Res Sci Educ

DOI 10.1007/s11165-016-9541-y

An Exploration of Students’ Science Learning

Interest Related to Their Cognitive Anxiety, Cognitive
Load, Self-Confidence and Learning Progress Using
Inquiry-Based Learning With an iPad

Jon-Chao Hong 1 & Ming-Yueh Hwang 2 & Kai-Hsin Tai 1 &

Chi-Ruei Tsai 1

# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Abstract Based on the cognitive-affective theory, the present study designed a science inquiry
learning model, predict-observe-explain (POE), and implemented it in an app called
BWhyWhy^ to examine the effectiveness of students’ science inquiry learning practice. To
understand how POE can affect the cognitive-affective learning process, as well as the learning
progress, a pretest and a posttest were given to 152 grade 5 elementary school students. The
students practiced WhyWhy during six sessions over 6 weeks, and data related to interest in
learning science (ILS), cognitive anxiety (CA), and extraneous cognitive load (ECL) were
collected and analyzed through confirmatory factor analysis with structure equation modeling.
The results showed that students with high ILS have low CA and ECL. In addition, the results
also indicated that students with a high level of self-confidence enhancement showed signif-
icant improvement in the posttest. The implications of this study suggest that by using
technology-enhanced science learning, the POE model is a practical approach to motivate
students to learn.

Keywords Predict-observe-explain (POE) . Inquiry learning . Science-media interface .

Simulations . Virtual reality

* Ming-Yueh Hwang
hwming06013@yahoo.com.tw

1
Department of Industrial Education, National Taiwan Normal University, 162, Heping East Road
Section 1, Taipei, Taiwan
2
Department of Adult and Continuing Education, National Taiwan Normal University, 162, Heping
East Road Section 1, P. O. Box 7-513, Taipei, Taiwan
 Res Sci Educ

Introduction

Inquiry-based teaching in science education attempts to encourage students to explore the

world through their own observation and classification (National Research Council 1996, p.
123). Constructive empiricists believe that scientific inquiry, such as visual and auditory
observations, can help to support a student’s comprehension of natural phenomena. Metz
(1995) noted that a visual learning experience focused on direct visual object observation,
alignment, and classification (p. 93). Visual simulation of natural phenomenon, highlighted in
Gilbert’s (2008) study, improved students’ understanding of difficult scientific concepts. Thus,
the present study utilized an inquiry-based learning method to develop a science learning app
called BWhyWhy^ and, through the perspective of technology-enhanced learning, explored
whether WhyWhy facilitated students’ science inquiry learning.
The cognitive-affective theory of learning with media (CATLM) (Moreno 2006, 2009) focuses
on cognitive and affective processes in multimedia learning. The theory is based on Mayer’s
(2005) theoretical framework of multimedia learning and enhances the learning effectiveness by
taking cognitive and affective aspects into account (Park et al. 2014). BCognitive interference
occurs when information-processing resources (e.g., attention) are diverted from the task at hand,
thereby impairing or even preventing effective task performance^ (Vasey and Daleiden 1996, p.
117). This cognitive interference increases in relation to the types of cognitive concerns, such as
cognitive anxiety and cognitive load, and affects the debilitative confidence that one experiences
while interacting with digital devices (Weinberg 2009). Therefore, cognitive interference may
present an obstacle for learners in an e-learning environment because learners must process
information while coping with distractions. In this sense, this study examined the effectiveness
of the predict-observe-explain (POE) inquiry-based learning model by identifying the role of
individual differences (i.e., cognitive anxiety and cognitive load) in science learning interest
mediated with self-confidence enhancement relevant to learning progress.

Interest in Inquiry Learning

According to Dewey (1933), learning conditions are optimal when the given learning activity
is partially playful and educational. The essential condition for learning is the generation of
intensive interest in response to the learning activity. This trend has been shown when learning
activities were brought via information technology (Ainley and Ainley 2011). However,
previous studies have shown that students can become disengaged once the initial novelty
of the medium has passed (e.g., Cordova and Lepper 1996; Ainley and Ainley 2011), in
particular, the association between topic interest and learning from texts (e.g., Boscolo and
Mason 2003; Clinton and van den Broek 2012). Thus, this study examined whether interest in
learning science by using POE correlated to cognitive and affective factors (i.e., cognitive
anxiety and cognitive load), to ultimately effect learning progress.

Self-Confidence Enhancement in Inquiry Learning

According to Bénabou and Tirole (2002), Köszegi (2006), and Weinberg (2009), self-confidence
can be defined as the beliefs an individual holds about his or her own ability. Stankov et al. (2012)
defined confidence as Ba state of being certain about the success of a particular behavioral act^ (p.
747). Confidence rating is determined by asking an individual how comfortable, out of 100 %, they
feel that the answer they have given to a cognitive test question is correct (Morony et al. 2013). For
Res Sci Educ

decades, studies with confidence ratings as the main part of cognitive tests have found that the
confidence trait is typically found in school-aged children (e.g., Kleitman and Gibson 2011). The
above researches showed that confidence can predict concurrent and future performance. Thus, the
present study encapsulated self-confidence enhancement (SCE) as an ongoing belief in POE science
inquiry learning.

Cognitive Anxiety

Anxiety is aroused when important values and goals are threatened in situations characterized by
ambiguous outcomes. Spielberger (1972) identified two types of anxiety: trait anxiety and state
anxiety. State anxiety is multidimensional and situation-specific, mostly found prior to or during
competition (Martens et al. 1990). This multidimensional approach to explain state anxiety
classifies its subcomponents as cognitive and somatic anxiety (Martens et al. 1990; Weinberg
and Gould 2003). Cognitive anxiety (CA) is the mental element of state anxiety. In science inquiry
learning, it is possible that learners try to focus on the cognitive aspect of completing the task so
that CA alone influences performance (Davis and Cox 2002). According to Burton (1998), CA
manifests as negative expectations regarding the attainment of success and subsequent negative
self-evaluation by the individual and can prompt negative mental consequences. The present
research examines whether CA influences the nature of POE science inquiry e-learning.

