Advertisement

Investigating the Effectiveness of Inquiry Instruction on the Motivation of Different Learning Styles Students

  • Hsiao-Lin TuanEmail author
  • Chi-Chin Chin
  • Chi-Chung Tsai
  • Su-Fey Cheng
Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate 8th graders with different learning styles their motivation outcomes after implementing 10 weeks (40 hours) inquiry-based teaching. Two hundreds and fifty four 8th graders were involved in experimental group, this group of students experienced inquiry instruction. Two hundreds and thirty two 8th graders were involved in control group, they were taught by traditional science teaching. Students' motivation toward science learning questionnaire (SMTSL) (Tuan, Chin & Shieh, 2005) were implemented in both groups in the beginning and at the end of the study. Students in the experimental group filled out learning preference questionnaire (Lumsdaine & Lumsdaine, 1995) in the beginning of the study. Forty students which represent different learning styles were chosen from five experimental classes to conduct post-test interview. Paired t-test, MANOVA, analytic inductive methods were used for analyzing both qualitative and quantitative data. Findings indicated that after inquiry instruction students' motivation increased significantly (p<.001) than students who enrolled in traditional teaching. Four different learning styles of students increased significantly (p<.005) in SMTSL scales: self-efficacy, active learning strategies, science learning value, performance goal and achievement goal. No significant difference was found among four learning styles of students' motivation after inquiry teaching. Interview data supported that most of students with different learning styles were willing to participate in the inquiry learning activities, while they hold different reasons for their engagement. Findings confirm inquiry-based science teaching can motivate students with different learning styles in science learning.

