Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute

Education Quarterly Reviews

ISSN 2621-5799

asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
crossref
doi
open access

Published: 10 September 2021

Factors Predicting Middle School Pupils’ Learning Orientations: A Multilevel Analysis

Esme Hacıeminoğlu

Akdeniz University, Turkey

asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
pdf download

Download Full-Text Pdf

doi

10.31014/aior.1993.04.03.349

Pages: 409-423

Keywords: Students’ Learning Orientations, Attitude Toward Science, Motivational Goal Orientation, Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM), Student and School Level Factors

Abstract

Investigating on what school- and student-level factors are related to pupils’ learning orientations was the main purpose of this study. The study used a sample of 2917 middle school pupils across Turkey. The Test of Science Related Attitude, Learning Approach Questionnaire and the Achievement Motivation Questionnaire were utilised as data collection tools. Analysis revealed that there were significant differences in pupils’ learning orientations with respect to both meaningful learning orientation and rote learning orientation. When learning and motivational factors were examined it was found that performance goal orientation and learning goal orientation positively contributed to both meaningful learning and rote learning orientations. Upon examination of sub-dimensions of attitudes toward science, it was determined that the adaptation of scientific attitudes and leisure interest in science made positive and significant contributions to meaningful learning orientation while enjoyment of science lessons contributed to students’ meaningful learning orientation negatively. With respect to rote learning orientation, both adaptation of scientific attitudes and enjoyment of science lessons negatively contributed.

References

  1. Ahmed, A. & Ahmed, N. (2017). Comparative analysis of rote learning on high and low achievers in graduate and undergraduate programs.Journal of Education and Educational Development,4(1),111-129.

  2. Arısoy, N. (2007). Examining 8th grade students’ perception of learning environment of science classrooms inrelation to motivational beliefs and attitudes. Unpublished Theses in Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.

  3. Aydın, S. & Çakıroğlu, J. (2010). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretim programına ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri: Ankara örneği. İlköğretim Online,9(1), 301-315 (in Turkish).

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

  5. Boz, Y., Yerdelen-Damar, S., & Belge-Can, H. (2018). Investigation of relations among middle school (junior high school) students' gender, learning approaches, perceptions of learning environment and science achievement. Elementary Education Online, 17(3), 1268-1282.

  6. Caliskan, İ. S. (2004). The effect of inquiry-based chemistry course on students' understanding of atom concept, learning approaches,motivation, self-efficacy, and epistemological beliefs. Unpuplished master thesis, The Middle East Technical University, Ankara.

  7. Cavallo, A. M. L. (1994). Do females learn biological topics by rote more than males? The American Biology Teacher, 56 (6), 348-352.

  8. Cavallo, A. M. L. (1996).Meaningful learning reasoning ability and student’s understanding and problem of genetics topics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 625-656.

  9. Cavallo, A. M. L., Rozman, M., Larabee, T., & Ishikawa, C. (2001). Shifts in male and female students' learning, motivation, beliefs, and scientific understanding in inquiry-based college physics course. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.

  10. Cavallo, A. M. L., Rozman, M., Blickenstaff, J., & Walker , N. (2003). Learning, reasoning, motivation, and epistemological beliefs. Journal of College Science Teaching, 33, 18-23.

  11. Cavallo, A. M. L., Rozman, M., & Potter, W. H. (2004). Gender differences in learning constructs, shifts in learning constructs, and their relationship to course achievement in a structured inquiry, yearlong collage physic course for life science majors. School Science and Mathematics, 104(6), 288-301.

  12. Cavallo, A. M. L., & Schafer, L. E. (1994). Relationships between student’s meaningful learning orientation and their understanding of genetic topics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(4), 393-418.

  13. Chan, K. W., & Lai, P. Y. (2008). Revisiting the trichotomous achievement goal framework for Hong Kong secondary students: A structural model analysis. The Asia Pacific Education Researcher, 16(1), 11–22.

  14. Çetin, A., & Ünsal, S. (2019). Merkezi sınavların öğretmenler üzerinde sosyal, psikolojik etkisi ve öğretmenlerin öğretim programı uygulamalarına yansıması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(2), 304-323. (in Turkish).

  15. Darnon, C., Harackiewicz, J. M., Butera, F., Mugny, G., & Quiamzade, A. (2007). Performance-approach and performance avoidance goals: When uncertainty makes a difference. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(6), 813–827.

  16. Dart, B., Burnett, P., Boulton-Lewis, G., Campbell, J., Smith, D., & McCrindle, A. (1999). Classroom learning environments and students' approaches to learning. Learning Environments Research, 2, 137-156.

  17. Dart, B., Burnett, P., Purdie, N., Boulton-Lewis, G., Campbell, J. & Smith, D (2000). Students’ conceptions of learning, the classroom environment, and approaches to learning. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(3), 263-270.

  18. Eley, M. G. (1992). Differential adoption of study approaches within individual students. Higher Education,23(3), 231-254.

  19. Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218-232.

  20. Fraser, J. B. (1978). Development of a test of science-related attitudes, Science Education, 62(4), 509-515.

  21. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.

  22. Geçer, A. & Özel, R. (2012). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretmenlerinin öğrenme-öğretme sürecinde yaşadıkları sorunlar. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 12(3), 1-26 (in Turkish).

  23. Gelbal, S. &Kelecioğlu, H. (2007). Öğretmenlerin ölçme ve değerlendirme yöntemleri hakkındaki yeterlik algıları ve karşılaştıkları sorunlar. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 33, 135-145(in Turkish).