Cognitive Load Theory

Cognitive load is related to the ability of working memory to hold a certain amount of
information and/or perform a number of tasks (Drake et al. 2013). The quantity of information
and interactions that are processed when individuals are performing a task can either cause a
high or low level of cognitive loading of the working memory resources available (Paas et al.
2004). Three types of cognitive load have been identified: (1) intrinsic cognitive load is linked
with the complexity rather than the quantity of the learning material; (2) extraneous cognitive
load (ECL) is usually defined as ineffective cognitive load and is caused by the format of
instruction such as ailing designed instructions (Paas et al. 2004); and (3) germane cognitive
load is directly involved with the schema construction and automation process (Paas et al.
2004). These three types of loadings contribute to the term that is known as CL, which is a
learner’s experience during a learning situation (Seufert et al. 2007). If germane cognitive load
pertains to the working memory resources allocated to dealing with intrinsic cognitive load, as
suggested by Sweller (2010) and Kalyuga (2011), it may be difficult to distinguish between
germane cognitive load and intrinsic cognitive load. Thus, to understand whether the design of
POE materials affects individuals in inquiry learning, the present study focused on exploring
ECL in relation to science knowledge acquisition.

Research Hypotheses and Model

Researchers have demonstrated that digital contents could be effective in increasing

learning interest during knowledge acquisition (Papastergiou 2009; Tüzün et al. 2009).
Accordingly, this study explored the interrelation between students’ interest in learning
science, CA, ECL, and self-confidence in relation to learning progress when using
WhyWhy in science inquiry learning.
 Res Sci Educ

Interest in Learning Science Relevant to CA and ECL

Students who have strong individual interest in science seek learning opportunities and are
ready to engage in science learning activities (Ainley and Ainley 2011). The interest expressed
and attention devoted to novel, ambiguous, or uncertain situations generate emotions and
cognition that are consistent with the character of the situation (Izard 2007). Based on
CATLM, science inquiry learning interest is the domain learning interest in relation to
students’ cognitive and affective factors (Schiefele 2009). That is, interest in learning science
is inspired by cognitive factors, which may affect students’ interest in instructional formats
such as POE (van Gog et al. 2009). When students’ interest is removed by CA or cognitive
load, they may become instantly disengaged from the informational content and the learning
activity embedded in WhyWhy. Therefore, the following hypotheses were proposed.

H1: ILS is significantly correlated to CA.

H2: ILS is significantly correlated to ECL.

CA Relevant to ECL

According to attentional control theory (Eysenck et al. 2007), cognitive models of anxiety
emphasize anxiety’s detrimental effects on cognitive behavioral performance (Bishop 2007;
Eysenck et al. 2007). That is, anxiety results in increased levels of compensatory effort to
maintain comparable levels of performance under task demands (Ansari and Derakshan 2011).
To a certain point, adding the element of e-learning increases the marginal perception ability
with a high level of anxiety (Hong et al. 2013). Highly-anxious participants show disturbances
in processes such as goal-directed control of attention (Bishop et al. 2007). Simply put, CA is
regarded as a Bhere and now^ feeling of apprehension and tension. Thus, the effect of CA on
ECL when using WhyWhy for science inquiry learning was examined and the following
hypothesis was proposed.

H3: CA is significantly correlated to ECL.

CA Relevant to Self-Confidence

The interactive effects of anxiety can predict performance under conditions of high
physiological arousal. That is, elevated CA will debilitate performance, whereas an
increase in the intensity of the cognitive component under conditions of low arousal can
be beneficial to performance confidence (e.g., Jones 1990). Subsequently, individuals who
simultaneously experience high intensities of state anxiety and confidence may still
perform successfully, while individuals who experience high anxiety intensities without
the accompanying feelings of confidence may suffer performance decrements (Hanton
et al. 2004). This has been to the detriment of explaining the potential reasons why self-
confidence was influenced by anxiety in a certain direction (Hanton and Connaughton
2002). Thus, students’ anxiety toward using WhyWhy to learn science and the relationship
between CA and self-confidence was examined. The following hypothesis was proposed.
Res Sci Educ

H4: CA is significantly correlated to self-confidence enhancement.

ECL Relevant to Self-Confidence

CATLM assumes that with different cognitive activities and patterns of ECL, different
representational formats are associated with learning performance (Scheiter et al. 2009).
With so many different types of cognitive loading factors, learning with multiple presentations
can easily lead to an excess of learners’ limited cognitive capacity and cause negative effects
on knowledge acquisition (Seufert et al. 2007). There is strong evidence showing individual
differences in cognitive ability related to confidence ratings. That is, relationships between
confidence ratings reflected cognitive load (Kröner and Biermann 2007). Accordingly, the
relationship between ECL and self-confidence of students engaging in learning science
through WhyWhy was hypothesized as follows:

H5: ECL is significantly correlated to self-confidence enhancement.

Self-Confidence Enhancement Relevant to Learning Progress

Stankov et al. (2009) argued that an individual’s level of confidence is contingent on both their
previous experience with similar tasks and their cognitive ability. This type of confidence is
shown as salient to learning tasks and affects learning outcomes (Kleitman and Gibson 2011).
Moreover, students’ self-confidence can be foreseen as part of their cognitive resources, which
ultimately determines their academic achievement (Daniels and Stupnisky 2012). Thus, the
present study encompassed SCE in inquiry-based learning to explore its correlation to learning
progress through practicing WhyWhy.

H6: SCE is significantly correlated to learning progress.

Research Model

Moreno (2006) argued that affective factors facilitate learning through impacting cognitive
engagement. Park et al. (2014) demonstrated that this type of affective state can be constructive
to learning. Understanding the relationships between learning progress, emotional factors, and
cognitive resources, the cognitive components of CA and ECL were assumed as interplay
factors in the process of science inquiry learning via WhyWhy. The research model proposed
is shown in Fig. 1.