Keywords

learning styles motivation science inquiry science teaching 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  2. 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' understandings of the nature of science and science inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 487–509. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blumenfeld, P.C., Soloway, E., Marx, R.W., Krajcik, J.S., Guzdial, M. & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3), 369–398. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Campbell, B., Kaunda, L., Allie, S., Buffler, A. & Lubben, F. (2000). The communication of lab investigations by university entrants. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 839–853. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cano-Garcia, F. & Hewitt-Hughes, E. (2000). Learning and thinking styles: An analysis of their interrelationship and influence on academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 20(4), 413–431. Google Scholar
  6. Chalupa, M., Chen, C. & Charles, T. (2001). An analysis of college students' motivation and learning strategies in computer courses: A cognitive view. Delta Pi Epsilon, 43(4), 185–199. Google Scholar
  7. Champagne, A. & Klopfer, L. (1977). A sixty-year perspective on three issues in science education: I. Whose ideas are dominant? II. Representation of women. III. Reflective thinking and problem solving. Science Education, 61, 431–452. Google Scholar
  8. Claxton, O. & Murrell, P. (1987). Learning styles: Implications of improving educational practices. Clearinghouse on Higher Education (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4). Washington: The George Washington University. Google Scholar
  9. Colburn, A. & Bianchini, J.A. (2000). Teaching the nature of science through inquiry to prospective elementary teacher: A tale of researchers. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 37(2), 177–209. Google Scholar
  10. Collison, E. (2000). A survey of elementary students' learning style preferences and academic success. Contemporary Education, 71(4), 42–49. Google Scholar
  11. Conwell, C.R., Helgeson, S.L. & Wachowiak, D.G. (1987). The effect of matching and mismatching cognitive styles and science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(8), 713–722. Google Scholar
  12. Curry, L. (1983). An organization of learning styles theory and constructs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. ERIC Document No. ED 235 185. Google Scholar
  13. Douglass, C. (1979). Making biology easier to understand. American Biology Teacher, 41(5), 277–281, 298–299. Google Scholar
  14. Dunn, R. (1980). Learning: A matter of style. Educational Leadership, 44, 18–23. Google Scholar
  15. Dunn, R. (1984). Learning style: State of the science. Theory into Practice, 23(10), 20–25. Google Scholar
  16. Dunn, R. & Giannitti, M.C. (1990). Grouping students for instruction: Effects of learning style on achievement and attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology, 130(4), 485–495. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eilam, B. (2002). Strata of comprehending ecology: Looking through the prism of feeding relations. Science Education, 86(5), 645–671. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ellis, J.D. & Backe, K.A. (1996). Using video to evoke reflection on science teaching. Interim report of NSF-supported project: Teacher development modules for elementary school science. Google Scholar
  19. Ertepinar, H. & Geban, O. (1996). Effect of instruction supplied with the investigative-oriented laboratory approach on achievement in a science course. Educational Research, 38, 333–344. Google Scholar
  20. Gabel, D., Samuel, K.V., Helgeson, S., McGuire, S., Novak, J. & Butzow, J. (1987). Science education research interests of elementary teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(7), 659–677. Google Scholar
  21. Gibson, H. & Chase, C. (2002). Longitudinal impact of an inquiry-based science program on middle school students' attitudes toward science. Science Education, 86, 693–705. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grasha, A.F. (1996). Teaching with style: A practical guide to enhancing learning by understanding teaching and learning styles. San Bernardino, CA: Alliance Publishers. Google Scholar
  23. Guo, C.G. (1987). Evaluating studies in learning styles. Gifted Education Quarterly, 23, 7–16 (in Chinese). Google Scholar
  24. Hassard, J. (1992). Minds on science: Middle and secondary school methods. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. Google Scholar
  25. Hanrahan, M. (1998). The effect of learning environment factors on students' motivation and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 20(6), 737–753. Google Scholar
  26. Hegarty-Hazel, E. (1986). Lab work SET: Research information for teachers, number one. Canberra: Australian Council for Education Research. Google Scholar
  27. Herrmann, N. (1990). The creative brain (revised edition). Lake Lure, NC: Brain Books. Google Scholar
  28. Holden, T.G. & York, L.D. (1996, April). Relationship among prior conceptual knowledge, metacognitive awareness, metacognitive self-management, cognitive style, perception-judgment styles, attitude toward school science, self-regulation, and science achievement in grades 6–7 students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO. Google Scholar
  29. Joo, Y.J., Bong, M. & Choi, H.J. (2000). Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning, academic self-efficacy, and internet self-efficacy in web-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 5–17. Google Scholar
  30. Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar
  31. Kreke, K., Fields, A. & Towns, M.H. (1998, April). An action research project on student perspectives of cooperative learning in chemistry: Understanding the efficacy of small-group activities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego, CA. Google Scholar
  32. Kuerbis, P.J. (1985). Rationale for revision of science teacher education. In R.K. James (Ed.), Science, technology and society: Resources for science educators (pp. 35–45) (1985 AERS Yearbook). Columbus: SMEAC Information Reference Center, The Ohio State University. Google Scholar
  33. Lee, O. (1989). Motivation to learn science in middle school classrooms. Unpublished dissertation, Michigan State University. Google Scholar
