, T., Bayrakçeken, S., ve Geban, Ö. (2004). Kimyadaki bazı yaygın yanlış kavramalar [Some common mis-
conceptions in chemistry]. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty, 24 (1), 135-146.
Cartrette D. P., & Mayo P. M. (2011). Students’ understanding of acids/bases in organic chemistry contexts. Chemistry Education
Research and Practice, 12, 29–39.
Chang, K-E., Sung, Y-T., & Lee, C-L. (2003). Web-based collaborative inquiry learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19
(1), 56-69.
Chang, C-Y., & Mao, S-L. (1999) Comparison of Taiwan science students’ outcomes with inquiry-groupversus traditional instruc-
tion. The Journal of Educational Research, 92 (6), 340-346.
Chiappetta, E. L. (1997). Inquiry-based science. Strategies and techniques for encouraging inquiry in the classroom. The Science
Teacher, 64, 22-26.
Chiappetta E. L., & Adams, A. D. (2004). Inquiry-based instruction. The Science Teacher, 71 (2), 46–50.
Ciardiello, A.V. (2003). To wander and wonder: Pathways to literacy and inquiry through question-finding. Journal of Adolescent
& Adult Literacy, 47 (3), 228-239.
Cluck, M., & Hess, D. (2003). Improving student motivation through the use of the multiple intelligences. Master of Arts Action Research
Project, Saint Xavier University and SkyLight Professional Development Field-Based Master’s Program. ED479864, ERIC.
Colburn, A. (2004). Inquiring scientists want to know. Educational Leadership, 62 (1), 63- 66.
Cros, D., Maurin, M., Amouroux, R., Chastrette, M., Leber, J., & Fayol, M. (1986). Conceptions of first-year university students of the
constituents of matter and the notions of acids and bases. European Journal of Science Education, 8 (3), 305-313.
Çetingül, P. İ., & Geban, Ö. (2005). Understanding of acid - base concept by using conceptual change approach. Hacettepe Uni-
versity Journal of Education, 29, 69-74.
De Corte, E. (2013). Giftedness considered from the perspective of research on learning and instruction. High Ability Studies, 24
(1), 3-19.
Demirci, Ö., & Özmen, H. (2012). Zenginleştirilmişbir öğretim materyalinin öğrencilerin asit ve bazlarla ilgili anlamalarına etkisi [The
effect of enriched teaching material on students’ understanding of acids and bases]. Amasya Education Journal, 1 (1), 1-17.
Demircioğlu, G., Ayas, A., & Demircioğlu, H. (2005). Conceptual change achieved through a new teaching program on acids and
bases. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 6 (1), 36-51.
Erbaş, K. (2015). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji 8 ders kitabı [Textbook of elementary science and technology 8]. Ankara: Yıldırım Yayınları.
Eysink, T. H. S., Gersen, L., & Gijlers, H. (2015). Inquiry learning for gifted children. High Ability Studies, 26 (1), 63-74.
Fosnot, C. (1992). Constructing constructivism. In T. M. Duffy and D. H. Jonassen (Eds.). Constructivism and the technology of
instruction: A conversation (pp. 167-176). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Freedman, M. P. (1997). Relationship among laboratory instruction, attitude toward science, and achievement in science knowl-
edge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34 (4), 343-357.
Furio-Mas, C., Calatayud, L.M., Guisasola, J., & Furio-Gomez, C. (2005). How are the concepts and theories of acid base reactions pre-
sented? Chemistry in textbooks and as presented by teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 27 (11), 1337-1358.
Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2000). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (6th Ed.). New Jersey: Upper Sad-
dle River.
Gibson, H. L., & Chase, C. (2002). Longitudinal impact of an inquiry-based science program on middle school students’ attitudes
toward science. Science Education, 86, 693–705.
Green, J., Nelson, G., Martin, A. D., & Marsh, H. (2006). The causal ordering of self-concept and academic motivation and its effect
on academic achievement. International Education Journal, 7 (4), 534-546.
Griffiths A. K., & Preston, K. R. (1992). Grade-12 students’ misconceptions relating to fundamental characteristics of atoms and
molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29 (6), 611-628.
Hand, B., & Treagust, D. F. (1991). Student achievement and science curriculum development using a constructivist framework.
School Science and Mathematics, 91 (4), 172–176.
Harlen, W. (2004). Evaluating inquiry-based science developments. A paper commissioned by the National Research Council in
Preparation for A Meeting on the Status of Evaluation of Inquiry- Based Science Education. Bristol.
Harris, K. R., & Alexander, P. A. (1998). Integrated, constructivist education: Challenge and reality. Educational Psychology Review,
10, 115–127.
Hynd, C., Holschuh, J., & Nist, S. (2000). Learning complex scientific information: Motivation theory and its relation to student
perceptions. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 16 (1), 23–57.
Keefer, M. (2002). Designing reflections on practice: helping teachers apply cognitive learning principles in an SFT- inquiry-based
learning program. Interchange, 33 (4) 395- 417.
Khan, M. S., Hussain S., Ali, R., Majoka M. I., & Ramzan, M. (2011). Effect of inquiry method on achievement of students in chemistry
at secondary level. International Journal of Academic Research, 3 (1), 955 - 959.
Kim, J. S. (2005). The effects of constructivist teaching approach on student academic achievement, self- concept, and learning
strategies. Asia Pacific Education Review, 6, 7-19.
Koksal, E. A., & Berberoglu, G. (2014). The effect of guided- inquiry instruction on 6th grade Turkish students’ achievement, science
process skills, and attitudes toward science. International Journal of Science Education, 36 (1), 66-78.
Kousathana, M., Demerouti, M., & Tsaparlis, G. (2005). Instructional misconceptions in acid-base equilibria an analysis from a
history and philosophy of science perspective. Science and Education, 14 (2), 173-193.
Kowalczyk, D. L. (2003). An analysis of K-5 teachers’ beliefs regarding the uses of direct instruction, the discovery method, and the
inquiry method in elementary science education. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
1005
(P. 994-1008) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Köseoğlu, F., Budak, E., ve Kavak, N. (2002). Yapılandırmacı öğrenme teorisine dayalı ders materyali, öğretmen adaylarına asit-baz
konusu ile ilgili kavramların öğretilmesi [The constructivist learning theory based course material, teaching the concepts
related to acid-base subject to pre-service teachers]. METU Faculty of Education V. Science and Mathematics Congress,
16-18 September 2002, Ankara.
Kyle, Jr., W. C., Bonnstetter, R. J., McCloskey, J., & Fults, B. A. (1985). What research says: Science through discovery: Students love
it. Science and Children, 23 (2), 39-41.
Laverty, D. T., & McGarwey, J. E. B. (1991). A constructivist approach to learning. Education in Chemistry, 28, 99–102.
Lawson, A. E. (2010). Teaching inquiry science in middle and secondary schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Lee, O., & Brophy, J. (1996). Motivational patterns observed in sixth-grade science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 33 (3), 303-318.
Leonard, W. H. (2000). How do college students best learn science? Journal of College Science Teaching, 29 (6), 385 – 388.
Lim, B. R. (2001). Guidelines for designing inquiry-based learning on the web: Online professional development of educators. Unpub-
lished Doctoral Dissertation. Indiana University in Bloomington.
Llewellyn, D. (2007). Inquire within: Implementing inquiry-based science standards in grades 3-8. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Llewellyn, D. (2014). Inquire within: Implementing inquiry- and argument-based science standards in grades 3-8. (3rd Ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Lord, T., & Orkwiszewski, T. (2006). Moving from didactic to inquiry-based instruction in a science laboratory. The American Biol-
ogy Teacher, 68, 342–345.
Maehr, M. L. (1984). Meaning and motivation: Toward a theory of personal investment. In R.E. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Motivation
in education: Student motivation (pp. 115-144). San Diego: Academic Press.
Mao, S. L., & Chang, C. Y. (1998). Impacts of an inquiry teaching method on earth science students’ learning outcomes and atti-
tudes at the secondary school level. Proceedings of the National Science Council Part D: Mathematics, Science, and Technology
Education, 8 (3), 93-101.
McBride, J. W., Bhatti, M. I., Hannan, M. A., & Feinberg, M. (2004). Using an inquiry approach to teach science to secondary school
science teachers. Physics Education, 39 (5), 1-6.
McClary, L., & Talanquer, V. (2011). Heuristic reasoning in chemistry: Making decisions about acid strength. International Journal
of Science Education, 33 (10), 1433–1454.
Ministry of National Education [MNE], 2015-2016 Science and art centers students identification guide. Retrieved from http://
orgm.meb.gov.tr/www/2015-2016-bilim-ve-sanat-merkezleri-ogrenci-tanilama-kilavuzu-yayimlandi/icerik/619.
Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction –what is it and does it matter? Results from a
research synthesis years 1984-2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (4), 474-496.
MNE (2007). Guide for science and art centers. Tebliğler Dergisi, 2593.
MNE (2014). Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Özel Eğitim ve Rehberlik Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü, özel yetenekli bireylere yönelik çerçeve
eğitim programı taslağı [Ministry of National Education General Directorate of Special Education and Guidance Services,
framework training program for gifted and
Talented individuals]. Retrieved from http://orgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2014_01/27021830_ereveprogram-
tasla.pdf.
Morgil, İ., Yılmaz, A., Şen, O., ve Yavuz, S. (2002). Öğrencilerin asit-baz konusunda kavram yanılgıları ve farklı madde türlerinin kavram
yanılgılarını saptamak amacıyla kullanımı [Students’ misconceptions on acids-bases and the use of different test items for
determination of misconceptions]. METU Faculty of Education V. Science and Mathematics Congress, 16-18 September
2002, Ankara.
Mullen, D. M., Rutledge, M. L., & Swain, S. H. (2003). Modeling the process of science: Investigating sexual dimorphism in crayfish.
Bioscene, 29 (1), 7-13.
Nakhleh, M. B. (1994). Students’ models of matter in the context of acid-base chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 71 (6),
495-499.
Nakhleh, M. B., & Krajcik, J. S. (1994). Influence of levels of information as presented by different technologies on students’ un-
derstanding of acid, base and pH concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34 (10), 1077-1096.
National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. USA: National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4962.
Nolen, S. B., & Haladyna, T. M. (1990). Motivation and studying in high school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
27 (2), 115–126.
Özmen, H., Demircioğlu, G., & Coll, R. K. (2009). A comparative study of the effects of a concept mapping enhanced laboratory
experience on Turkish high school students’ understanding of acid-base chemistry. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 7, 1-24.
Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS Program. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Perry, V. R., & Richardson, C. P. (2001). The New Mexico tech master of science teaching program: An exemplary model of inquiry-based
learning. 31 st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Reno.
Phillips, N., & Lindsay, G. (2006). Motivation in gifted students. High Ability Studies, 17 (1), 57-73.
Pınarbaşı, T. (2007). Turkish und undergraduate students’ misconceptions on acids and bases. Journal of Baltic Science Education,
6 (1), 23-34.
1006
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 994-1008)
Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom
contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63 (2), 167–199.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Upper Saddle River, N.J.:Merrill,
Prentice-Hall International.
Polloway, E. A., Serna, L., Patton, J. R., & Bailey, J. W. (2013). Özel gereksinimi olan öğrenciler için öğretim stratejileri (10. basımdan çeviri)
[Teaching strategies for students with special needs]. Çeviri editörü: Ş.Yücesoy Özkan. Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
Quade Denny, M.L. (2011). Underachieving gifted African American males: Using action inquiry to investigate the cycle of under-
achievement. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Education in Teachers College, Columbia University.
Rahayu, S., Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., Kita, M., & Ibnu, S. (2011). Understanding acid-base concepts: Evaluating the
efficacy of a senior high school student-centred instructional program in Indonesia. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 9 (6), 1439-1458.
Richardson, V., & Renner, J. W. (1970). A study of the inquiry-discovery method of laboratory instruction. Journal of Chemical
Education, 47 (1), 77-79.
Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walberg-Henriksson, H., & Hemmo, V. (2007). Science education now: A renewed
pedagogy for the future of Europe. Luxembourg: European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/
science-society/document_library/pdf_06/report-rocard-on-science-education_en.pdf.
Ronning, C. T. (1998). A hand-on, inquiry based science curriculum for middle schools. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. The
Faculty of pacific Lutheran University.
Ross, B., & Munby, H. (1991) Concept mapping and misconceptions: A study of high school students’ understanding of acids and
bases. International Journal of Science Education, 13 (1), 11-23.
Roth, K. J. (1992). Science education: It’s not enough to ‘do’ or ‘relate’. In M. K. Pearsall (Eds.), Scope, sequence, and coordination of
secondary school science, volume 2 Relevant Research (pp. 151-164). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
Sak, U. (2010). Üstün zekalılar-özellikleri tanılanmaları eğitimleri [Gifted and talented individuals- characteristics, identification
and education of them]. Ankara: Maya Akademi.
Saunders, W. L., & Shepardson, D. (1987). A comparison of concrete and formal science instruction upon science achievement
and reasoning ability of sixth grade students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24 (1), 39-51.
Sheppard, K. (1997). A qualitative study of high school students pre- and post- instructional conceptions in acid-base chemistry.
Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.
Sheppard, K. (2006). High school students’ understanding of titrations and related acid-base phenomena. Chemistry Education
Research and Practice, 7, 32-45.
Shymansky, J. A., Hedges, L. V., & Woodworth, G. (1990). A reassessment of the effects of inquiry-based science curricula of the
60’s on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27 (2), 127-144.
Siegle, D., & McCoach, D. B. (2005). Motivating gifted students. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Smith, K. J., & Metz, P. A. (1996). Evaluating of Student understanding of solution chemistry through microscopic representations.
Journal of Chemical Education, 73 (3), 233-235.
Smutny, J. F., & von Fremd, S. E. (2004). Differentiating for the young child: Teaching strategies across the content areas (K-3). Thou-
sand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Spaulding, D. T. (2001). Stakeholder perceptions of inquiry-based instructional practices. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Albany
State University.
Spronken-Smith, R. (2007). Experiencing the process of knowledge creation: The nature and use of inquiry-based learning in higher
education. Retrieved from https://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/sites/default/files/u14/IBL%20-%20Report%20-20Appendix%20
A%20-%20Review.pdf.
Tarhan, L., & Acar-Sesen, B. (2012). Jigsaw cooperative learning: Acid-base theories. Chemistry Education Research and Practice,
13, 307-313.
Tatar, N., & Kuru, M. (2009). Açıklamalı yöntemlere karşı araştırmaya dayalı öğrenme yaklaşımı: İlköğretim öğrencilerinin fen bilgisi
dersine yönelik tutumlarına etkileri [Inquiry-based learning approach versus descriptive methods: Effects on elementary
students’ attitudes towards science]. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 25 (1), 142-152.
Tretter, T., & Jones, M. (2003). Relationships between inquirybased teaching and physical science standardized test scores. School
Science and Mathematics, 103 (7), 345350.
Trna, J. (2014). IBSE and gifted students. Science Education International, 25 (1), 19- 28.
Tuan, H-L., Chin, C-C., & Shieh, S-H. (2005). The development of a questionnaire to measure students’ motivation towards science
learning. International Journal of Science Education, 27 (6), 639–654.
Tuan, H.-L., Chin, C.-C., Tsai, C.-C. & Cheng S.-F. (2005). Investigating the effectiveness of inquiry instruction on the motivation of
different learning styles students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3, 541–566.
Tynjälä, P. (1999). Towards expert knowledge? A comparison between a constructivist and a traditional learning environment
in the University. International Journal of Educational Research, 33, 355–442.
Ünver, E. (2014). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji 8 ders kitabı [Textbook of elementary science and technology 8]. Ankara: Dikey Yayıncılık.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2006). A content analysis of evaluation findings across 20 gifted programs: A clarion call for enhanced gifted
program development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50 (3), 199 - 215.
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2006). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Brown, E. F. (2007). Toward best practice: An analysis of the efficacy of curriculum models in gifted educa-
tion. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51 (4), 342-358.
1007
(P. 994-1008) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Vidyapati T. J., & Seetharamappa, J. (1995). Higher secondary school students’ concepts of acids and bases. School Science Review,
77 (278), 82-84.
Wigfield, A., & Wentzel, K. (2007). Introduction to motivation at school: Interventions that work. Educational Psychologist, 42 (4),
191–196.
Wolfe, L. F. (1990). Teaching science to gifted underachievers: A conflict of goals. Canadian Journal of Special Education, 6 (1), 88-97.
Wolters, C. A. (1999). The relation between high school students’ motivational regulation and their use of learning strategies,
effort, and classroom performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 11 (3), 281–299.
Wolters, C. A., & Rosenthal, H. (2000). The relation between students’ motivational beliefs and attitudes and use of motivational
regulation strategies. International Journal of Educational Research, 33 (7), 801-820.
Yager R. E., & Akcay H. (2010). The advantages of an inquiry approach for science instruction in middle grades. School Science
and Mathematics, 110 (1), 5-12.
Yılmaz, H., & Huyugüzel-Çavaş, P. (2007). Fen öğrenimine yönelik motivasyon ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Reliabil-
ity and validity study of the students’ motivation toward science learning (SMTSL) questionnaire]. Elementary Education
Online, 6 (3) 430-440.
Yoon, C-H. (2009). Self-regulated learning and instructional factors in the scientific inquiry of scientifically gifted Korean middle
school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53 (3), 203-2016.
Zusho A., Pintrich P. R. & Coppalo, B. (2003). Skill and will: The role of motivation and cognition in the learning of college chemistry.
International Journal of Science Education, 25 (9), 1081-1094.
Received: August 11, 2017 Accepted: November 10, 2017
Sinem Dinçol Özgür PhD, Research Assistant at Department of Chemistry Education,