WhyWhy E-Learning Content Design

Interactive media allows users to determine the Bwhat^ and the Bhow^ of a given presentation
affects the cognitive system (Schwan and Riempp 2004). In order to use the POE model to
develop science learning materials and to construct a coherent mental representation for
learners, this study first built a template to process a transcript. After the transcript and
 Res Sci Educ

Cognitive
anxiety H4
H1
(CA)

H6
Interest in Self- Learning
learning H3 confidence
progress
science (ILS) enhancement
(SCE)

Extraneous
H2 cognitive H5
load
(ECL)

Fig. 1 Research model

storyboard was completed, animations were designed to accompany the science learning
materials. Each of the animated representations had to be understood during the Bobservation^
phase of POE, which meant that relevant elements within an animation had to be identified. In
this sense, the correlations of interest in learning science, CA, and cognitive function correlated
to learning progress could then be examined.

POE Inquiry-Based Learning Model

Inquiry-based learning is a powerful educational tool that enables students to fully grasp the
knowledge concept and helps them to develop strategic thinking in learning the scientific
contents (Bell et al. 2003). According to Lazonder et al. (2008), in order to ensure a thorough
and in-depth understanding of science knowledge or content in a virtual reality setting, it is
very important to push and encourage students to go beyond their normal learning capacity
(van den Broek et al. 1995). This development aims to generate students’ ability in explaining
natural science phenomena.
In the traditional B5E^ inquiry-based learning model (i.e., engage, explore, explain, elab-
orate, and evaluate), each BE^ supports the classroom experience and teaching strategies that
provide students with opportunities to construct content understanding within the context of
experiences consistent with science as inquiry (Wilson et al. 2010). However, in designing the
inquiry-based learning model of WhyWhy, and taking into account the e-learning format, we
chose to apply the inquiry-based learning model based on prediction, observation, and
explanation proposed by Pegg (2006).
The POE inquiry learning model in WhyWhy is shown in Fig. 2 and it operates as
follows: (1) Predict: The student is shown a multiple choice question about a particular
topic and is required to predict the answer based on their general knowledge. This stage
was designed to trigger the student’s mental engagement in the concept to be learned and it
corresponds to the Bengage^ phase in the B5E^ model because the student is required to
make connections between past and present learning experiences. (2) Observe: The
student observes a short animation related to the topic. This stage was designed to
correspond to the Bexplore^ phase in the B5E^ model. While an e-learning environment
has its limitations compared to a traditional classroom setting, it also has its advantages. In
Res Sci Educ

Footage/ Picture (1) with question

In a desert, people use clothes to screen sand blown by wind. Why
does the ship of the desert, a.k.a. camel, not require this screening?
Imagine the special features about their eyes and nose that inhibit
sand from entering when camels walk in a desert.
Wrong answer, repeat again

Answer Choices
(1)Their nostrils are small and they walk with their eyes closed.

Correct answer
(2)They have long eyelashes and closable nostrils.
Wrong answer

(3) Their eyes have a nictitating membrane and their nostrils are small.
Answer (2)

Footage/ Picture (2) ….Experimental Result

This footage shows the camel blinking, and also opening and closing

Correct answer
its nostrils

Footage/ Picture (3) ….is clearly related to the physical principle

For incorrect answers, replay the footage.

For human’s eyes, what structural aspects ensure the pupils are
protected?

Science Concepts and Principles

(more than one answer may be correct)
Eyes are openings that connect the organism and the outside world.
Which structure of the eye provides protection and blocks foreign
bodies in the environment from entering?
(1) The crystalline lens.
(2) The eyelid and eyelashes.
(3) The pupil.
Correct answer

Answer: (2) The upper and lower eyelids can shut to protect the eye
and the eyelashes can block foreign objects from entering the eye.

Explanation
Camels have 3 layers of eyelids and long curly eyelashes, and their
nostrils can close up automatically. These special features all prevent
the sand from entering the body.

Fig. 2 Design model example

this regard, by using animation in WhyWhy, the students can observe phenomena they
may not be able to normally observe in a classroom setting. An example is shown in Fig. 3,
where the question asks why camels can walk through the desert without being hindered
by the sand, and the student is shown a time-lapse animation of the camel’s eyes and
nostrils. (3) Explain: The student is presented with a slightly more difficult question based
on concepts about the topic and is required to choose the correct answer (more than one
answer may be correct). This stage corresponds to the Belaborate,^ Bevaluate,^ and
Bexplain^ phases in the B5E^ model. This more difficult multiple choice question allows
for refinement of thinking and also allows the teacher to evaluate the student’s under-
standing of key concepts. As WhyWhy was designed as an e-learning app, we chose to use
 Res Sci Educ

Fig. 3 Example of time-lapse an-

imation in the Bobserve^ stage of
WhyWhy

multiple choice questions over other formats (e.g., students presenting their explanations
using free writing) for this stage. After the student answered the multiple choice question,
they are shown an in-depth explanation to enhance their learning.

WhyWhy Course Development

According to Marchionini (2008), the basic foundation for learning is domain knowledge,
which can be further explored and expanded by different media. This study focused on
inquiry-based science learning via WhyWhy and the students were asked to practice 30 units.
A storyboard was designed to increase the effectiveness of the POE model in students’ science
learning. An example storyboard is shown in Fig. 4.

Research Design

This research adapted a single group quasi-experimental design and the experiment lasted for
6 weeks. To understand the cognitive and affective state when practicing WhyWhy, self-
reporting was adapted to verify the research model.

Procedure

The experiment session took place once a week, over a period of 6 weeks. In the sessions, each
student was given an iPad 2 to practice the POE inquiry model with WhyWhy. The students
could attempt as many questions as possible within 10 min. A worked practice example was
presented before the experiment began. A pretest and a questionnaire regarding students’ interest
in learning science were administered before the first session. After the sixth session, a posttest
was given to the students, as well as a questionnaire related to CA, CL, and self-confidence.