  34. Lepper, M.R., Woolverton, M., Mumme, D.L. & Gurtner, J.-L. (1993). Motivational techniques of expert human tutors: Lessons for the design of computer-based tutors. In S.P. Lajoie & S.J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 75–105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  35. Lumsdaine, E. & Lumsdaine, M. (1995). Creative problem solving – thinking skills for a changing world. New York: McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar
  36. Melear, C.T. (1990, April). Cognitive process analysis of test questions in a computer-managed college biology course based on a learning style assessment with emphasis on analytic-spatial skill. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta, GA. Google Scholar
  37. Ministry of Education (MOE) (2000). Curriculum standards for nine-year curriculum: Science and living technology field. Taipei: Ministry of Education. Google Scholar
  38. Moje, E.B., Collazo, T., Carrillo, R. & Marx, R.W. (2001). “Maestro, what is ‘quality’?”: Language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 469–498. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nakayama, G. (1988, April). A study of the relationship between cognitive styles and integrated science process skills. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Lake of the Ozarks, MO. Google Scholar
  40. National Research Council (NRC) (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Google Scholar
  41. Pappas, M.J. (2000). Managing the inquiry learning environment. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 16(7), 27–30. Google Scholar
  42. Pintrich, P.R. & Schunk, D.H. (1996). Motivation in education, 2nd edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Google Scholar
  43. Polman, J.L. (2000). Designing project-based science. New York: Teachers College Press. Google Scholar
  44. Riding, R.J. & Rayner, S.G. (1998). Cognitive styles and learning strategies – understanding style differences in learning and behaviors. London: David Fulton Publishers. Google Scholar
  45. Sandoval, W.A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations. The Journal of Learning Science, 12(1), 5–51. Google Scholar
  46. 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, 39–51. Google Scholar
  47. Schoon, K.J. & Boone, W.J. (1998). Self-efficacy and alternative concepts of science of preservice elementary teachers. Science Education, 82(5), 553–568. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shaw, G. & Marlow, N. (1999). The role of student learning styles, gender, attitudes and perceptions on information and communication technology assisted learning. Computers and Education, 33, 223–234. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shimoda, T.A., White, B.Y. & Frederiksen, J.R. (2002). Students goal orientation in learning inquiry skills with modifiable software advisors. International Science Education Journal, 88, 244–263. Google Scholar
  50. Staer, H., Goodrum, D. & Hacking, M. (1998). High school laboratory work in Western Australia: Openness to inquiry. Research in Science Education, 28(2), 219–228. Google Scholar
  51. Stoddart, T., Pinal, A., Latzke, M. & Canaday, D. (2002). Integrating inquiry science and language development for English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(8), 664–687. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Synder, R.F. (2000). The relationship between learning styles/multiple intelligences and academic achievement of high school students. High School Journal, 83(2), 11–21. Google Scholar
  53. Ryder, J., Leach, J. & Driver, R. (1999). Undergraduate science students' images of science. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 36(2), 201–219. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tomkins, S.P. & Tunnicliffe, S.D. (2001). Looking for ideas: Observation, interpretation and hypothesis-making by 12 year-old pupils understanding science investigations. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 791–813. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tuan, H.L. & Chin, C.C. (2000). Promoting junior high school students' motivation toward physical science learning (III). Report for National Research Council (NSC 89-2511-S018-030). Google Scholar
  56. Tuan, H.L., Chin, C.C. & Shieh, S.H. (2005). The development of a questionnaire for assessing students' motivation toward science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 639–654. Google Scholar
  57. Uzuntiryaki, E., Bilgin, I. & Geban, O. (2003, March). The effect of learning styles on high school students' achievement and attitudes in chemistry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA. Google Scholar
  58. Watson, R., Prieto, T. & Dillon, J.S. (1995). The effect of practical work on students' understanding of combustion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(5), 487–502. Google Scholar
  59. Welch, W.W., Klopfer, L.E., Aikenhead, G.S. & Robinson, J.T. (1981). The role of inquiry in science education: Analysis and recommendations. Science Education, 65(1), 33–50. Google Scholar
  60. Weiner, B. (1990). History of motivation research in education. Journal of Education Psychology, 82(4), 616–622. Google Scholar
  61. Yerrick, R.K. (2000). Lower track students' argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 807–838. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Yerrick, R.K., Doster, E., Nugent, J., Parke, H. & Crawley, F.E. (2003). Social interaction and the use of analogy: An analysis of preservice teachers' talk during physics inquiry lessons. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 443–463. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zoller, U. (1991). Teaching/learning styles, performance, and students' teaching evaluation in S/T/E/S-focused science teacher education: A quasi-quantitative probe of a case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(7), 593–607. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hsiao-Lin Tuan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Chi-Chin Chin
    • 1
  • Chi-Chung Tsai
    • 1
  • Su-Fey Cheng
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate Institute of Science EducationNational Changhua Normal UniversityChanghuaTaiwan, Republic of China

Personalised recommendations