Hacettepe University, Beytepe-Ankara, Turkey.
E-mail: sinemdincol@hacettepe.edu.tr
Ayhan Yılmaz PhD, Prof. Dr. at Department of Chemistry Education, Hacettepe
University, Beytepe-Ankara, Turkey.
E-mail: ayhany@hacettepe.edu.tr
1008
INNOVATIVE TEACHING/
LEARNING METHODS
TO IMPROVE SCIENCE, ISSN 1648-3898 /Print/
TECHNOLOGY AND ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/
ENGINEERING CLASSROOM
CLIMATE AND INTEREST
Majda Fiksl, Abstract. For successful work in the class-

Andrej Flogie, room, it is important to create a positive cli-
mate and to involve students actively in the
Boris Aberšek process of learning. The presented research
focused on how the students perceived the
classroom climate, and on their interest in
the contents of the subject Science, Engi-
Introduction neering and Technology (STE). 92 primary
school sixth- and seventh-grade students
For successful teaching and learning process in the school, it is impor- had been included in research. Two groups
tant to increase student motivation, create a positive climate and to involve are established, one from a class using
students actively in the process of learning. The teacher, as the carrier of mainly frontal teaching methods (control
educational process, is faced with the difficult task of adapting to new de- group) and another, expert group from a
mands, of becoming qualified to handle various interpersonal relationships class using an innovative teaching/learning
and to work in a classroom with an open, two-way communication. The main methods mainly as problem and research-
task of contemporary schools is to place the student in an active role, and to based learning and participatory learning
include innovative teaching/learning methods such as problem-, research- or supported with information communica-
inquiry-based learning, which are contrary to traditional one-way (frontal) tion technology.
teaching methods. The teacher, therefore, must be a collaborator, adviser and To measure the classroom climate and
educator, the one that organizes the educational process, teaches students, the students’ interest, a survey with 54
and uses those kinds of teaching methods, which help the student to con- statements was used. The results confirmed
sciously, actively, and comprehensively learn the teaching contents and the changes in the perception of classroom
objectives related to them, while at the same time developing the required climate and in the popularity of contents
skills (Pritchard, 2009; Sharples, et al., 2016). taught in STE, in relation to the teaching
Since the year 2000, radical changes can be observed in the field of methods used. It was established that inno-
education and training and the basic paradigm of technology-supported vative teaching/learning methods increase
teaching, which is transitioning from technology-oriented learning and teach- the students′ interest, and help to improve
ing to student-centred classrooms (Dolenc, Aberšek, 2015). While this may classroom climate.
give rise to new opportunities, it also requires a different approach to work
Keywords: classroom climate, students
on behalf of teachers, a different attitude of teachers towards students and
interest, innovative didactical methods,
towards knowledge in general, i.e., a different kind of school climate. In several
lower secondary education.
studies (Fraser, Fisher, 1983; Westling Allodi, 2002; Ghaith, 2003; Martin, Mul-
lis, Foy, & Hooper, 2016), the effect of classroom climate has been analysed
according to teaching strategies, organizational factors, or the student’s
learning achievements. The research has confirmed that a positive climate in Majda Fiksl
a classroom can only be established through mutual respect, collaboration, Primary School Bistrica, Slovenia
two-way communication, participatory learning, and tolerance. The Teaching Andrej Flogie
Institute Anton Martin Slomšek, Slovenia
and learning international survey – OECD (2014) lists school climate as one Boris Aberšek
of the most important external factors in education, and emphasizes the University of Maribor, Slovenia
fact that school climate is importantly linked to both teaching and learning,
1009
INNOVATIVE TEACHING/LEARNING METHODS TO IMPROVE SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/
(P. 1009-1019) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
as well as to students’ achievements and learning interest. These statements shall be confirmed or refuted in the
presented research.
The theoretical foundations to teaching practice for SET practical classes were founded on the basis of Hei-
mann’s (1976) didactics of learning theory. According to Heimann (1976) and his model of the didactics of learning
theory, also called the Berlin model (Neubert, Biglmaier, 1991), teaching is structured around a core structure
comprising six formal characteristics: goals, content, method, didactic means, anthropogenic characteristics, and
socio-cultural circumstances. Teachers and students do not appear explicitly in this structure, although the theory,
which builds classroom work upon this structure, highly emphasizes the role and activity of students in the class-
room (Aberšek, 2012).
On the basis of Heimann’s methodology, an innovative didactic model S-FBL_SET (Structural-Functional Based
Learning Science, Engineering and Technology) was developed. It is used to ensure discipline and transparency
in classes, to direct and carry out classes by means of problem-based and research-based learning (PBL and RBL),
and thereby to provide for successful planning, analysis, and assessment of teaching. This model also serves as
the basis for the proposed changes, i.e. for the further development and optimization of this innovative teaching
model (Aberšek, Borstner, & Bregant, 2014, Fiksl, Aberšek, 2014).
In schools, both cognitive as well as social competences must be developed; working methods must be
adapted, and classrooms should provide the kind of teaching/learning climate that enables the students to be
as active as possible, and to be able to creatively achieve the goals stated in the curricula. This will support the
development of students’ creativity and social competences, i.e. the relationship towards their classmates, and
towards society as a whole.
The research thus aims at providing an answer to a fundamental research question: does classroom climate
and the students’ interest in STE classes that use the innovative didactic model (S-FBL_SET) improve in comparison to
traditional, frontal teaching methods? The answer to this question shall be confirmed or refuted in the presented
research.
General Background
The research was carried out in lower secondary school SET classes, as part of a thematic set called Making a
product. To study the effect of the S-FBL_SET model on the students’ interest in the learning contents, and on the
climate in the classroom, an experimental approach was used. The students were divided into the experimental
Figure 1: Structure of research.
1010
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ INNOVATIVE TEACHING/LEARNING METHODS TO IMPROVE SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 1009-1019)
group (EG) and the control group (CG). The selected group of students represents a simple random sample from
a hypothetical population (all students as the selected sample). The first teacher in EG incorporated the S-FBL_SET
teaching methods, with formative assessment of the results. The second teacher performed the teaching process
according to traditional, frontal teaching methods in the CG. The same content was treated in both research groups,
the same wooden products were made, and both groups were examined over a time period of twelve school les-
sons. The structure of the research is schematically shown in Figure 1.
Sample of Research
In the school year 2016/17, 92 students were included in the research, students from two sixth-grade classes
(43.5%, N=40) and two seventh-grade classes (56.5%, N=52) from the same lower secondary school, aged between
10 and 11 years. Regarding the gender, the sample contains 42 boys, which equals 45.6% and 50 girls, which equals
54.4%. Regarding the grades in the SET class, one student received the grade D (1.1%), 15 students received a C
(16.3%), 44 received a B (47.8%), and 32 students received an A (34.8%). The students were divided randomly ac-
cording to number, grade, ages and gender, into the CG and the EG, with two teachers (the first teacher in the EG,
the second teacher in the CG). Students were randomly distributed so that both research groups contained the
same number of students (N=46) according to Table 1.
Table 1. Structure of sample according to gendar, grade, class and researcg groups.
Experimental group (EG) Control group (CG) Together
f f (%) f f (%) f f (%)
Boys 21 22.8 21 22.8 42 45.6

Gender
Girls 25 27.2 25 27.2 50 54.4
D 0 0.0 1 2.2 1 1.1
C 6 13.0 9 19.6 15 16.3
Grade
B 22 47.8 22 47.8 44 47.8
A 18 39.1 14 30.4 32 34.8
6 20 43.5 20 43.5 40 43.5
School Class
7 26 56.5 26 56.5 52 56.5
Together 46 50.0 46 50.0 92 100.0
Instrument and Procedures of Research
The pilot research started in the school year 2013/2014 (Fiksl, Aberšek, 2014), followed by a thematic-meth-
odological editing, addressing deficiencies and errors, to produce a finalized and improved version of the survey,
which was then used in the school year 2016/2017, in SET classes. In both cases (the pilot research and the final
research), pre-tests and post-tests were conducted.
For both surveys, two research groups were chosen: the EG, where teaching was conducted following the S-
FBL_SET model, and the CG, where the frontal teaching method was applied. The research problem was to discover
the effect of the proposed innovative didactic model S-FBL_SET in Science, Engineering and Technology (SET) lower
secondary school classes, from the point of view of classroom climate and consequently of the students’ interest.
Classroom climate was measured from the point of view of three categories, derived from Moos’ theory (1979), and
combining the following areas of implementation in the classroom:
•• interpersonal relationships (connection, satisfaction, inequality, teacher’s support, activeness, tension),