Participants

Through game-play, individual differences can be observed (Goddard et al. 2001). Thus, 5th
grade students from one elementary school in Taipei City were selected as the participants for
this study, and 183 students participated. A total of 152 effective questionnaires, with 88
(57.9 %) males and 74 (42.1 %) females, were returned and validated.
Res Sci Educ

Fig. 4 BCapillary action^

storyboard

Measuring Questionnaire

The questionnaire items were adapted from previous theories or researchers and obtained by
professionally translating the original items to Chinese using the forward-backward method,
which allows one to verify the accuracy and clarity of the translation to ensure face validity.
This research used a five-point Likert scale to compute scores and a self-assessment method,
with 1 representing strongly disagree and 5 representing strongly agree, to measure students’
 Res Sci Educ

interest, cognitive anxiety, extraneous cognitive load, and self-confidence when using
WhyWhy in science inquiry learning.

Interest in Learning Science Measurement Previous research has shown that feelings
such as like and enjoyment may influence a person’s interest and that a heightened psycho-
logical state accompanies engagement with content over a given period of time (Roeser and
Peck 2009). Interest can also be referred to as the degree to which an individual enjoys or likes
or engages in specific activities (Hong et al. 2014). In line with this, this study designed
questionnaire items to constitute this construct.

Cognitive Anxiety Measurement The attainment of success and subsequent negative

self-evaluation by the individual can prompt one or more of the following types of
cognitive anxiety responses: (1) worries and other negative thoughts, (2) images of
disaster and other disturbing evaluation-related imagery, (3) concentration problems that
may distract, and (4) feelings varying between loss of control and feeling totally
overwhelmed (Burton 1998). Accordingly, this study designed six items based on these
cognitive indicators of CA.

Extraneous Cognitive Load Measurement Research has shown that self-reports, such as
the Bmental effort rating scale,^ are reliable measures of extraneous cognitive load (Ayres
2006). Extraneous load results from the manner or design of instructional materials. Paas et al.
(2003) found that high extraneous cognitive load was related to task complexity. In line with
this, this study designed five items for extraneous cognitive load.

Self-Confidence Enhancement Measurement Self-confidence can be considered as

state-like, which changes along with task-on-time (e.g., Fleeson 2007). Vealey (1986)
included competitive orientation in successful operation and developed an instrument to
measure self-confidence. This study adapted Vealey’s (1986) measurement of self-confi-
dence, which stated that the degree of inquiry learning confidence is reflected on perfor-
mance, and compared the difference in the students’ degree of confidence during their first
engagement with WhyWhy.

Data Collection of Learning Progress

To examine students’ learning effectiveness relevant to affective factors, science knowledge

tests were administered to each participant before and after the experiment. The tests were
conducted on paper and the resulting percentage score was counted for the cognitive effec-
tiveness of inquiry learning through the POE model. The participants were also not informed
that the pretest and posttest used the same 15 questions. Exemplary items included the
following:

Item 1: Take a paper towel, copy paper, and newspaper, each of the same size. Place them
into a bowl containing water dye. Under the same amount of time, which type of
paper has the highest level of water dye?

(A) Paper towel.

Res Sci Educ

(B) Copy paper.

(C) Newspaper.
(Correct answer is A.)
Item 2: As the wind blows downhill along the hillside, sometimes this causes dryness in
plants and can even lead to wildfire. What causes this natural phenomenon?

(A) The air was dry on the top of the hill, and its temperature increased when it blew
toward the ground.
(B) The air was moist on the top of the hill, and its temperature increased when it blew
toward the ground.
(C) It does not matter whether the air was dry or not when it blew through the hill.
(Correct answer is A.)
Item 3: When mom is cooking, the oil in the wok catches on fire. What should mom do to
put out the fire?

(A) Cover the wok with a lid.

(B) Pour dish washing detergent into the wok.
(C) Crack an egg into the wok.
(Correct answer is A.)
Item 4: A sheet of paper towel and a coin are dropped from the same height at the same time,
which one will reach the ground first?

(A) Paper towel.

(B) A coin.
(C) They will reach the ground at the same time.
(Correct answer is B.)
Item 5: What would be the shape of the bubble if you used a square shaped frame to blow
bubbles?

(A) Cube.
(B) Cylinder.
(C) Sphere.
(Correct answer is C.)
Item 6: In a desert, people use clothes to screen sand blown by wind. Why does the ship of
the desert, a.k.a. camel, not require this screening?

(A) Camels have long eyelashes and closable nostrils.

(B) Camels have small nostrils and they can walk with their eyes closed.
(C) Camels have small nostrils and their eyes have a nictitating membrane.
(Correct answer is A.)

Results

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was first applied to analyze the item suitability and test the
reliability and validity of the questionnaires. Learning progress was then calculated and
verified by using structural equation modeling with PLS.
 Res Sci Educ

Item Analysis

The original items in each construct were subjected to first-order CFA to refine the
numbers of items in each construct. According to the principles of parsimonious model
and residual independent, we needed to reduce the number of items in each construct.
Table 1 shows that the values of χ2/df of all constructs were less than the threshold value 5.
In addition, the values of goodness-of-fit index (GFI) and adjusted GFI (AGFI) were
above the threshold value .80, and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)
values were less than the threshold value .08, which indicates a good fit (Hu and Bentler
1999; MacCallum and Hong 1997). Therefore, the results revealed that items in ILS were
reduced from 6 to 4; CA items were reduced from 6 to 4; ECL items were reduced from 5
to 4; and SCE items were reduced from 5 to 4.

Reliability and Validity Analyses

Hair et al. (2009) noted that if the following three criteria are met, the construct has
convergent validity: (1) factor loading is greater than or equal to .7; (2) composite
reliability (CR) is greater than or equal to .7; and (3) average variance extracted amount
(AVE) is greater than .5. Table 2 shows the AVE values were above the threshold value of
.5, while the CR values were above the threshold value of .7. The corresponding factor
loadings for all of the constructs’ measured variables were above .7, which demonstrated
convergent validity. Table 3 shows that the mean of each construct was between 2.43 and
3.21, and the small standard deviations implied that the dispersion between the collected
data was low.
According to Nunnally (1978), Cronbach’s α of the constructs could be calculated to
analyze the reliability of the data. Table 2 shows that all Cronbach’s α values in the present
study were between .97 and .99, which surpassed the threshold value .7 (Hair et al. 2009). This
result indicated that the constructs had a good degree of reliability and validity.