  24. Guo, M. & Leung, F. K.S. (2021). Achievement goal orientations, learning strategies, and mathematics achievement: A comparison of Chinese Miao and Han students. Psychology in the Schools, 58, 107–123.

  25. Gündoğdu, K., Kızıltaş, E. & Çimen, N. (2010). Seviye belirleme sınavına (SBS) ilişkin öğrenci ve öğretmen görüşleri (Erzurum il örneği). İlköğretim Online, 9(1), 316-330 (in Turkish).

  26. Hacıeminoğlu, E., Yilmaz-Tuzun, O., & Ertepinar, H. (2009). Investigating elementary students’ learning approach, motivational goals and achievement in science. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 37, 72-83.

  27. Hacıeminoğlu, E., Ertepinar, E., Yilmaz-Tuzun, O., & Cakir, H. (2015). Students and school characteristics related to elementary school students’ nature of science views. Education 3-13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education,43(6), 700-721. doi:10.1080/03004279.2013.865655

  28. Hacıeminoğlu, E. (2016). Elementary school students’ attitude toward science and related variables. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 11(2), 35-52.

  29. Hacıeminoğlu, E. (2019). Student and School Level Variables related to Elementary School Students' Attitudes towards Science. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 80(2019), 59-88.

  30. Hamm, S., & Robertson, I. (2010). Preferences for deep-surface learning: A vocational education case study using a multimedia assessment activity. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(7), 951-965.

  31. Hasnoor, H. N., Ahmad, Z., & Nordin, N. (2013). The Relationship between learning approaches and academic achievement among intec students. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 178-186.

  32. Ho, I. T., & Hau, K. T. (2008). Academic achievement in the Chinese context: The role of goals, strategies, and effort. International Journal of Psychology, 43(5), 892–897.

  33. Jeffery-Clay, K. R. (1998). Constructivism in museums: How museums create meaningful learning environments. Journal of Museum Education, 23 (1), 3-7.

  34. Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C., Noh, T., & Koh, H. (2005). The influence of students’ cognitive and motivational variables in respect of cognitive conflict and conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1037–1058.

  35. Kaplan, A., & Midgley, C. (1997). The effect of achievement goals: Does level of perceived academic competence make a difference? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 415-435.

  36. Karagiannopoulou, E. & Christodoulides, P. (2005). The impact of Greek University students perceptions of their learning environment on approaches to studying and academic outcomes. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 329-350.

  37. Kılıç, D. & Sağlam, N. (2010). Investigating the effects of gender and school type on students’ learning orientations. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2,3378–3382.

  38. Kırıkkaya, E. B. (2009). İlköğretim okullarındaki fen öğretmenlerinin fen ve teknoloji programına ilişkin görüşleri. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 1(6), 133-148 (in Turkish).

  39. King, R. B., McInerney, D. M., & Watkins, D. A. (2012). Competitiveness is not that bad… at least in the East: Testing the hierarchical model of achievement motivation in the Asian setting. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(3), 446–457.

  40. Kizilgunes, B., Tekkaya, C., & Sungur, S. (2009). Modeling the relations among students‟ epistemological beliefs, motivation, learning approach, and achievement. The Journal of Educational Research,102(4), 243-255.

  41. Leung, F. K. S. (2001). In search of an East Asian identity in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(1), 35–51.

  42. Mayer, R. E. (2002).Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory into practice, 41(4), 226-232.

  43. Mayer, R.E., & Wittrock, M.C. (1996). Problem-solving transfer. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 47-62). New York: Macmillan.

  44. Middleton, M., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An underexplored aspect of goal orientation. Journal Educational Psychology,89, 70-718.

  45. Ministry of National Education of Turkey (MONE) (2018). Elementary school science and

  46. technology curriculum [On-line].” http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/ (in Turkish).

  47. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD Publications.

  48. Ozkal, K. (2007). Scientific epistemological beliefs, perceptions of construct learning environment and attitude towards science as determinants of students approaches to learning. Unpuplished master thesis, The Middle East Technical University, Ankara.

  49. Özkal, K., Tekkaya, C., Çakıroglu, J., & Sungur, S. (2009). A conceptual model of relationships among constructivist learning environment perceptions, epistemological beliefs, and learning approaches. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 71-79.

  50. Pintrinch, P., & Schunk, D. (2002). Motivation in education. Merrill Prentice Hall.

  51. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models:Applications and data analysis methods. CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

  52. Severiens, S. E., & Ten Dam, G. T. (1994). Gender differences in learning styles: A narrative review and quantitative meta-analysis. Higher Education, 27(4), 487-501.

  53. Svinicki, M. D. (2005). Öğrencinin Amaca Yönelimi, Motivasyon ve Öğrenme. Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Öğrenme ve Öğretmeyi Geliştirme Merkezi (Translated from Individual Development and Educational Assessment Center – IDEA Center)

  54. Unsal, S.(2015) Öğretmenlerin mesleki imajlarına ilişkin görüşleri ve mesleki imaja etki eden faktörler. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi Gaziantep Universitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Gaziantep (in Turkish).

  55. Uysal, E. (2010). A modelling study: The interrelationships among elementary students’ epistemological beliefs, learning environment perceptions, learning approaches and science achievement, Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.

  56. Yerdelen-Damar, S., & Aydın, S. (2015). Relations of Approaches to Learning with Perceptions of Learning Environment and Goal Orientations. Education & Science/Egitim ve Bilim, 40(179), 269-293

  57. Wilson, K. L., Smart, R. M., and Watson, R. J. (1996). Gender differences in approaches to learning in first year psychology students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 59-71.