•• personal development of an individual (exploration, competitiveness, difficulty), and
•• systemic characteristics (variation, rules, goal orientation, organization).
1011
(P. 1009-1019) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
The students’ interest in individual technical contents and forms of work as consequences of classroom climate
was measured according to the interest in searching for ideas, planning, making a product, and evaluating the work.
The empirical research was thus comprised of four sets of survey questions according to classroom climate:
•• What are the differences between students from the EG and CG regarding their interpersonal relation-
ships?
•• What are the differences between students from the EG and CG regarding their personal development?
•• What are the differences between students from the EG and CG regarding the systemic characteristics
of the classroom?
•• What are the differences between students from the EG and CG regarding the way they perceive the
classroom climate?
And as a consequence of classroom climate we add one sets of survey questions according to student’s interest:
•• Has classroom climate influence on the students’ interest in individual STE contents between students
from the EG and CG?
In the survey, standard questionnaires (Fraser, Fisher, 1983; Fraser, Rentoul, 1980) for assessing the classroom
climate were used, partially upgraded with our own formulations. The questionnaire was adapted to the field of
acquiring skills, as well as to the students’ age; therefore, some of the statements were simplified, using only those
that correspond in terms of content to the area of our research.
The research data were collected during April, May, and June 2017, by means of a planned survey conducted
on sixth- and seventh-grade lower secondary school students. The students filled in the questionnaires for the first
time at the beginning of the research, and the same questionnaires once again later, at the end of the conducted
research. The approximate time of filling in the questionnaire was 20 minutes; in groups, with a teacher present,
who provided the students with detailed instructions. The questionnaire consists of three sections:
•• the basic demographic section, which refers to the basic characteristics of the individual interviewee
(gender, class, etc.),
•• the student’s interest in individual themes and activities of SET classes in lower secondary schools, the
scale consisting of eleven statements divided into four sections (ideas, planning, making a product
and evaluating the work),
•• 43 statements describing what goes on in the classroom in the sense of perceiving the classroom
climate; statements are divided into three sections (interpersonal relationships, students’ personal
development, and inclusion of systemic characteristics into practical classes).
Each category (interpersonal relationships (I_R), personal development (P_D), systematic characteristic (S_C))
is represented by several individual dimensions of classroom climate. Classroom interpersonal relationships are
represented by dimensions of connection (5 statements), satisfaction (3 statements), inequality (3 statements),
teacher’s support (4 statements), activeness in class (4 statements), and tension (3 statements). An individual’s per-
sonal development is measured by dimensions of exploration (4 statements), competitiveness (2 statements), and
difficulty (3 statements). Finally, systemic characteristics are measured by dimensions of variation (3 statements),
rules (3 statements), goal orientation (3 statements), and organization (3 statements). The questions in the survey
questionnaire were closed-end questions. The students’ interest in learning about technical topics was expressed
by means of a 5-point Likert scale: 1-dislike very much, 2-dislike, 3-cannot decide, 4-like, 5-like very much. To each
of the statements related to classroom atmosphere, the students replied on a five-point assessment scale: 1-almost
never, 2-rarely, 3-sometimes, 4-often, 5-very often.
Data Analysis
Microsoft Excel spread sheets in the form of a linear graph were used for graphical data presentation and SSSP
for statistical analyses. Questionnaire data were computer-processed on the levels of descriptive and inferential
statistics, whereby the following procedures were used (Cohen, 1988):
•• frequency distributions (f, f%) of the values of selected descriptive variables,
1012
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 1009-1019)
•• the arithmetic mean (x ̄ ) of numerically expressed degrees of agreement (5-like very much ... 1-dislike
very much),
•• to establish the reliability of the questionnaire, the method of analysing the inner consistency of the
questionnaire was used, with the calculation of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α); in general, higher val-
ues signify a higher reliability of the questionnaire, if this value is higher than 0.60 the questionnaire is
reliable enough (under 0.50 – unacceptable, up to 0.60 – low, up to 0.70 – acceptable, do 0.90 – high,
above 0.90 – excellent),
•• χ2-test (χ2, p) of the independence hypothesis for testing differences according to gender, group, and
grade (score),
•• t-test (t, p) for testing differences according to the group in the selected numerical variables of the
initial and end states,
•• measuring the effect size of Cohen’s (d) with the criteria (0.20 – small effect, 0.50 – medium effect, and
0.80 – large effect) to establish the practical relevance of statistical findings, whereby effect size is in-
terpreted as the degree of connection between the effect and the dependent variable (Cohen, 1988).
Results of Research
To ensure the necessary internal validity of the experiment, and thereby the possibility of attributing the
discrepancies between the EG and the CG, students from both groups have evaluated their interest in technical
contents and the happening in the classroom in the sense of climate (interpersonal relationship, personal develop-
ment, system characteristic) both before and after their Science, Engineering and Technology classes.
Table 2: t-test results for independent samples of testing the differences in the result of interest and atmos-
phere (relationship, development, system), according to the group before the experiment.
Group s F* P* t p
EG 38.348 8.182
INTEREST 0.076 .783 1.639 .105
CG 35.478 8.609
EG 73.283 11.475
I_R** 0.017 .897 -0.812 .419
CG 75.283 12.136
EG 26.022 5.775
P_D** 1.071 .303 0.917 .362
CG 24.804 6.911
EG 38.413 8.060
S_C** 0.765 .384 -0.535 .594
CG 39.261 7.126
EG 137.717 22.535
CLIMATE 0.218 .642 -0.350 .727
CG 139.348 22.105
* In all cases, the assumption of homogeneity of variance is justified (p > .05), and therefore the standard t-test was used.
**
(I_R) - interpersonal relationships, (P_D) - personal development, (S_C) - systematic characteristic
Results of the t-test for independent samples of differences before the experiment indicate (Table 2) that
there are no statistically significant differences (p > .05) between EG and CG in the individual categories of atmo-
sphere (relationship, development, system), nor in the common result of measuring atmosphere and interest in
the classroom during SET classes. The obtained average values ( ) show (Table 2) that students from EG have
evaluated their interest in individual activities, and classroom atmosphere in individual categories (relationship,
development, system) during SET classes, similarly to the students from CG. In both compared groups (EG and
CG), students evaluated all categories slightly above the midrange number of points. Findings show that there are
no statistically significant differences between the groups, and therefore differences between the students from
EG and CG do not exist.
After the finalising survey, results were obtained from a statistical testing of differences (t-test, Cohen’s d effect)
between EG and CG students, according to individual dimensions of interest, relationship, development, system,
and atmosphere as a whole, for the subject of SET in primary school (Table 3).
1013
(P. 1009-1019) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Table 3: t-test results for independent samples of testing differences in dimensions of interest, relationship,
development, and system, according to the group (EG or KG) after the experiment.
Group x̄ s F* P* t p d
EG 7.935 1.181 5.063

Idea 27.589 .001 .001 1.099
CG 6.109 2.142 approximation
EG 12.065 1.665 6.809

Planning 16.342 .001 .001 1.460
INTEREST
EG 12.848 1.429 5.548

Making 10.776 .001 .001 1.178
EG 12.674 1.431 5.973

Evaluation 12.679 .001 .001 1.296
EG 20.587 2.446 5.104

Connection 1.750 .001 .001 1.096
EG 12.022 1.527 4.290

Satisfaction 6.813 .011 .001 0.915
EG 7.370 2.195
Inequality 2.977 .088 -3.801 .001 0.802
CG 9.457 3.009
I_R**
Teacher’s EG 16.804 6.054

0.028 .868 2.276 .025 0.491
support CG 14.457 3.507
EG 16.435 1.809 2.618
Activeness 4.508 .036 .010 0.552
EG 7.283 2.167
Tension 1.792 .184 -4.359 .001 0.911
CG 9.413 2.508
EG 16.087 2.138 7.387
Exploration 19.394 .001 .001 1.617
Competitive- EG 8.087 1.208 6.002

P_D**
4.519 .036 .001 1.275

ness CG 6.174 1.793 approximation
EG 6.044 1.173 -3.964

Difficulty 25.687 .001 .001 0.768
EG 11.130 1.046 1.559

Variation 6.269 .014 .122 0.332
EG 12.457 1.312 5.533

Rules 14.397 .001 .001 1.195
S_C**
Goal orienta- EG 12.696 1.504 5.716

14.923 .001 .001 1.236
tion CG 10.130 2.647 approximation
EG 10.109 1.609 4.626

Organization 9.345 .003 .001 0.985
EG 157.109 11.850 5.059

Climate 6.114 .015 .001 1.087
* The assumption of homogeneity of variance is not justified (p < .05) in fourteen dimensions (ideas, planning, making, evaluation,
connection, satisfaction, activeness, exploration, competitiveness, difficulty, variation, rules, goal orientation, organization), and in the
whole case of atmosphere, hence results of the approximation method are listed. For the parameters of inequality, teacher’s support,
and tension, the assumption of homogeneity of variance is justified (p > .05), therefore results of the standard t-test are listed.
**
(I_R) - interpersonal relationships, (P_D) - personal development, (S_C) - systematic characteristic
1014
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 1009-1019)
The t-test proved (Table 3), that the difference between EG and CG after the concluded experiment was statisti-
cally significant (p < .05) for all dimensions of interest, relationship, development, and three dimensions of system.
As demonstrated by measuring the effect size of Cohen’s d, the effect size of the experiment is large (d > .80) for
all the stated dimensions, except for teacher’s support, activeness in class, and difficulty, where the effect size is
medium. A statistically significant difference, however, was not proven (p = .122) for the dimension of variation,
where also the effect size of the experiment, as shown by Cohen’s d in this respect, is small (d = .332). The obtained
average values of the evaluations ( X ) of interest in Table 3 show that dimensions of inequality, tension, and dif-
ficulty, were evaluated lower by students from EG, than by students from CG. All other dimensions were evaluated
higher by EG students in comparison to CG students. This means that students from EG perceived less tension and
inequality in the group, and a lower level of difficulty of the work, than students from CG.
Figure 2: Initial state and arithmetic mean differences for students’ interest and climate, for the expert (EG)
and control group (CG).
Figure 2 shows that students from the EG have improved their interest and the perception of atmosphere
in all dimensions (relationship, development, system) after the concluded experiment, which is also statistically
confirmed below.
Below is an analysis of the students’ interest and atmosphere between the initial and end states in the class-
room, for the subject of SET in primary school, after the concluded experiment, shown separately (Table 4):
•• in the EG - initial and end state and

•• in the CG - initial and end state.
1015
(P. 1009-1019) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Table 4. t-test results for dependent samples of testing differences between the initial and end states, in the
overall and individual result for atmosphere and interest, according to the group.
Group State s | z
- k
| t p d
Initial 38.348 8.182