Learning Progress Analysis

Table 4 shows the mean, standard deviation, and result of the paired-sample t test. The pretest
(M = 5.75, SD = 2.30) and posttest (M = 8.80, SD = 1.85) showed a significant difference
(t = −4.48***, p < .001). The degree of progress also showed that participants answered more
questions after practicing WhyWhy and that most students performed better on the posttest
than on the pretest.

Table 1 Item analysis of confirmatory factor analysis

Measurement index Threshold ILS CA ECL SCE

χ2 – 1.36 1.61 1.11 1.54

df – 3 3 3 3
χ2/df <5 .45 .54 .28 .51
RMSEA <.08 .00 .00 .00 .00
GFI >.80 .99 .99 .99 .99
AGFI >.80 .99 .98 .99 .98
Res Sci Educ

Table 2 Summary of reliability and validity analyses

Construct Factor loading CR AVE Cronbach’s α

SCE .945 .976 .912 .968

.958
.948
.968
CA .958 .983 .937 .977
.964
.972
.978
ECL .980 .992 .970 .990
.988
.983
.990
ILS .948 .977 .915 .970
.960
.959
.961

Table 3 Reliability and validity analyses

Construct Item Mean SD Mean of

construct

SCE 1. Compared with the first time I played, I now have more 3.22 1.41 3.19
confidence to handle the interface of POE inquiry.
2. Compared with the first time I played, I now have more 3.18 1.37
confidence in finding the strategy to perform better.
3. Compared with the first time I played, I now have more 3.18 1.36
confidence in the reasoning POE inquiry content.
4. Compared with the first time I played, I now have more 3.18 1.37
confidence to concentrate in processing scientific reasoning with
the POE inquiry model.
CA 1. During this game, I was worried that the content was too difficult. 2.41 1.34 2.43
2. During this game, I was worried that my result would be bad. 2.47 1.36
3. I was too nervous to comprehend the contents of WhyWhy 2.43 1.34
within the time limit.
4. During this game, I got nervous when I saw questions that I did 2.40 1.34
not know how to answer.
ECL 1. I felt that the content of WhyWhy was difficult for me. 2.53 1.31 2.52
2. It was hard for me to predict the answer in WhyWhy. 2.53 1.38
3. I lost my attention when observing the animation in WhyWhy. 2.52 1.36
4. I had to focus really hard to adapt to the way POE transitioned. 2.51 1.30
ILS 1. I like to read science-related books. 3.18 1.41 3.21
2. I feel a sense of fun when I attend science classes. 3.22 1.36
3. I feel very excited when I do science experiments. 3.19 1.36
4. I am very concentrated when I read science books and lose track 3.26 1.41
of the time.
 Res Sci Educ

Table 4 Learning progress analysis

Minimum Maximum M SD t value

Pretest 0 15 5.75 2.30 −4.48***

Posttest 1 15 8.80 1.85
Degree of progress 1.00 11.00 3.05 1.36

Correlation Analysis

Pearson’s r coefficient of correlation was calculated to determine the degree of linear relation-
ship between each construct. Table 5 shows that learning progress and CA were negatively
correlated (r = −.165, p < .05), learning progress and ECL were negatively correlated
(r = −.219, p < .01), and CA and ECL were positively correlated (r = .793, p < .001). The
construct of ILS was negatively correlated to CA and ECL (r = −.372, p < .001; r = −.428,
p < .001, respectively); therefore, the relationship can be further subjected to pathway analysis.

Path Analysis

In this study, the partial least squares (PLS) method was used to analyze the research
hypotheses. For testing, the bootstrap method (1000 resamples) was used for analysis (Hair
et al. 2012). The PLS analysis estimation steps were divided into two stages. The first stage
primarily analyzed the measurement model’s reliability and validity. The second stage primar-
ily estimated and tested the structural model’s path coefficient, t value and R2. Path coefficient
represents the intensity and direction of relationship between constructs, and t value was
applied to test whether the hypothesis could be established. The R2 value refers to the ratio of
the explainable variable amount of the independent variable over the dependent variable,
which represents the model’s predictive capacity (Fornell and Larcker 1981).
Figure 5 shows the verification of the research model. Hypothesis 1 was negatively
supported by the correlation of ILS to CA (α = −.561, t = −5.097, p < .05). Hypothesis 2 was
also negatively supported by the correlation of ILS to ECL (α = −.430, t = −4.325, p < .001).
Hypothesis 3 was positively supported by the correlation of CA to ECL ( α = .717, t = 6.369,
p < .001). Hypothesis 4 was negatively supported by the correlation of CA to SCE (α = −.161,
t = −2.097, p < .05). Hypothesis 5 was negatively supported by the correlation of ECL to SCE
(α = −.219, t = −2.291, p < .05). Hypothesis 6 was positively supported by the correlation of
SCE to learning progress (α = .319, t = 3.291, p < .001). In addition, after the square of the

Table 5 The correlation matrix

LP SCE CA ECL ILS

LP 1
SCE −.178* 1
CA −.165* −.482*** 1
ECL −.219** −.507*** .793*** 1
ILS .154* .792*** −.372*** −.428*** 1

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Res Sci Educ

R2=.365

Cognitive
anxiety
-.561*** (CA) -.161**

Interest in Self-confidence .319**

learning .717*** enhancement
Learning
science (SCE)
progress
(ILS)

R2=.552
R2=.480
Extraneous
-.430*** cognitive -.219***
load
(ECL)

R2=.185
Fig. 5 Verification of research model

multiple correlation coefficients (R2) was applied, the explained variance of the ILS on CA was
36.5 %, the explained variance of ILS and CA on ECL was 18.5 %, the explained variance of
CA and ECL on SCE was 55.2 %, and the explained variance of SCE on learning progress was
48.0 %. Thus, the dependent variables used in this study demonstrated good reliability. Given
these findings, it is evident that the variables used in this study had good predictive abilities
(Hair et al. 2012).