INTEREST 7.174 -7.364 .001 1.191
End 45.522 3.863
Initial 73.283 11.475
I_R 7.217 -5.190 .001 0.729
End 80.500 8.315
Initial 26.022 5.775
EG P_D 4.196 -7.446 .001 0.943
End 30.217 3.126
Initial 38.413 8.060
S_C 7.978 -8.896 .001 1.445
End 46.391 2.985
Initial 137.717 22.535
CLIMATE 19.391 -8.514 .001 1.128
End 157.109 11.850
Initial 35.478 8.609
INTEREST 0.283 -1.241 .221 0.034
End 35.7609 7.995
Initial 75.283 12.136
I_R 0.565 -1.453 .153 0.049
End 75.848 10.768
Initial 24.804 6.911
CG P_D 0.065 -0.443 .660 0.010
End 24.870 6.520
Initial 39.261 7.126
S_C 0.022 0.072 .943 0.003
End 39.239 6.353
Initial 139.348 22.105
CLIMATE 0.609 -0.988 .328 0.029
End 139.957 19.707
In EG the t-test proved (Table 4) that the difference between the initial and end states is statistically significant
(p < .05) for interest, relationship, development, system, and atmosphere, as an overall result (p = .001). As shown
by measuring the effect size of Cohen’s d, the size of the experiment is large (d > .80) for the categories of develop-
ment (d = .943), systemic characteristics (d = 1.445), and atmosphere as a whole (d = 1.128). The smallest effect size,
a medium one, was demonstrated for relationships (d = .729). Arithmetic means ( X ) show that the initial state in
all categories is lower in comparison to the end state. At the end of the experiment, students from EG demonstrate
a higher level of interest in the contents, and a better perception of the relationships, development, system, and
atmosphere as a whole. Results of arithmetic mean absolute differences’ test (| X z - X k|) in the EG have shown that
on average, students have a lower consistency as regards systemic characteristics in the classroom (variation, rules,
goal orientation, organization), and a higher consistency as regards the individual’s personal development (explo-
ration, competitiveness, difficulty). After the concluded experiment, EG students perceived a greater difference in
systemic characteristics than in development.
A statistically significant difference between the initial and end states of the experiment was not proven (p
> .05) in the CG for interest (p = .221), relationship (p = .153), development (p = .660), system (p = .943), and atmo-
sphere as a whole (p = .328). Indeed, as shown by Cohen’s d, the effect size of the experiment is a small one for all
categories from this point of view. Arithmetic means ( X ) show (Table 4) that the initial state in all categories was
evaluated similarly as the end state. Results of arithmetic mean absolute differences’ test (| X z - X k|) in the CG show
that there were no statistically significant differences between the initial and end states, since the differences in
derogations are very small. There were almost no differences perceived between students from the control group
(CG) before and after the concluded experiment, which was expected, since no additional changes were introduced
to the classes.
1016
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 1009-1019)
Discussion
This research was concerned with 5 set of research questions about whether there are differences between
teaching/learning methods using in the expert (EG) and the control group (CG) regarding the 1. students’ interest,
2. interpersonal relationships, 3. individual’s development, 4. systemic characteristics, and the 5. classroom climate
as a whole. The parameters were treated separately, considering the initial and end states of the experiment.
Considering the initial state before the experiment it was concluded that there are no statistically significant
differences between the compared groups (EG and CG), therefore differences between EG and CG students do not
exist (Table 1). Before the experiment, both groups (EG, CG) display a similar level of interest and attitude towards
the content of their STE classes, and also perceive the classroom climate similarly, in terms of relationships, develop-
ment, and system. From the point of view of further processing of data related to the end state of the experiment,
this is a favourable starting point for post-experiment group comparison.
Considering the final state after the experiment it was concluded that there are statistically significant dif-
ferences present between the groups EG and CG, both in the category of interest and awareness, as well as in all
categories of a climate (interpersonal relationship, personal development, system characteristic), individually and
overall. Following a detailed statistical analysis of the individual dimensions of interest, relationship, development,
and system, we can summarize the most important empirical findings.
Interest: in testing the effects of the modern didactic model S-FBL_SET on students interest it was concluded
that a statistically higher interest is demonstrated by EG students, which is confirmed by similar research (Cohen,
Mccabe, Michelli, Pickeral, 2009; Feaser & Fisher, 1983, Dumont, Istance, & Benavides, 2010, Kordigel Aberšek,
2012). Students from the EG have demonstrated a greater interest in coming up with ideas, planning, making, and
evaluating a product. The greatest difference between the groups was related to the planning of a product, which
can be attributed to the teacher’s explaining of the theoretical part during the (hand-)making of the product itself.
The smallest difference was observed in evaluating the product, where students calculated the costs of making
the product, which was a rather demanding and less interesting task for them.
Interpersonal relationships: between the groups EG and CG, a statistically and practically significant difference
is confirmed for four dimensions of relationship (connection, satisfaction, inequality, tension). Further, a statistically
significant difference is confirmed for two dimensions of relationship (teacher’s support, activeness). In the EG a
greater connection was perceived by the students, a greater level of satisfaction while working, more teacher’s
support, and more active participation during the classes. The results are partly consistent with findings from
previous research (Monsen in Frederickson, 2004). Moreover, less tension and less inequality were also perceived
in the classroom, which means that the teacher motivated all his students, and not expose individuals. The great-
est difference between the groups (EG and CG) is present regarding connection (friendship, group work). Similar
findings have been discovered by other research (Cohen, Mccabe, Michelli, Pickeral, 2009, OECD, 2009), a sense of
connection is highest with younger students, with age, they become more critical. The smallest difference concerns
the level of students’ activeness during classes (medium effect size).
Personal development: a statistically and practically significant difference is also confirmed for all dimensions of
development (exploration, competitiveness, difficulty). In EG the students perceived more chances to explore and a
higher level of competitiveness, but a lesser difficulty level of schoolwork. There is a very large difference between
EG and CG regarding the parameter of exploration, which can be attributed to a greater activeness of the students
and the teacher, while searching for an idea for a product. A smaller difference between EG and CG was confirmed
regarding the difficulty of the work, where the effect size was medium. This means that the performance-oriented
climate in both groups was similar, and was evaluated by the students with an average of 3 points on a scale from
1 to 5 (not difficult, not easy). Students from the CG were considerably less unanimous in assessing the level of
difficulty, as compared to students from the EG. A perceived lesser difficulty is confirmed by studies by (Cohen,
Mccabe, Michelli, Pickeral, 2009; Feaser & Fisher, 1983, Dumont, Istance, & Benavides, 2010) which is attributed to
instruction-guided teaching and asking questions.
Systemic characteristics: a statistically and practically significant difference is also confirmed for three dimensions
of system (rules, goal orientation, organization). In EG the students perceived a greater level of goal orientation
(they know exactly what to do and how to do it), clearly defined rules during work, and good organization (they
are not bored during classes). Cohen, Mccabe, Michelli, Pickeral, (2009, Westling Allodi, 2002) perceives clarity of
rules as higher with younger students. A statistically and practically significant difference, however, was not con-
firmed for the dimension of variation. On average, students from both groups (EG and CG) agree that they prefer
1017
(P. 1009-1019) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
to work in class, if something interests them, and at the same time, that they sometimes make an effort only to
get a better grade. The students should relate their feeling of success to their work and their persistence (Dweck,
2006), not to the grade.
Climate: in the perception of classroom climate, a statistically and practically significant difference is demon-
strated for all categories of atmosphere in the EG. Results show that, following the modern didactic model S-FBL_SET,
a positive learning environment can be created, and a climate can be provided in the classroom, which is equally
good or even better than the existing, which was confirmed by OECD (2009, 2013, 2014) research. Classroom
climate was rated highly by both research groups (EG and CG), all average values were evaluated at least slightly
above the midrange number of points, which is consistent with the findings of (Cohen, Mccabe, Michelli, Pickeral,
2009; Feaser & Fisher, 1983, Dumont, Istance, & Benavides, 2010), that the perception of classroom atmosphere
diminishes, as the students progress to higher grades, i.e. with years of schooling. The highest level of perception
was observed in primary schools, whereas in secondary schools the differences are lesser and lesser.
All five sets of the research questions posed were answered. The results show that teaching students using
didactic methods on the basis of the S-FBL_SET model, had a positive impact both on the students’ interest in
individual contents of the subject, as well as on all categories of classroom climate, according to relationships,
personal development, and systemic characteristics. In Slovenia, the positive effect of various teaching models in
natural sciences has been confirmed by the research work of Pešaković, Flogie and Aberšek (2014), Vieluf, Kaplan,
Klieme, Bayer, (2012) and OECD (2009).
Conclusions
To sum up the results of the analysis of improvements in the perception of classroom climate and the students’
interest in individual contents in their Science, Engineering and Technology classes, it can be concluded that in the
conditions of statistically controlled variables of climate and interest, the experiment had a positive effect. Stu-
dents from the EG had better interpersonal relationships, their personal growth was enhanced, they were better
organized in the classroom and demonstrated a greater interest in the contents, which led to a greater popularity
of the subject, a more pleasant climate, improved attitudes towards learning, and a general improvement in the
well-being of the students. Drawing designs for their products with the help of the computer became more popular
among the students, as well as getting to know the more technical aspects during the process of work. It could be
concluded that group work encourages better collaboration and places a greater importance on friendship, as the
students learn to help each other with their work. On the other hand, a small difference was observed between the
groups regarding the students’ activeness, and the level of difficulty of the schoolwork. Teachers should be actively
shaping the learning environment so that it listens to and guides the students, praises them for their participation,
encourages them, and takes effort and persistence into account when assessing. This may well be the cause behind
the fact that no difference was observed between the research groups regarding variation between students. In
planning and designing classes, the students’ interests must be considered, the subject matter brought closer to
them, and they should be guided towards building their own knowledge based on previous experience.
Transferring theory to practice with the help of an advanced learning environment, following the progressive
S-FBL_SET model, provides teachers with an innovative approach to teaching Science, Engineering and Technology,
which is more student-oriented and at the same time ensures and promotes high-quality teaching and learning.
Changes in schools, therefore, are definitely possible, if the teachers truly feel the need for change, if they provide
the time and approach this task with commitment and the appropriate knowledge. We can conclude that SET
classes organized in such a way meet one of the basic conditions for acquiring high-quality knowledge and skills,
from various perspectives of organizing the educational process in lower secondary school grades.
Acknowledgements
The research leading to these results received funding from the following project: Innovative Pedagogy 1:1 in
the Light of the 21st Century; under Grant Agreement Number C 3330-13-319003. The authors would like to thank
the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia, and the European Structural Fund.
1018
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (P. 1009-1019)
References
Aberšek, B. (2012). Didaktika tehniškega izobraževanja med teorijo in prakso [Didactics of science and technology education
between theory and practice]. Ljubljana: Zavod Republike Slovenije za šolstvo.
Aberšek, B., Borstner, B., & Bregant, J. (2014). The virtual science teacher as a hybrid system: Cognitive science hand in hand with
cybernetic pedagogy. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13 (1), 75-90.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, J., Mccabe, E.M., Michelli, N.M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research. Teachers College Record, 111 (1), 180–213.
Dumont, H., Istance, D. & Benavides, F. (2010). The nature of learning, using research to inspire practice. Paris: OECD.
Dolenc, K., & Aberšek, B. (2015). TECH8 intelligent and adaptive e-learning system: Integration info Technology and Science
classrooms in lower secondary schools. Computers and Education, 82 (0), 354-365.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset. New York: Random House.
Fiksl, M., & Aberšek, B. (2014). Classroom climate as a part of contemporary didactical approaches. Problems of Education in the
21st Century, 61, 28-36.
Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1983). Assessment of Classroom Psychosocial Environment, Workshop Manual. Bentley: WAIT, Faculty
of Education.
Fraser, B. J., & Rentoul, A. J. (1980). Person-environment fit in open classrooms. Journal of Educational Research, 73, 159-167.
Ghaith, G. (2003). The relationship between forms of instruction, achievement and perceptions of classroom climate. Educational
Research, 45 (1), 83–93.
Heimann, P. (1976). Didaktik als unterrichts wissenschaft [Teaching as teaching science]. Stutgart: Klett.
Kordigel Aberšek, M. (2012). Neuroscience, world wide web and reading curriculum. Problems of Education in the 21st Century,
46, 66-73.
Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2016). TIMSS 2015 International Results in Science. Boston College: TIMSS & PIRLS
International Study
Monsen, J., & Frederickson, N. L. (2004). Teachers’ attitudes towards mainstreaming and their pupils’ perceptions of their classroom
learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 7, 129-142.
Moos, R. H. (1979). Evaluating educational environment: Procedures, measures, findings and policy implications. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Neubert, H., & Biglmaier, F. (1991). Die Berliner Didaktik, Paul Heimann [Berlin Didactice: Paul Heimann]. Berlin: Colleguium Verlag.
Pešakovič, D., Flogie, A., & Aberšek, B. (2014). Development and evaluation of a competence-based teaching process for science
and technology education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13 (5), 740-755
Pritchard, A. (2009). Ways of learning: learning theories and learning styles in the classroom (2nd edition). London: David Fulton.
Sharples, M., de Roock , R., Ferguson, R., Gaved, M., Herodotou, C., Koh, E., Kukulska-Hulme, A., Looi, C-K, McAndrew, P., Rienties,
B., Weller, M., & Wong, L. H. (2016). Innovating Pedagogy 2016: Open University Innovation Report 5. Milton Keynes: The Open
University.
OECD (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD (2013). PISA 2012 Results: What students know and can do: Student performance in mathematics, reading and science. Volume
I. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD (2014). New Insights from TALIS 2013: Teaching and Learning in Primary and Upper Secondary Education, Paris: OECD Publishing.
Vieluf S., Kaplan, D., Klieme, E., & Bayer, S. (2012). Teaching Practices and Pedagogical Innovation: Evidence from TALIS. Paris: OECD
Publishing.
Westling Allodi, M. (2002). A two-level analysis of classroom climate in relation to social context, group composition, and orga-
nization of special support. Learning Environments Research, 5, 253–274.
Received: August 31, 2017 Accepted: November 11, 2017
Majda Fiksl Primary School Bistrica, Begunjska 2, 4290 Tržič, Slovenia.