Discussion

The present study designed a POE model in the app WhyWhy for 5th grade elementary school
students to practice scientific inquiry learning. Three main conclusions could be deduced from
the results: (1) The correlation between learning progress and SCE was positively correlated, (2)
CA and ECL were negatively correlated to SCE, and (3) ISL was negatively correlated to CA
and ECL. Interest plays a significant role in the learning process (Stern and West 2014).
Learning interest is a personality trait or inspirational and motivational characteristic in a human
being that can result in a long-lasting preference for a certain learning area or study topic (Krapp
1999). This study designed the POE materials by applying inquiry learning elements, which
was expected to have an emotional impact on cognitive resources. As lowering the level of
learning anxiety in the long term can be difficult, recent studies have implied that self-interest on
a specific task can shield individuals from the negative effects on an affective state (e.g., Bayer
et al. 2010). Supporting this statement, the present study showed that ILS was negatively
correlated to cognitive anxiety, and hypothesis 1 was negatively supported.
In examining hypothesis 2, the result of this study indicated that ILS was negatively
correlated to ECL. The result is supported by Mayer (2005), who pointed out that increasing
the level of learning interest would decrease the amount of mental effort in learning with
 Res Sci Educ

media. Through the POE in WhyWhy, participants were interested to predict novel science-
based phenomena and observe relevant animations. Participants with a high level of ISL may
perceive the POE materials with low ECL. That is, the perception of interest in POE inquiry
learning may reduce participants’ ECL (van Gog et al. 2009).
In examining hypothesis 3, the result showed that CA was positively correlated to ECL.
According to cognitive interference theory, all interactive learning models require extended
cognitive resources (Winberg and Berg 2007). That is, the participants experienced CA along
with tasks demanding high ECL (Davis and Cox 2002). The participants’ self-assessment of CA
and ECL constructs both averaged below 3.0. Supporting this result, Mayer (2009) and Sweller
et al. (2011) suggested that multimedia learning should focus on how to optimize the amount of
cognitive resources in the learning process by designing a suitable type of learning environment.
In examining hypothesis 4, the result showed that increasing participants’ cognitive anxiety will
decrease their confidence in POE learning. From a cognitive-affective perspective, self-concept is
highly related to state anxiety, which is defined as an individual’s physiological and affective
responses when he or she is undertaking or thinking about a task (Morony et al. 2013). This result
is supported by the argument of Morris et al. (1981) that the incidence of anxiety is a combined
function of personal variables and of situation variables. It is also consistent with the assertion of
Tanaka et al. (2006) that CA is a transient experience of tension and worry, which accurately
reflects the nervous function and may elucidate one’s confidence in the cognitive process.
In examining hypothesis 5, the result showed that ECL was negatively correlated to SCE in
POE learning. This result supports the argument of Stankov et al. (2009) that one’s confidence
level is contingent on cognitive ability. It is inspired by cognitive factors, which may affect
increasing confidence in instructional formats such as POE inquiry learning (van Gog et al.
2009). However, learning interest related to cognitive resources of a learner’s ECL affects
learners’ ability to concentrate on less demanding issues, as supported by the studies of Clark
et al. (2006) and Kröner and Biermann (2007).
In examining hypothesis 6, the result showed that increasing participants’ SCE will increase
their progress in POE learning. In supporting this, Kleitman and Gibson (2011) argued that the
level of confidence is shown as salient to learning tasks and affects learning outcomes. The
result is also supported by Daniels and Stupnisky (2012), who posited that students’ SCE can
be foreseen as part of their cognitive resources, which ultimately determines their academic
achievement.

Conclusion

In the pursuit of an inquiry, a learner has control over the goal, inquiry topic, and learning
process (Jones et al. 2013). This study selected science as the inquiry topic and the POE model
as the inquiry process. Unlike previous studies, which focused on the correlation between
internet cognitive failure, online learning interest, and continuance intention to practice POE
science inquiry learning (Hong et al. 2014), this study specifically explored the relationships
between individual’s cognitive anxiety and ECL in relation to learning progress. Taken
together, this study presents a contribution to the literature as it showed that the cognitive
resources have profound implication with aspects of cognitive anxiety and ECL in POE
science inquiry learning.
This research also has important implications on mobile learning (M-learning) design and
usage. First, the findings from this study suggested that science instructors could benefit from
Res Sci Educ

paying closer attention to how the POE model affects cognitive anxiety and ECL. Second, the
related practical implication indicated the need for inquiry model designers to consider how
individual ILS interacts with aspects of cognitive resources by deducing the effect of cognitive
anxiety and ECL. To reduce ECL originating from extraneous factors, this study provided step-
by-step guidelines and prestructured POE inquiry tasks for learners. POE may be a crucial model
when deciding where to expand on developing inquiry courses in the M-learning environment.

Limitation and Future Study

The use of mobile devices supports inquiries performed in and across different contexts (Jones et al.
2013). Having established the POE model for science inquiry learning and the relevance of
interplaying constructs in this study, a follow-up study could be conducted to examine the identity
mechanisms accounting for these effects and in other knowledge domains for elementary students.
M-learning can facilitate self-paced learning and this study designed a multiple choice
question format in the Bexplain^ phase of the POE model in WhyWhy. Future studies can
design an M-learning environment that allows students to practice scientific argumentation in
more detail (e.g., by free writing their arguments for teachers to assess) in the Bexplain^ phase
of POE, as this may provide further insights into students’ learning progress.
Warwick et al. (2013) focused on the way that a teacher guides children’s collective
learning through scaffolding of collaborative activities and found that this promoted the
development of children’s ability to reason collectively and regulated their science learning.
This suggested a possible link between individuals with a high level of ISL and the use of a
device as a collaborative learning setting (e.g., using Bluetooth), to enable individuals to learn
from one another. Where this study focused on the inquiry of individuals in dyadic relation-
ships, a future study could be designed to evaluate the impact of diversity among group
members’ interest and the resultant effects on collaborative learning and performance.
Regarding the gender-specific differences in interest and achievement in science (Hoffmann
2002), Hong et al. (2013) investigated the effect of gender difference on performing science
learning tasks. The results showed that the overall perception performance in property categoriza-
tion in female students was expressively better than that of male students. Moreover, Jurik et al.
(2013) studied the gender difference in verbal engagement in physics instruction and found female
students outperformed male students. Thus, future research can focus on the difference in
performance between the genders in relation to POE science inquiry learning using mobile devices.