E-mail: majda.fiksl@guest.arnes.si
Andrej Flogie Institute Anton Martin Slomšek, Vrbanska 30,
2000 Maribor, Slovenia.
E-mail: andrej.flogie@slomskov-zavod.si
Boris Aberšek PhD, Professor, University of Maribor, Faculty of Natural Science and
Mathematics, Koroška 160, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia.
E-mail: boris.abersek@um.si
1019
FEASIBILITY OF CREATIVE
EXPLORATION, CREATIVE
ELABORATION, CREATIVE
MODELING, PRACTICE
SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY,
DISCUSSION, REFLECTION
(C3PDR) TEACHING MODEL
Abstract. Creative exploration, Creative TO IMPROVE STUDENTS’
elaboration, Creative modeling, Practice
scientific creativity, Discussion and Reflec- SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY OF
tion (C3PDR) teaching model is a model JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
specifically developed to improve the
students’ scientific creativity of junior high
school. This research is aimed to analyze
the feasibility of C3PDR model in improving
the students’ science creativity. The teach- Zulkarnaen,
ing model is considered feasible if it meets
Z.A. Imam Supardi,
the criteria: valid, practical and effective.
Ninety-six of the eighth-grade students Budi Jatmiko
in Samarinda, Indonesia who attended
the science subjects participated in the
research during the odd semester in aca- Introduction
demic year 2015/2016. Its validation was
performed by three science education ex- The amount of effort that experts have done to enhance creativity proves
perts through focus group discussions and that it is needed in the 21st century. Various techniques and strategies are used
using validation sheets. The practicality of to enhance the scientific creativity. Doron, (2017), used a technique, which
the model was assessed by 4 teachers using is to improve creativity through a program in the form of a series of creative
the observation sheets and the effective- tasks that students must complete through their daily activities with the help
ness of the model was determined based on of visual media such as television and other game media. A ten-week study
the pre-test post-test of scientific creativ- followed by 10 to 14-year-olds showed that the students’ creativity tests were
ity. Scientific creativity measured using higher than non-program students. Das, Dewhurst & Gray (2011), using the
Scientific Creativity Structure Model (SCSM) Arts as a Tool for Learning Across the Curriculum (ATLAC) approach, used art
test. The results showed that this model has as a medium for each subject to create interdisciplinary learning contexts. The
the content and construct validity in very results showed that ATLAC was able to improve the characteristics of creativ-
valid category, practical, and effective with ity, namely intrinsic motivation, confidence, curiosity and flexibility. Mean-
the statistic percentage of agreement R > while, Lin, Hu, Adey & Shen (2003), Hu, Wu, Jia, Yi, Duan, Meyer & Kaufman
85% and n-gain values = .42, and p < .05. (2013), Poon, Au, Tong & Lau (2014), Lewis & Elavar (2014) and Zahra, Yusuooff
Thus, the C3PDR teaching model is feasible & Hasim (2013), used creative thinking techniques to enhance creativity.
to improve the student’s scientific creativity Lin, Hu, Adey & Shen (2003) developed the Cognitive Acceleration through
of junior high school. Science Education (CASE) Program, which is basically aimed at improving
intellectual abilities in general to junior high school students, but CASE uses
Keywords: C3PDR teaching model, scien-
mechanisms to enhance scientific creativity, and creativity of science is also
tific creativity, feasible, junior high school.
the goal of CASE. Three mechanisms that are believed to enhance creativity in
the CASE program are meta-cognition, bridging or transfer, and a conducive
learning environment. The results of this research indicate that CASE is able
Zulkarnaen to increase students’ scientific creativity significantly at α = 5%. Hu, Wu, Jia,
Mulawarman University, Indonesia
Z.A. Imam Supardi, Budi Jatmiko Yi, Duan, Meyer & Kaufman (2013) developed the “Learning to Think (LTT)”
State University of Surabaya, Indonesia program to improve students’ thinking skills designed for elementary and
junior high school students. The thinking skills in question are concrete think-
ing, abstract thinking and creative thinking. Activities for creative thinking
1020
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ FEASIBILITY OF CREATIVE EXPLORATION, CREATIVE ELABORATION, CREATIVE MODELING,
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ IMPROVE STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY OF JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
(P. 1020-1034)
are only 35.70% of all activities consisting of divergent thinking, brainstorming and breaking the set. His research
results show that LTT can improve students’ creativity.
Poon, Au, Tong & Lau (2014) conducted a research on 74 junior high school students in a short training program
in the form of workshops consisting of 5 stages: group stages, giving fun games, reading some stories and asking
questions and ending with practice and presentation. Creative thinking techniques used are SCAMPER (substitute,
combine, adapt, modify, magnify, put to other uses, eliminate, and rearrange). The results showed that students
understand creativity and increased knowledge and confidence, that are reflected by the creativity they produce.
The results of Lewis & Elavar (2014) show that students’ creativity in product design is improved after being given
creativity training with an integrated approach through project work for 15 weeks, using attribute listing techniques.
The results of Zahra, Yusuooff & Hasim ‘s research (2013), show Brainstorming, Tell Story, Web Links and Role Plays,
Checklists have a powerful effect on the creativity of preschoolers.
Currently many countries have incorporated creativity as one of the goals of the school curriculum, not least
in the school curriculum in Indonesia. Beginning in the 90s, policymakers from several countries, namely Australia,
Canada, Great Britain, Hong Kong, China, Singapore and the Middle East have made policies aimed at developing
the creative potential of students as they view such efforts as investments for students and the nation’s future
(Jackson & Shaw, 2006). Creativity becomes one of the important goals in Curriculum 2013 which is applicable
in Indonesia today. Therefore, it is needed, a model of teaching, designed specifically to enhance creativity and
not just limited to the training programs described above but something that is integrated into the curriculum.
The results of preliminary research in several junior high schools in Samarinda, Indonesia, show that the
scientific creativity of students is still low (Zulkarnaen, Nur & Jatmiko, 2015). The question is what kind of teaching
model is feasible to improve the students’ scientific creativity?
The results of the analysis and synthesis of some literatures show that creativity will arise if supported by suf-
ficient knowledge in the field, if students have creative thinking skills and have motivation Amabile (1996, 2012),
Tekic, Tekic & Todorovic (2015), Huang, Peng, Chen, Tseng & Hsu, (2017). The C3PDR teaching model is designed
to refer to the synthesis results. One alternative answer to the question is to develop the C3PDR teaching model
to improve the scientific creativity of junior high school students. The differences in the C3PDR model with the
above-mentioned model or program are that the C3PDR model: 1) focuses on improving the creativity of junior
high school students, 2) internalizes creative thinking techniques in student performance, so that the overall learn-
ing phase is characterized by the use of creative thinking techniques, 3) integrates knowledge creation with the
creativity of science, 4) is designed for classroom learning.
The C3PDR teaching model was developed based on the scientific creativity theory of Hu & Adey (2002), the
Scientific Creativity Structure Model (SCSM). SCSM is designed specifically for creativity in the field of science as
a result of analyzing the meaning and creativity aspects found in the literature. Referring to SCSM, the creativity
of science consists of 7 components, namely: component 1: fluency, flexibility and originality in using an object
for unusual use, component 2: Degree of sensitivity to the problem of science, component 3: Ability to improve
a technical product, component 4: scientific imagination, component 5: creative science problem solving ability,
component 6: creative experimental ability, component 7: the ability to design creative science products. In addi-
tion, C3PDR teaching model supported learning theories and creativity theories are already established. Supportive
learning theories are Piaget’s cognitive theories, Bandura’s social cognitive theories, Vygotsky’s social constructivist
theory and information-processing theory. The C3PDR developed teaching model consists of 6 phases, namely
Creative exploration, Creative elaboration, Creative modeling, Practice scientific creativity, Discussion and Reflection.
C3PDR teaching model is needed as an alternative to support the spirit of UNESCO “Creativity is our hope”
(Newton & Newton, 2014). The rapid development of technology, the increasing number of the world’s popula-
tion and the limitation of natural resources will cause economic problems. Intellectual products of creativity are
seen as a source of wealth and a panacea to overcome the problem. Implementation of C3PDR teaching model is
expected to answer the problems facing the world community.
Problem of Research
The problem of this research is: How is the feasibility of the C3PDR teaching model to improve student’s
scientific creativity of junior high school still low? The C3PDR teaching model is feasible if meets the criteria: valid,
practical and effective. The C3PDR teaching model is valid if the mode of the content validity score and the validity
of the content is at least included in the valid category, with the statistic percentage of agreement (R) greater than
1021
FEASIBILITY OF CREATIVE EXPLORATION, CREATIVE ELABORATION, CREATIVE MODELING, ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/
IMPROVE STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY OF JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
(P. 1020-1034)
75%. Likewise, the learning materials are declared valid, if the mode of the validity score is at least included in the
valid category, with the statistic percentage of agreement (R) greater than 75%. The teaching model is considered
practical if the practicality score mode is at least included in the practical category, with the statistic percentage of
agreement (R) greater than 75%. The C3PDR teaching model is effective if the n-gain value > .30, is in the moder-
ate category and the probability value of paired t-tests (p) < .05 and at least 50% of students have an increased
level of creativity from non-creative and less creative, rising to a level quite creative, creative and highly creative.
Research Focus
This research focuses on the analysis of the validity, practicality and effectiveness of the C3PDR teaching
model to improve the creativity of science. The research questions are 1) whether the validity of the content and
the validity of the constructs of the model are valid to enhance students’ scientific creativity? 2) Whether the
C3PDR model teaching materials are valid to support the implementation of C3PDR teaching model? 3) Whether
the C3PDR teaching model is practically implemented in the classroom? 4) What is the improvement of students’
scientific creativity after given C3PDR teaching model? 5) Whether the improvement of students’ science creativity
as a result of the C3PDR teaching model is significant? 6) what is the percentage of students, who experience an
increase in creativity levels from non-creative and creative levels to creative, creative and highly creative levels.
Research Methodology
General Background
This development research was conducted in three stages: 1) preliminary research stage, 2) prototype
preparation stage, and 3) assessment stage. In the preliminary research stage have conducted: a) needs analysis
research of the importance of teaching models to improve the scientific creativity, b) theory and empirical studies
as the basis of C3PDR mode, so that the draft hypothetical model is generated. At prototype preparation stage
have been performed: a) generation of hypothetical model, b) validation of the hypothetical model qualitatively
through focus group discussion (FGD) involvement of experts in science education, c) preparation and validation
of teaching materials supporting the model carried out by experts in science education, d) limited trials and e)
extensive trials. Trials were conducted at two junior high schools in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. A limited trial aims
to analyze the implementation of the C3PDR teaching model through observation, while extensive trial aims to
analyze the practicality and the effectiveness of C3PDR teaching model in improving students’ scientific creativity.
Limited and extensive trials were conducted in odd semester in academic year 2015/2016; i.e. in a class at a school
with a total of 32 students and two classes with each class of 32 students, respectively.
Sample
The sample of the research on the limited trial is 32 students who are in Junior high school (SMP) 1 in Sa-
marinda, Indonesia. While the sample in extensive trial is 64 students divided into two classes, each with the
number of 32 students, which are in two different junior high schools, one class in SMP 1 and one other class in
SMP 2 in Samarinda. The sample is determined using purposive sampling technique. Characteristic of the sample
is that students have never received any training or creative thinking teaching, which is the main characteristic of
the C3PDR model. The research was conducted on science subjects at motion topic and skeleton, joint and simple
machine topic, in grade 8 in the odd semester of the 2015-2016 academic year.
Prior to application in the classroom, the C3PDR teaching model has been through a series of validation ac-
tivities, through focus group discussions (FGD), expert judgment and limited trials. Expert judgment is using the
model validation sheet instrument. The limited trial aims to find technical implementation issues that need to be
done so that the C3PDR teaching model can be applied in accordance with the lesson plan. The limited trial data
were obtained through observations made by the researcher himself and two teachers. The limited trial resulted
in a number of recommendations that will be applied to the next trial, which is an extensive trial. The purpose of
1022
(P. 1020-1034)
extensive trials is to test the practicality and effectiveness of the C3PDR model. Practical model data was obtained
through classroom observation conducted by 2 teachers in each class, using observation sheet of C3PDR teaching
model. The effectiveness of the model is tested using one group pre-test and post-test design.
Prior to the C3PDR teaching model, both classes were given a pre-test of scientific creativity, twice for two
different topics, for the topic of motion and the topic of skeletons, joints and simple machines. The test instru-
ment used is a scientific creativity test sheet that has been compiled based on the SCSM model, which consists of
7 components of science creativity and has been validated by science education experts. After the pre-test, both
classes were given a C3PDR model by two teachers of science in their respective schools. During the lesson, teach-
ers and students used teaching materials consisting of syllabus, lesson plans, student worksheets, student books
and scientific creativity assessment sheet. All teaching materials have been validated by three experts, one is a
professor in physics and two in the field of natural science education. Teaching practicability data were obtained
through observations made by science teachers, using the observation sheet. Implementation of extensive trials
was conducted for 7 weeks. Post-test of creativity of science is given to students after applied teaching with C3PDR
model. Post-test is given twice for two different topics. The post-test is the same as the pre-test.
Data Analysis
There are three groups of data, namely model validity data, practical data, and model effectiveness data.
Model validity data consist of content validity data, construct validity data, and data of teaching materials validity.
Assessment options on all validation instruments, consist of 4 categories, that is not valid (score 1), less valid (score
2), valid (score 3) and very valid (score 4). The result of the validation assessment is recorded so that it is known
to the expert score scoring mode, which is used to infer the validity of the content and the model construct and
the validity of the teaching materials. The conclusion of this validity needs to be reinforced by the percentage of
agreement between the statistical percentage of agreement (R), using the formula R = [1 - {(A - B) / (A + B)}] x 100%
(Borich, 1994). A is the highest score of all assessors and B is the lowest score of all assessors.
Assessment options on practical instruments consist of impractical (score 0), less practical (score 1), practical
(score 3) and very practical (score 4). Practical assessment results are recorded so as to know the practitioner’s (teach-
ers’) scoring mode used to deduce the practicality of the model. It is concluded that the practicality of the model
needs to be reinforced by the percentage of agreement between practitioners’ assessments, using the value of R.
Data of effectiveness is the form of creativity score of student, from the result of pre-test and post-test. Scientific
creativity scores have no maximum value, so to determine the n-gain value, the data is converted first into the scale
of 1 - 10 using the z distribution. The value of z is determined using the formula: z = [(student score - group average
score) / standard deviation (SD)]. The mean score of the group and standard deviation was calculated by combining
the pre-test and post-test scores. The n-gain values for each student were calculated using the formula, n-gain =
(average post-test score - average pre-test score) / (maximum score - pre-test score) (Hake, 1999), the criteria are:
n-gain > .70 high category, .30 < n-gain < .70 medium category and n-gain < .30 low category. The significance of
scientific creativity enhancement was calculated using SPSS with probability p < .05. Determination of the increasing
of scientific creativity level is done by converting the creativity data first into 5 scales. The criteria used are: score
<1.375SD (not creative); 1.375SD < score < - .275SD (less creative); - .275SD < score < .825SD (creative enough);
.825SD < score <1.925SD (creative); 1.925SD < score (very creative). The percentage of the number of students
experiencing an increase in the level of scientific creativity from the level of non-creative and less creative to the
level of creative, creative and highly creative is determined by adding the percentage of the number of students
at those levels in the pre-test and post-test.
Result of Research
Assessment Results of Validity of C3PDR Teaching Model
The results of content validity are presented in Table 1. The scoring mode is in the very valid category. The
statistical percentage of agreement between assessors is greater than 85%.
1023
(P. 1020-1034)
Table 1. Assessment results of content validity.
Assessment
Statistic percentage
Aspect of assessment
of agreement (R)
Very valid Valid Less valid Not valid
C3PDR model development needs 9 3 0 0 93