Acknowledgments This research was partially supported by the BAim for the Top University Project^ of
National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU), sponsored by the Ministry of Education, Taiwan, and the
BInternational Research-Intensive Center of Excellence Program^ of NTNU and Ministry of Science and
Technology, Taiwan (MOST 103-2911-I-003-301 and MOST 101-2511-S-003-056-MY3 and MOST 104-
2911-I-003-301).

References

Ainley, M., & Ainley, J. (2011). Student engagement with science in early adolescence: the contribution of
enjoyment to students’ continuing interest in learning about science. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
36(1), 4–12.
 Res Sci Educ

Ansari, T. L., & Derakshan, N. (2011). The neural correlates of cognitive effort in anxiety: effects on processing
efficiency. Biological Psychology, 86(3), 337–348.
Ayres, P. (2006). Impact of reducing intrinsic cognitive load on learning in a mathematical domain. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 20, 287–298. doi:10.1002/acp.1245.
Bayer, U. C., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Achtziger, A. (2010). Staying on track: planned goal striving is protected from
disruptive internal states. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 505–514.
Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science
apprenticeship program on high school students’ understanding of the nature of science and scientific
inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 487–509.
Bénabou, R. J. M., & Tirole, J. (2002). Self-confidence and personal motivation. The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 117, 871–915.
Bishop, S. J. (2007). Neurocognitive mechanisms of anxiety: an integrative account. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 11(7), 307–316.
Bishop, S. J., Jenkins, R., & Lawrence, A. D. (2007). Neural processing of fearful faces: effects of anxiety are
gated by perceptual capacity limitations. Cerebral Cortex, 17, 1595–1603.
Boscolo, P., & Mason, L. (2003). Topic knowledge, text coherence, and interest: how they interact in learning
from instructional texts. The Journal of Experimental Education, 71(2), 126–148.
Burton, D. (1998). Measuring competitive state anxiety. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise
psychology measurement (pp. 129–148). Morgantown: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.
Clark, R., Howard, K., & Early, S. (2006). Motivational challenges experienced in highly complex learning
environments. In J. Elen & R. Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: theory and
research (pp. 27–42). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Clinton, V., & van den Broek, P. (2012). Interest, inferences, and learning from texts. Learning and Individual
Differences, 22(6), 650–663.
Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: beneficial effects of
contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 715–730.
Daniels, L. M., & Stupnisky, R. H. (2012). Not that different in theory: Discussing the control-value theory of
emotions in online learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 222–226.
Davis, J. E., & Cox, R. H. (2002). Interpreting direction of anxiety within Hanin’s individual zone of optimal
functioning. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14(1), 43–52.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston: DC Heath.
Drake, K. E., Lipka, S., Smith, C., & Egan, V. (2013). The effect of cognitive load on faking interrogative
suggestibility on the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(7), 845–849.
Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive performance:
attentional control theory. Emotion, 7(2), 336–353.
Fleeson, W. (2007). Situation-based contingencies underlying trait-content manifestation in behaviour. Journal of
Personality, 75, 825–861.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement
error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Gilbert, J. K. (2008). Visualization: an emergent field of practice and enquiry in science education. Visualization:
theory and practice in science education (pp. 3–24). Dordrecht: Springer.
Goddard, L., Dritschel, B., & Burton, A. (2001). The effects of specific retrieval instruction on social problem-
solving in depression. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40(3), 297–308.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper
Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares
structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40, 414–433.
Hanton, S., & Connaughton, D. (2002). Perceived control of anxiety and its relationship to self-confidence and
performance: a qualitative inquiry. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73, 87–97.
Hanton, S., Mellalieu, S. D., & Hall, R. (2004). Self-confidence and anxiety interpretation: a qualitative
investigation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 5(4), 477–495.
Hoffmann, L. (2002). Promoting girls’ interest and achievement in physics classes for beginners. Learning and
Instruction, 12(4), 447–465.
Hong, J. C., Hwang, M. Y., Liu, M. C., Ho, H. Y., & Chen, Y. L. (2014). Using a "prediction-observation-
explanation" inquiry model to enhance student interest and intention to continue science learning predicted
by their internet cognitive failure. Computers & Education, 72, 1–11.
Hong, J. C., Lu, C. C. Wang, J. L., Liao, S., Wu, M. R., Hwang, M. Y., & Lin, P. S. (2013). Gender and prior science
achievement affect categorization on a procedural learning task. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 92–101.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
Res Sci Educ