State of the art of knowledge of model 1 2 0 0 86
Theory Support for the C3PDR Model 6 9 0 0 94
Planning and Implementing C3PDR 4 2 0 0 93
Learning Environment of the C3PDR 1 5 0 0 92
Use of Advanced Evaluation Techniques 4 2 0 0 86
Total 25 23 0 0
The results of the construct validation assessment are presented in Table 2. The scoring mode is in the Valid
category. The statistical percentage of agreement between assessors is over 85%.
Table 2. Assessment results of construct validity.
Assessment
Statistic percentage
Aspect of assessment of agreement (R)
Very valid Valid Less valid Not valid
Overview of C3PDR 2 4 0 0 86
Theoretical and Empirical Support of the C3PDR Model 9 15 0 0 96
C3PDR Model Syntax 5 1 0 0 93
Phase 1: Creative exploration 2 7 0 0 90
Phase 2: Creative Elaboration 2 10 0 0 96
Phase 3: Creative Modeling 4 2 0 0 86
Phase 4: Practice
4 14 0 0 90
Creativity Science
Phase 5: Discussion 4 2 0 0 93
Phase 6: Reflection 1 2 0 0 86
Social System 8 4 0 0 90
Principles of Reaction 5 4 0 0 86
Learning Environment and Classroom Management 2 4 0 0 92
Implementation of Evaluation 4 2 0 0 86
Total 52 71 0 0
Assessment of the validity of teaching materials
The C3PDR teaching model is equipped with teaching materials consisting of lesson plans, student worksheets,
student books and scientific creativity assessment sheets. Assessment results of three experts on the validity of
teaching materials are presented in Table 3.
1024
(P. 1020-1034)
Table 3. Assessment result of teaching materials validity.
Teaching materials Category Statistic percentage of agreement (R)
Lesson plan very valid 93

Student worksheet very valid 98
Student book very valid 89
Scientific creativity assessment sheets very valid 95
Recommendations Based on the Result of Limited Trial
A limited trial resulted in five recommendations: 1) the ideal time required for each meeting was 3 x 40 minutes,
2) the experimental activities in the elaboration phase, carried out in two stages, interchangeably, 3) the number
of students per group of 5, 4) Adjust the learning objectives according to the time allocated and 5) increase the
time allocation for the elaboration phase and the practice scientific creativity phase.
Result of Practicality Assessment of C3PDR Teaching Model
Extensive trials produce practicality data and model effectiveness in enhancing students’ scientific creativity.
Practical data on the C3PDR teaching model in the 8E and 8K classes are presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Scoring mode of practicality assessment of the lesson plan implementation of C3PDR teaching model.
Score mode and Statistic percentage of agreement (R)
Activities Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson

Lesson plan 3
plan 1 plan 2 plan 4 plan 5 plan 6 plan 7
3 4 4 3 4 4 4
Introduction
(97) (97.3) (94.7) (97.1) (97.3) (94.7) (94.7)
Main
Phase 1: Creative Exploration 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
(100) (91.4) (96) (97.6) (100) (100) (92.3)
Phase 2: Creative Elaboration 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
(100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100)
Phase 3: Creative Modeling 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
(100) (100) (96) (92.3) (94.1) (92.3) (95.2)
3
Phase 4: Practice scientific 3 3 3 3 3 3
(88.9)
creativity (94.1) (94.1) (100) (94.1) (100) (94.1)
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Phase 5: Discussion
(94.1) (94.1) (94.1) (100) (94.1) (94.1) (94.1)
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Phase 6: Reflection
(100) (94.7) (94.1) (100) (100) (94.1) (94.1)
4 3 3 3 3 3 3
Closing
(88.9) (88.9) (100) (88.9) (88.9) (88.9) (88.9)
Mode 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Description Practical Practical Practical Practical Practical Practical Practical
Based on Table 4, the implementation of lesson plan 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are in the Practical category. The
statistical percentage of agreement between observers is greater than 85%, which means that teaching steps
can be easily done, using a synchronized learning resource, and in accordance with defined learning objectives.
1025
(P. 1020-1034)
Results of the Effectiveness Assessment of the C3PDR Teaching Model
The effectiveness data of the C3PDR teaching model for the 8E grade are presented in Table 5 which shows
a large increase in the scientific creativity of for each component, which is indicated by the n-gain value, and the
probability p, which is caused by the application of the C3PDR teaching model. Based on Table 5, there are four n-
gain values less than .30 and they are in the Low category and there are nine n-gain values of more than or equal
to .30. They are in the Medium category. There is one component on the skeleton, joints and simple machines
topic whose n-gain values can’t be determined due to technical reasons. All probability values p < .05 showed a
significant increase in science creativity at a = 5%.
Table 5. Average score of each component of scientific creativity in 8E grade.
Average score on motion Average score on skeleton, joint

topic and simple machine topic
n-gain
Scientific Creativity
Component 1 .19 2.77 .30 .00 3.32 .64

Component 2 2.37 10.69 .26 2.33 7.62 .21
Component 3 5.13 11.34 .24 1.52 8.92 .39
Component 4 1.00 7.16 .31 5.00 10.62 .32
Component 5 .00 1.70 .23 - - -
Component 6 9.69 31.28 .33 5.6 18.26 .32
Component 7 1.87 9.45 .35 1.32 7.08 .32
Table 6 presents the average conversion scores of pre-test and post-test science creativity for motion material
and simple frame and machine materials and n-gain values for the entire component. The increase of students’
scientific creativity, as a whole after C3PDR teaching model applied, can be seen from the n-gain value by compar-
ing the pre-test and post-test scores. The n-gain for motion topic is .43 and for skeleton, joint and simple machine
topic n-gain is equal to .42. This n-gain value is in the Medium category.
The p-value of t-paired test results on motion topic and skeleton, joints and simple machine is less than .05,
respectively, which means there is a significant difference between the mean scores of scientific creativity before
the C3PDR teaching model is applied, compared to the mean score scientific creativity after being applied. The
average score of scientific creativity after the C3PDR teaching model applied was higher than the average score
of scientific creativity before it applied.
Table 6. Conversion of the average score and n-gain of scientific creativity in 8E grade.
Motion topic Skeleton, joints and simple machine topic

Component
Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test
The highest score 50 100 60 100

The lowest value 30 30 30 40
Average 38.70 64.10 37.60 62.80
n-gain .43 .42
Probability p < .05 p < .05
The increased level of student’ scientific creativity of 8E grade, presented in Figure 1 for the motion topic and
Figure 2 for skeleton, joints and simple machine topic.
1026
(P. 1020-1034)
Figure 1: Percentage of students at each level, before and after the C3PDR teaching model applied to motion
topic in 8E grade.
Figure 1 shows the tendency of increasing the level of students’ scientific creativity on motion topic, from
non-creative and less creative level to a higher level; creative enough, creative and highly creative. There were 69%
of students that had an increased level of creativity. Pre-test shows that only 9% of students are being at level,
enough creative, creative and very creative. After post-test, 79% of students are at that level. The same trend also
occurs in the skeleton, joints and simple machine topic shown in Figure 2. There were 62% of students that had
an increased level of creativity. Initially, only 8% of students are being at level, enough creative, creative and very
creative, increased to 70% of students at that level after the C3PDR teaching model applied.
Figure 2: Percentage of students at each level, before and after the C3PDR teaching model applied to skeleton,
joints and simple machine topic in 8E grade.
The effectiveness data of C3PDR teaching model in 8K grade is presented in Table 7. Based on Table 7, there
are two n-gain values less than .30, which are in the low category and there are twelve n-gain values of more than
or equal to .30 in Medium category. All values of p< .05 indicate a significant increase in scientific creativity.
1027
(P. 1020-1034)
Table 7. Average score of each component of scientific creativity in 8K grade.
Average score on skeleton, joint

Average score on motion topic
and simple machine topic
Scientific Creativity
Pre-test Post-test
Component 1 .15 7.81 .36 1.33 6.12 .25
Component 2 1.50 7.17 .30 3.00 12.09 .34
Component 3 1.58 7.83 .34 2.00 3.13 .35
Component 4 .00 2.61 .31 5.48 12.91 .36
Component 5 .56 1.80 .43 .33 .96 .14
Component 6 17.62 29.58 .31 5.04 21.26 .35
Component 7 1.96 9.81 .40 1.30 4.56 .33
Table 8 presents the conversion of the average pre-test and post-test scores of scientific creativity for motion
topic and skeleton, joints and simple machine topic, for all components and n-gain. The improvement of students’
scientific creativity after C3PDR teaching applied can be seen from the normal gain value by comparing the pre-
test and post-test scores. The normal gain for motion topic is .42 and for skeleton, joint and simple machine topic,
the normal gain is .41. This normal gain value is in the moderate category.
The result of paired t test on motion material and frame material, simple joint and plane, p value < .05, which
means there is a difference between the average score of creativity of science before the teaching model applied
to the average score of creativity of science after the model is applied. The average score of scientific creativity
of after the C3PDR teaching model is applied, higher than the science creativity score before the model applied.
Table 8. Conversion of the average score and n-gain of scientific creativity in 8K grade.
Motion topic Skeleton, joints and simple machine topic

Component
Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test
The highest score 50 100 70 90
The lowest value 20 40 20 40
Average 36.50 62.30 37.10 62.90
n-Gain .42 .41
Probability p < .05 p < .05
The increase of the scientific creativity level of the 8K grade students, for the motion topic is presented in Fig.
3 and for the skeleton, joints and simple machine topic shown in Figure 4.
1028
(P. 1020-1034)
Figure 3: Percentage of students at each level, before and after the C3PDR teaching model applied to motion
topic in 8K grade.
Figure 4: Percentage of students at each level, before and after the C3PDR teaching model applied to skeleton,
joints and simple machine topic in 8K grade.
Figure 3 shows the tendency of increasing the level of students’ scientific creativity on motion topic, from
non-creative and less creative level to a higher level; creative enough, creative and very creative. There were 65% of
students that had an increased level of creativity. Pre-test shows that only 4% students are being at level, enough
creative, creative and very creative. After post-test, 69% of students are at that level. The same trend also occurs in
the skeleton, joints and simple machine topic shown in Figure 2. There were 51% of students that had an increased
level of creativity. Initially, only 12% of students are being at level, enough creative, creative and very creative,
increased to 63% of students at that level after the C3PDR teaching model applied.
Discussion
The content validity of the C3PDR teaching model is in the very valid category as shown in Table 1. This is
because this is supported by: 1) the latest research trends, 2) cutting edge knowledge, 3) meeting the competency-
oriented curriculum of the 21st century, 4) using international standardized assessment techniques. It is the latest
research trends, namely creativity that is an important capital for someone to succeed in the life of the present and
future. The C3PDR model meets the needs of the 21st century competency framework, one of which is creativity
1029
(P. 1020-1034)
(Partnership for 21th century learning). Specifically, in Indonesia the C3PDR teaching model is able to meet the
needs of the 2013 Curriculum, the most important goals of which is to form creative Indonesian children (“Regula-
tion of the Minister of Education and Culture of the Republic of Indonesia,” 2013)
The C3PDR teaching model is designed based on the state of the art of knowledge and empirical support
from the latest research results as presented in Table 1. The C3PDR teaching model is designed using the theoreti-
cal basis of educational psychology figures listed in the books International standard. The C3PDR teaching model
is supported by established learning theories such as cognitive theory of learning, social cognitive theory, social
constructivist theory, Vygotsky theory and meta-cognition. In addition, it is also supported by the theory of cre-
ativity, namely componential theory and cognitive theory for creativity. Empirical support for the development
of creativity of science and the way of assessment is often found in recent international journals. The updated
C3PDR teaching model is supported also by its ability to meet the demands of 21st century competence, namely
the mastery of science and scientific creativity. The C3PDR teaching model environment is also structured on an
established theoretical basis and the latest empirical foundation. Other updates of the C3PDR teaching model
can be seen from the way in which the assessment refers to the reference of international standards in the field
of scientific creativity. Assessment of the scientific creativity refers to SCSM model of Hu &Adey (2002) with seven
components of scientific creativity as its indicators.
The construct validity of the C3PDR model is in the valid category as presented in Table 3. Learning theo-
ries and empirical data used in the C3PDR model are logically used to enhance students’ science creativity. The
C3PDR model is designed logically and can also be seen from the syntax of the model, social system, reaction
principle, learning environment and classroom management and its assessment. The logic of the model is first
seen from the logical sequence of phases and the inter-phase linkages in the C3PDR model syntax. The mode
in this component is in the valid category. The sequence of phases of the C3PDR model begins the phase of
creative exploration, which identifies various issues related to the topic, both concepts, terms, theories and so
on. In the creative exploration phase, students reveal the questions they want to know, followed by further
investigation, questions that will be explored further by either extracting information from various sources
and extracting information through experiments in the science process skills, which will be experienced in the
creative elaboration phase.
The learning outcomes of the creative elaboration phase will be used in developing the scientific creativity.
According Amabile (2012), mastery of field is one important element in the creativity. Another important ele-
ment in the creativity of science is the creative thinking skill. Therefore, before the practical scientific creativity
phase, students need to be shown how creative thinking works through creative modeling. In order to awaken
the students what they have done and what they already understand, a reflection phase is needed with the use
of meta-cognition theory.
Social system scores acquire a mode that is in the Very valid category. This assessment is very reasonable,
because in the C3PDR teaching model, as stated in the C3PDR teaching model book, there is a clear relationship
between teachers and students, the role of teachers as facilitators and as mentors and can be realized in each phase.
The reaction principle obtains a mode that is in the Very valid category. How teachers react to student re-
sponses is clearly stated in the C3PDR teaching model book. The principle pattern of such reactions can be realized
according to the C3PDR model syntax.
The learning environment and classroom management obtains a mode that is in the Very valid category. The
learning environment listed in the C3PDR teaching model book, supports the achievement of scientific creativity.
The learning environment is designed in such a way that it meets the principles; 1) respect all ideas and views and
conduct activities that do not need to be assessed. 2) support students’ autonomy that is, teachers give students
choices and accommodate inputs; 3) support the occurrence of brainstorming and collaboration; 4) teachers
should imitate students’ enthusiasm and assess creative work and design classroom activities so students are
given value for their creative thinking 5) give enough time during creative activity. In addition, implementation of
the evaluation obtained a mode that is in the category of Very valid, which indicates that the evaluation is used in
accordance with the purpose of the model.
The C3PDR teaching model can be implemented according to the scenario by accommodating recommenda-
tions from the results of a limited trial. The addition of time is necessary in the elaboration phase and the practice
scientific creativity phase, because in the elaboration phase students construct knowledge and use it in the phase
of practice scientific creativity. A total of 5 students per group is needed because it is more effective at brainstorm-
ing using creative thinking techniques to accomplish creativity tasks on student worksheets.
1030
(P. 1020-1034)
The practicality of implementing the C3PDR teaching model listed in the lesson plan is in the Practical category
as shown in Table 4. Each phase of the C3PDR teaching model can be implemented according to the written scenario,
for each 3 x 40 minutes’ meeting. The practicality of this C3PDR model implementation is not separated from the
accompanying teaching materials such as lesson plans, student worksheets, student books and scientific creativ-
ity assessment sheets, which have been validated and included in the Very valid category as presented in Table 3.
The C3PDR teaching model proved to be effective in enhancing the students’ scientific creativity, which is
shown by the n-gain and probability values (p), both for each component and for the overall component. n-gain
for all components in two classes and two topics ranged in the range of .40 in the medium category and the prob-
ability value p < .05, as shown in Table 6 and Table 8. n-gain for each component of creativity tends to be greater
than .30 in the moderate category, unless there are five n-gain values in the low category of the overall n-gain
values in Table 5 and Table 7. However, the overall probability (p) value is less than .05, which indicates that the
C3PDR teaching model is proven significantly, able to improve students’ scientific creativity. Effectiveness is also
strengthened by the increase in the number of students who are at the level of creative enough, creative and very
creative by 50% after applied C3PDR teaching model.
The increase of students’ scientific creativity by intervention of C3PDR teaching model, consists of three
components, namely: 1) domain-relevant skills, 2) creativity-relevant processes, i.e. cognitive and personality pro-
cesses that support the process of thinking on new ideas and 3) task motivation, especially intrinsic motivation in
completing tasks caused by interest, joy and personal challenges and 4) meta-cognition.
In this C3PDR model, the focus of model intervention is on the mastery of knowledge and creative thinking
skills while other factors, namely the personality processes that support thinking to new ideas, intrinsic and envi-
ronmental motivations have not been given specific intervention. Model interventions on mastery of knowledge
and creative thinking skills have been able to increase students’ scientific creativity.
The increase of scientific creativity due to C3PDR model interventions on the acquisition of relevant knowl-
edge in accordance with previous research results, conducted by Zhang & Gheibi (2015) and Poon, Au, Tong & Lau
(2014), Fotis (2010), Nami, Marsooli & Ashouri (2014) and Huang, Peng, Chen, Tseng & Hsu, (2017). Zhang & Gheibi
(2015) shows the interaction of knowledge, intrinsic motivation and sense of security in teamwork will produce
maximum creativity. Poon, Au, Tong & Lau (2014), points out that knowledge and confidence boost students’
creativity. Fotis research shows that there is a strong relationship between creativity to divergent thinking ability,
caused by the existence of knowledge factor. Nami, Marsooli & Ashouri (2014) finds a significant relationship be-
tween academic achievement and creativity. Other supporting results are conducted by Sendurur, Ersoy & Cetin
(2016), which show that science creativity scores will improve if students are close to or familiar with the topic of
scientific creativity tests provided.
Mastery of knowledge in the C3PDR model is enhanced in phase 2, i.e. creative elaboration. Elaboration will
improve student learning outcomes (Akyol, Sungur, Tekkaya, 2010). In this phase the students construct their
knowledge, deepen their mastery through various activities, such as reading, doing tasks on the student work-
sheet, doing experiments or discussing collaboratively with their group mates. Collaborative learning was chosen
because it proved able to improve student creativity (Maria, Dimitris, Garifallos, Athanasios & Roumeliotis, 2015);
(Cocu, Pecheanu & Susnea, 2015); (Laisema & Wannapiroon, 2014); (Bettonia, Bernharda & Bittela, 2015). Through
collaborative learning, students work together, are in the same position, mutually teach and complement each other.
Creative thinking is one of the characteristics of the C3PDR teaching model. Almost all phases are colored by
the use of creative thinking techniques. The use of creative thinking techniques proved to increase the creativity
of students’ science Cheng (2001), Hu, Wu, Jia, Yi, Duan, Meyer & Kaufman (2013); Al-Khatib (2012); Park (2011).
In Phase 1, Creative Exploration, synectic techniques are used to train students’ divergent thinking skills, which is
one of the characteristics of creative people. Synectics technique is supported by research results from Aiamnya &
Haghanib (2012) and Tajari &Tajari (2010). In phase 1 there is also organizing topics using lotus blossom technique,
which is a medium to write down the results of the synectics thinking technique. Organizing the topic will improve
student learning outcomes (Akyol, Sungur, Tekkaya, 2010).
In phase 3, Creative modeling, teachers serve as models to model how to use creative thinking techniques,
which will be used in the next phase. Several studies have shown that modeling supports increased creativity,
among them are Shalley & Perry-Smith (2002), Yia, Plucker & Guo (2015) and Show (2017). The use of creative think-
ing techniques, there is in the student book, to complement this model, so that when the teacher demonstrates
its use, students have early knowledge. This is important given that the modeling can be successful according
to its purpose. Modeling will work if there is attention from students, there is a process of imitating and there is
1031
(P. 1020-1034)
a process of further practice. When the teacher exemplifies creative thinking techniques, students observe and
imitate what teachers do.
The process of further practice is done by students in Phase 4, Practice Scientific Creativity. Based on the tasks
on the worksheet, practice further using creative thinking techniques, namely ask questions, problem reversal,
attribute listings, brainstorming, lotus blossom and synectic. The use of creative thinking techniques is adapted
to the components of the scientific creativity to be trained. An example for science imagination component, the
technique used is problem reversal supported by brainstorming. Create scientific questions component, using
ask question techniques that are assisted with synectics thinking techniques, lotus blossom and brainstorming.
Brainstorming techniques are always used in conjunction with other techniques, because the C3PDR teaching
model prioritizes collaborative work.
Phase 5, Discussion and Phase 6, Reflection gives students the opportunity to assess their work, what
they have done, what they already know and what they do not know. Both phases are the application of meta-
cognition theory. Several studies have shown that meta-cognition plays a role in enhancing creativity, among
them are Hao, Ku, Liu, Hu, Bodner, Grabner & Fink (2016), Kaufman, Beghetto & Watson (2015) and Akyol, Sungur,
Tekkaya (2010).
Creativity is highly determined by motivation. The scientific creativity is highly dependent on motivation,
especially intrinsic motivation. Therefore, the overall classroom environment, aimed at improving students’ intrin-
sic motivation. Several studies that show the influence of motivation on creativity are by Liu, Jiang, Shalley, Keem
& Zhou (2016), Blaskovaa (2014), Ghasemi, Rastegar, Jahromi & Marvdashti (2011), Penga, Cherng, Chenc & Linc
(2013). The learning atmosphere that is addressed in the C3PDR model includes giving sufficient time to complete
the tasks in the student worksheet, giving more autonomy to the students especially in giving answers, so the
students dare to write down their own answers, postpone judgments, and appreciate all opinions.
Based on the above discussion it is very logical if the C3PDR teaching model able to improve the student
scientific creativity. The development research that produced this C3PDR model reinforces the results of research
that mastery of knowledge, creative thinking, collaboration, modeling, meta-cognition and motivation support the
creativity. Further research needs to be done to perfect the C3PDR teaching model. Further research in question is
to conduct a series of advanced trials involving more classes until the C3PDR model is ready for widespread use.
Conclusion
Based on data and discussion, it indicates that: 1) the C3PDR teaching model proves to be valid, practical and
effective. The validity of the content and the validity of the constructs are in the Very valid category, indicated by
validity score mode in very valid category with R > 85%. The validity of the learning materials is in the Very valid
category, indicated by the validity score mode in very valid category with R > 85%. 2) The practicality of the model
including the practical category, indicated by the mode of practicality score in the Valid category with the value
R> 85%. 3) The C3PDR model proved to be significantly effective in improving students’ scientific creativity with
n-gain = .42, and p < .05, being in the moderate category and at least 50% of students experiencing improve in
creativity levels from the non-creative and less creative levels to the level Creative enough, creative and very cre-
ative. It can be concluded that the C3PDR teaching model, feasible to be used to improve the scientific creativity
of junior high school students.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Headmaster of State Junior High School-1 and 2 Samarinda, who have
been pleased to provide a place for this research.
References
Aiamnya, M., Haghanib, F. (2012). The effect of synectics & brainstorming on 3rd students’ development of creative thinking on
science. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 610 – 613
Al-khatib, B. A. (2012). The effect of using brainstorming strategy in developing creative problem solving skills among female
students in princess alia university college. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 2 (10), 29-38.
Akyol, G., Sungur, S., Tekkaya, C. (2010). The contribution of cognitive and metacognitive strategy uses to students’ science
achievement. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice, 16, 1-21.
1032
(P. 1020-1034)
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Amabile, T. M. (2012). Componential theory of creativity, Working paper. Harvard Business School.
Bettonia, M., Bernharda, W., Bittela, N. (2015). Collaborative creativity with eCiC. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174,
3925 – 3932.
Blaskovaa, M. (2014). Influencing academic motivation, responsibility and creativity. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
159, 415 – 425
Borich, G. (1994). Observation skill for effective teaching. New York. Mac Millan Publishing Company
Cheng, V.M.Y. (2001). Enhancing creativity science teachers. Asia-Pacific on Science Learning and Teaching, 2 (2), 4, 1-23.
Cocu, A., Pecheanu, E., Susnea, I. (2015). Stimulating creativity through collaboration in an innovation laboratory. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 182, 173 – 178.
Das, S., Dewhurst, Y., Gray, D. (2011). A teacher’s repertoire: developing creative pedagogies. International Journal of Education
& the Arts, 12 (15). Retrieved from http://www.ijea.org/v12n15/.
Doron, E. (2017). Fostering creativity in school aged children through perspective taking and visual media based short term
intervention program. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 23, 150-160.
Fotis, K. (2010). The interplay of creative behavior, divergent thinking and knowledge base in student’s creative expression dur-
ing learning activity. Creativity Research Journal, 22 (4), 387-396.
Ghasemi, F., Rastegar, A., Jahromi, R. G., Marvdashti, R. (2011). The relationship between creativity and achievement motivation
with high school students’ entrepreneurship. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 1291 – 1296.
Hake, R. (1999). Analyzing change/gain score. American educational research association’s division measurement and research
methodology. CA USA: Indiana University Press.
Hao, N., Ku, Y., Liu, M., Hu, Y., Bodner, M., Grabner, R. H., Fink, A. (2016). Reflection enhances creativity: Beneficial effects of idea
evaluation on idea generation. Brain and Cognition, 103, 30–37.
Hu, W., Wu, B., Jia, X., Yi, X., Duan, C., Meyer, W., Kaufman, J. C. (2013). Increasing student’s scientific creativity: the “learn to think”
intervention Program. Journal of Creative Behavior, 70, 3-21.
Hu &Adey. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24 (4), 389-403.
Huang, P., Peng, S. L., Chen, H.C., Tseng, L. C., Hsu, L. C. (2017). The relative influence of domain knowledge and domain-general
divergent thinking on scientific creativity and mathematical creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 25, 10-26.
Jackson, N & Shaw. (2006). Developing subject perspective on creativity in higher education: Developing creativity in higher educa-
tion, an imaginative curriculum. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. London and New York.
Kaufman, J., Beghetto, R., & Watson, C. (2015). Creative meta-cognition and self-ratings of creative performance: A 4-C perspec-
tive. Learning and Individual Differences. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.05.004.
Laisema, S., Wannapiroon, P. (2014). Design of collaborative learning with creative problem-solving process learninf activities
in a ubiquitous learning environment to develop creative thinking skills. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116,
3921 – 3926.
Lewis, M. O., Elaver, R. (2014). Managing and fostering creativity: An integrated approach. The International Journal of Manage-
ment Education, 12 (3), 235 -247.
Lin, C., Hu, W., Adey, P., & Shen, J. (2003). The influence of CASE on scientific creativity. Research in Science Education, 33, 143–162.
Liu, D., Jiang, K., Shalley, C. E., Keem, S., Zhou, J. (2016). Motivational mechanisms of employee creativity: A meta-analytic examina-
tion and theoretical extension of the creativity literature, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 137, 236-263.
Maria, T., Dimitris, P., Garifallos, F., Athanasios, G., Roumeliotis, M. (2015). Collaboration learning as a tool supporting value co-
creation, evaluating students learning through concept maps. 4th World conference on educational technology researches,
Wcetr-2014. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 182, 375 – 380.
Nami, Y., Marsooli, H., Ashouri, M. (2014). The Relationship between creativity and academic achievement. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 114, 36 – 39.
Newton, L. D., Newton, D. P. (2014). Creativity in 21st-century education. Prospect: Comparative Journal of Curriculum, Learning,
and Assessment, 44 (4), 575–589. DOI: 10.1007/s11125-014-9322-1.
Park, J. (2011). Scientific creativity in science education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 10 (3), 144-145.
Partnership for 21th Century Learning. (2015). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/our-work/
p21-framework.
Penga, S. L., Cherng, B. L., Chenc, H. C., Linc, Y. Y. (2013). A model of contextual and personal motivations in creativity: How do the
classroom goal structures influence creativity via self-determination motivations? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, 50–67.
Poon, J. C. Y., Au, A. C. Y., Tong, T. M. Y., Lau, S. (2014). The feasibility of enhancement of knowledge and self-confidence in creativity:
A pilot study of a three-hour SCAMPER workshop on secondary students. Thinking Skills and Creativity Journal, 14, 32–40.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.06.006.
Regulation of the Minister of Education and Culture of the Republic of Indonesia, 68 C.F.R. (2013).
Sendurur, E., Ersoy, E., Etin, I.(2016). The design and development of creative instructional materials: the role of domain familiarity
for creative solution. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. DOI 10.1007/s10798-016-9391-y.
Shalley, C. E., & Perry-Smith, J. E. (2002). Effects of social-psychological factors on creative performance: The role of informational
and controlling expected evaluation and modeling experience. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84
(1), 1–22. doi:10.1006/obhd.2000.2918, Retrieved from http://www.idealibrary.com.
Show, K. (2017), Fostering student creativity through teacher behaviors. Thinking skills and creativity, 23, 58–66, Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.11.002.
1033
(P. 1020-1034)
Tajari, T., Tajari, F. (2010). Comparison of effectiveness of synectics teaching methods with lecture about educational progress
and creativity in social studies lesson in Iran at 2010. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28, 451 – 454
Tekic, Z., Tekic, A., Todorovic, V. (2015). Modelling a laboratory for ideas as a new tool for fostering. Procedia Engineering, 100,
400 – 407.
Yia, X., Plucker, J. A., Guo, J. (2015). Modeling influences on divergent thinking and artistic creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativ-
ity, 16, 62–68.
Zahra, P., Yusuooff, F., Hasim, M. S. (2013). Effectiveness of training creativity on preschool students. Social and Behavioral Sci-
ences, 102, 643 – 647.
Zhang, P., Gheibi, S. (2015). From intrinsic motivation to employee creativity: The role of knowledge integration and team psy-
chological safety. European Scientific Journal, 11 (11), 380-392.
Zulkarnaen, Nur, M., Jatmiko, B. (2015). Hypothetical model of learning in order to improve learning outcomes and scientific crea-
tivity of junior high school students. Presented on 9th World Association of Lesson Studies Conference, 24 – 27 November
2015. Thailand: Khon Kaen University.
Received: July 31, 2017 Accepted: November 22, 2017
Zulkarnaen Associate Professor, Researcher, Teacher Training and Education