Izard, C. E. (2007). Basic emotions, natural kinds, emotion schemas, and a new paradigm. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 2(3), 260–280.
Jones, G. (1990). A cognitive perspective on the processes underlying the relationship between stress and
performance in sport. In G. Jones & L. Hardy (Eds.), Stress and performance in sport (pp. 17–42).
Chichester: Wiley.
Jones, A. C., Scanlon, E., & Clough, G. (2013). Mobile learning: two case studies of supporting inquiry learning
in informal and semiformal settings. Computers & Education, 61, 21–32.
Jurik, V., Gröschner, A., & Seidel, T. (2013). How student characteristics affect girls’ and boys’ verbal
engagement in physics instruction. Learning and Instruction, 23, 33–42.
Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: how many types of load does it really need? Educational Psychology
Review, 23, 1–19. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9150-7.
Kleitman, S., & Gibson, J. (2011). Metacognitive beliefs, self-confidence and primary learning environment of
sixth grade students. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(6), 728–735.
Köszegi, B. (2006). Ego utility, overconfidence and task choice. Journal of the European Economic Association,
4, 673–707.
Krapp, A. (1999). Interest, motivation and learning: an educational–psychological perspective. European Journal
of Psychology of Education, 14, 23–40.
Kröner, S., & Biermann, A. (2007). The relationship between confidence and self-concept: towards a model of
response confidence. Intelligence, 35(6), 580–590.
Lazonder, A. W., Wilhelm, P., & Hagemans, M. G. (2008). The influence of domain knowledge on strategy use
during simulation-based inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 18(6), 580–592.
MacCallum, R. C., & Hong, S. (1997). Power analysis in covariance structure modeling using GFI and AGFI.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32(2), 193–210.
Marchionini, G. (2008). Human-information interaction research and development. Library and Information
Science Research, 30(3), 165–174.
Martens, R., Burton, D., Vealey, R. S., Bump, L. A., & Smith, D. E. (1990). Development and validation of the
Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2). In R. Martens, R. S. Vealey, & D. Burton (Eds.),
Competitive anxiety in sport (pp. 117–213). Champaign: Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.
Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Metz, K. E. (1995). Re-assessment of developmental assumptions in children’s science instruction. Review of
Educational Research, 65(2), 93–127.
Moreno, R. (2006). Does the modality principle hold for different media? A test of the method-affects-learning
hypothesis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(3), 149–158.
Moreno, R. (2009). Learning from animated classroom exemplars: the case for guiding student teachers’
observations with metacognitive prompts. Journal of Educational Research and Evaluation, 15, 487–501.
Morony, S., Kleitman, S., Lee, Y. P., & Stankov, L. (2013). Predicting achievement: confidence vs. self-efficacy,
anxiety, and self-concept in Confucian and European countries. International Journal of Educational
Research, 58, 79–96.
Morris, L. W., Davis, M. A., & Hutchings, C. H. (1981). Cognitive and emotional components of anxiety:
literature review and a revised worry–emotionality scale. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 541–555.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington: National Academy
Press.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Paas, F., Tuovinen, J., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance
cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 63–71. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_8.
Paas, F., Renkel, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: instructional implications of the interaction
between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32, 1–8.
Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: impact on
educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 1–12.
Park, B., Plass, J. L., & Brünken, R. (2014). Cognitive and affective processes in multimedia learning. Learning
and Instruction, 29, 125–127.
Pegg, J. M. (2006). Developing explanations: student reasoning about science concepts during claims-evidence
inquiry lessons. Ph.D. diss. Corvallis, OR: Department of Science and Math Education, Oregon State
University.
Roeser, R. W. & Peck, S. C. (2009). An education in awareness: self, motivation, and self-regulated learning in
contemplative perspective. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 119–136.
Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., Vollmann, B., & Catrambone, R. (2009). The impact of learner characteristics on
information utilization strategies, cognitive load experienced, and performance in hypermedia learning.
Learning and Instruction, 19(5), 387–401.
 Res Sci Educ

Schiefele, U. (2009). Situational and individual interest. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of
motivation at school (pp. 197–222). New York/London: Routledge.
Schwan, S., & Riempp, R. (2004). The cognitive benefits of interactive videos: learning to tie nautical knots.
Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 293–305.
Seufert, T., Jänen, I., & Brünken, R. (2007). The impact of intrinsic cognitive load on the effectiveness of
graphical help for coherence formation. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1055–1071.
Spielberger, C. (1972). Anxiety as an emotional state. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety: current trends in theory
and research (Vol. 1, pp. 23–49). New York: Academic.
Stankov, L., Lee, J., & Paek, I. (2009). Realism of confidence judgments. European Journal of Psychological
Assessment, 25, 123–130.
Stankov, L., Lee, J., Wenshu, L., & Hogan, D. J. (2012). Confidence: a better predictor of academic achievement
than self-efficacy, self-concept and anxiety? Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 747–758.
Stern, C., & West, T. V. (2014). Circumventing anxiety during interpersonal encounters to promote interest in
contact: an implementation intention approach. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 82–93.
Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational
Psychology Review, 22, 123–138. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5.
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.
Tanaka, A., Takehara, T., & Yamauchi, H. (2006). Achievement goals in a presentation task: performance
expectancy, achievement goals, state anxiety, and task performance. Learning and Individual Differences,
16(2), 93–99.
Tüzün, H., Yılmaz-Soylu, M., Karakus, T., Inal, Y., & Kızılkaya, G. (2009). The effects of computer games on
primary school students’ achievement and motivation in geography learning. Computers & Education,
52(1), 68–77.
van den Broek, P., Risden, K., & Husebye-Hartmann, E. (1995). The role of readers’ standards for coherence in
the generation of inferences during reading. In R. F. Lorch & E. J. O’Brien (Eds.), Sources of coherence in
reading (pp. 353–373). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
van Gog, T., Kester, L., Nievelstein, F., Giesbers, B., & Paas, F. (2009). Uncovering cognitive processes: different
techniques that can contribute to cognitive load research and instruction. Computers in Human Behavior,
25(2), 325–331.
Vasey, M. W., & Daleiden, E. L. (1996). Information-processing pathways to cognitive interference in childhood.
In I. G. Sarason, G. Pierce, & B. Sarason (Eds.), Cognitive interference: theory, methods, and findings (pp.
117–138). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Vealey, R. S. (1986). Conceptualization of sport-confidence and competitive orientation: preliminary investiga-
tion and instrument development. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 221–246.
Warwick, P., Mercer, N., & Kershner, R. (2013). ‘Wait, let’s just think about this’: using the interactive
whiteboard and talk rules to scaffold learning for co-regulation in collaborative science activities.
Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2(1), 42–51.
Weinberg, B. A. (2009). A model of overconfidence. Pacific Economic Review, 14, 502–515.
Weinberg, R. S., & Gould, D. (2003). Foundations of sport and exercise psychology (3rd ed.). Champaign:
Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.
Wilson, C. D., Taylor, J. A., Kowalski, S. M., & Carlson, J. (2010). The relative effects and equity of inquiry-
based and commonplace science teaching on students’ knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 276–301.
Winberg, T., & Berg, C. (2007). Students’ cognitive focus during a chemistry laboratory exercise: effects of a
computer-simulated prelab. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1108–1133.