Faculty, Mulawarman University, Jalan Kuaro, Samarinda,
Kalimantan Timur, Indonesia.
E-mail: zul67belitung@gmail.com
Website: http://www.unmul.ac.id/
Z.A. Imam Supardi Associate Professor, Researcher, Physics Department, Faculty of
Mathematics and Science, State University of Surabaya, Jalan
Ketintang, Surabaya, 60231 Indonesia.
E-mail: zainularifin@unesa.ac.id
Website: http://www.unesa.ac.id/
Budi Jatmiko Professor, Researcher, Postgraduate School, State University of
(Corresponding author) Surabaya, Jalan Ketintang, Surabaya, 60231 Indonesia.
E-mail: budijatmiko@unesa.ac.id
Website: http://pasca.unesa.ac.id/
1034
INFORMATION
FOR CONTRIBUTORS
EDITORIAL AND REVIEW PROCEDURES
Journal of Baltic Science Education (JBSE) publishes original scientific research articles in the field of Natural Science Education and related
areas for all educational levels in the Baltic countries. It is possible to publish special (thematic) issues of JBSE. The papers should be submitted
and will be published in English. JBSE will promote to establish contacts between researchers and practical educators both in the Baltic countries
and countries around.
The authors of the manuscripts are responsible for the scientific content and novelty of the research materials. Articles, published before in
other international journals or papers’ collections will not be accepted for publication in JBSE.
As a publication that represents a variety of cross-disciplinary interests, both theoretical and practical, the JBSE invites manuscripts on a wide
range of topics, especially in the following areas:
• Didactics of natural sciences. • Philosophical, political, economical and social aspects of
• Theory and practice in natural science teacher education. natural science education.
• Integrated natural science education. • The supplementary natural science education.
• Natural science and technological literacy. • ICT in natural science education.
• General and professional natural science education. • The standardisation of natural science education etc.
MANUSCRIPTS GUIDELINES
The structure of the research paper presented to the Journal of Baltic Science Education should be as follows: abstract - short report of the
investigation; introduction inc. aim and subject of the research; research methodologies and methods; results of the research incl. discussion; conclusions;
list of references in APA style.
The papers should be submitted in English. If English is a second language for the author, please consider having the manuscript proof read
and edited before submitting. The preliminary text of the article can be sent as a.doc file in the attachment by e-mail: mail.jbse@gmail.com
The text must be elaborated in Word for Windows, using 12 point Times New Roman letters. An article should not exceed 7-10 A4 pages, included
figures, tables and bibliography. Publishing of longer articles should be negotiated separately. Texts margins: top and bottom 20mm, left - 25mm, right
- 20mm. The title: capital letters, 14pt, bold; space between the title and the author’s name is one line interval. Author’s name and surname: small letters,
12pt, bold. Under the name, institution: 11 pt, italics; space between the title and the text: 1 line interval. Abstract – about 100-150 words - precedes the
text. The text: 12pt Single or Auto spacing, in one column. Key words: no more than five words. The language must be clear and accurate. The authors
have to present the results, propositions and conclusions in a form that can suit scientists from different countries.
Titles of the tables and figures: 11 pt, small letters. Space between figures or tables and the text: 1 line interval. Introduction, titles of chapters and
subchapters: 12pt, bold, small letters. Numbers: Arabic, subchapters numbered by two figures (1.1, 1.2, etc.). Figures, tables and captions should be inserted
within the manuscript at their appropriate locations. Diagrams and graphs should be provided as finished black and white line artwork or electronic
images. When there are a number of illustrations, the author should endeavour to reduce the amount of text to accommodate the illustrations in the
limited space available for any article.
References in the text should be presented in brackets (Knox, 1988; Martin, 1995). If necessary, the page can be indicated: (Martin, 1995, p.48).
The list of references should be presented after the text. The Words List of References: 11pt, bold, small letters. The references should be listed in
full at the end of the paper in the following standard form:
For books: Saxe, G.B. (1991). Cultural and Cognitive Development: Studies in Mathematical Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
For articles: Bekerian, D.A. (1993). In Search of the Typical Eyewitness. American Psychologist, 48, 574-576.
For chapters within books: Bjork, R.A. (1989). Retrieval Inhibition as an Adaptive Mechanism in Human Memory. In: H.L. Roediger III & F.I.M. Craik
(Eds.), Varieties of Memory & Consciousness (pp. 309-330). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
On a separate page, author - related data should be presented in English: name, surname, degree and academic title, institution, full correspondence
address in the clearest and most complete form /ordinary post and e-mail addresses /, position (to ensure anonymity in the review process). The author
(authors) should confirm in writing, that the manuscript has not been published in other journal or handed over (transferred) to other
journal for publication.
EDITORIAL AND REVIEW PROCEDURES

Manuscripts will be sent anonymously to reviewers with expertise in the appropriate area. All manuscripts will be rewieved by two experts
before JBSE’s accept them for publication. This process usually takes about two months. The journal co-editors will make minor editorial changes;
major changes will be made by the author(s) prior to publication if necessary. JBSE’s redaction will sent to author(s) only one correcture which
must be sent back within 2 weeks. JBSE will not review submissions previously published elsewhere through print or electronic medium.
Manuscripts submitted to the JBSE cannot be returned to authors. Authors should be sure to keep a copy for themselves. Authors’ signatures
should be at the end of the paper and its second checked proofs.
Manuscripts, editorial correspondence (and other correspondence for subscription and exchange), and any questions should be sent to
editor-in-chief or to regional redactors.
Mailing Addresses
Prof., Dr. Vincentas Lamanauskas, editor-in-chief, Dr. Naglis Švickus, co-editor, Lithuania
Siauliai University SMC ”Scientia Educologica”
P. Vishinskio Str. 25; LT-76351 Siauliai, Lithuania Kretingos Str. 55-10; LT-92300 Klaipėda, Lithuania
E-mail: v.lamanauskas@ef.su.lt E-mail: naglis.svickus@nbgroup.lt
Phone: + 370 687 95668 Phone: +370 687 89985
Prof., Dr. Janis Gedrovics, co-editor, Latvia

Riga Teacher Training and Educational Management Academy
Imantas 7 linija No 1; Riga, LV-1083, Latvia
E-mail: janis.gedrovics@rpiva.lv
Phone: +371 29162147
1035
ISSN 1648-3898 /Print/, ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/
Compiled by: Vincentas Lamanauskas

Linguistic Editor: Ilona Ratkevičienė
Cover design by: Jurgina Jankauskienė
Layout design by : Linas Janonis

22 December 2017. Publishing in Quires 13. Edition 200
Publisher SMC „Scientia Educologica“ in cooperation with Scientia Socialis,

Donelaicio Street 29, LT-78115 Siauliai, Lithuania
E-mail: scientia@scientiasocialis.lt
Phone: +370 687 95668
http://www.jbse.webinfo.lt/centras.htm
http://www.scientiasocialis.lt

Printing Šiauliai printing house
9A P. Lukšio Street
LT-76207 Šiauliai, Lithuania
Phone: +370 41 500 333.
Fax: +370 41 500 336
E-mail: info@dailu.lt

Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 16, No. 6, 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 16, No. 6, 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 16, No. 6, 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vol.16, No.

The International Journal of the Scientific Methodical Center “Scientia Educologica”

Published since 2002 Address:

ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/

STUDENT RESEARCH: ACQUIRING KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE NATURE

A THEORY-BASED INSTRUMENT TO EVALUATE MOTIVATIONAL TRIGGERS PERCEIVED BY

INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035

STUDENT RESEARCH: ACQUIRING KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE NATURE AND

Received: November 11, 2017 Accepted: December 18, 2017

Todar Lakhvich PhD., Associate Professor, Department of Bioorganic Chemistry,

Abstract. Students’ lack of motivation in Tormi Kotkas,

The Interconnectedness of Interest, Relevance, Enjoyment with Motivation

Interrelating Interest(s) and Enjoyment

Reciprocal Interactions between Knowledge and Interest

Overlap between Relevance and Interest

Theory-based Model of Possible Motivational Triggers in a Scenario

Methodology of the Research

Scenario Evaluation Instrument

Table 1. Theoretical categorisation of the instrument items.

Testing of the Scenario Evaluation Instrument

Figure 2: An example of the scenario (in Estonian).

Results of the Research

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Figure 3: CFA of theory-based hypothetical model.

Exploratory Factor Analysis

Factor name Factor description Items Factor loadings α

Factor name Factor description Items Factor loadings α

Analysis of Likert-type Item Responses

Table 3. The results of the scenario evaluation.

13 I think my future studies at the gymnasium or university 2.42 0.71

Students´ Reasoning for Perceiving Relevance, Interest, Enjoyment and Motivation

Table 1. Inductive categories for Relevance reasoning

5. Multiple rea- - Students´ response combines several previous categories.

Table 2. Inductive categories for Motivation reasoning

1. WOA (With- - No answer written.

Table 3. Inductive categorization of Enjoyment (Like) reasoning

1. WOA (Without - No answer written

Table 4. Inductive categorization of Interest reasoning

1. WOA (With- - No answer written

3.3 Intrinsic value Student indicates interest to him/herself or to his/her family

Received: June 01, 2017 Accepted: September 12, 2017

Tormi Kotkas MSc, Doctoral Student, Junior Researcher, University of Tartu,

OPINIONS OF THE BIOLOGIST ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/

Daihu Yang, Abstract. In the past decades much

Analysis of the Drawings

Leather shoes 0 (0.0) 1 (2.5) 0 (0.0) 1 (1.1)

Figure 1: A drawn young biologist in white lab coat.

Facial Physical Features

Facial hair (beard / 2(6.5%) 1(2.5) 5(22.7) 8(8.6)

Standing hair 0(0.0) 5(12.5) 6(27.3) 11(11.8)

Messy hair 1(3.2) 2(5.0) 1(4.5) 4(4.3)

Braid 1(3.2) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 1(1.1)

Bald 2(6.5) 2(5.0) 2(9.1) 6(6.5)

Ponytail 2(6.5) 1(2.5) 0(0.0) 3(3.2)

Curled hair 2(6.5) 1(2.5) 1(4.5) 4(4.3)

Long Hair 8(25.8) 11(27.5) 3(13.6) 22(23.7)

Han Chinese 24(77.4) 32(80.0) 15(68.2) 71(76.3)

Foreign white 7(22.6) 6(15.0) 6(27.3) 19(20.4)

Chinese minority 1(3.2) 2(5.0) 1(4.5) 4(4.3)