Journal of Science Teacher Education

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 413–444 | Cite as

Preservice Early Childhood Teachers’ Learning of Science in a Methods Course: Examining the Predictive Ability of an Intentional Learning Model

  • Mesut SaçkesEmail author
  • Kathy Cabe Trundle
Elementary Science Teacher Education


This study investigated the predictive ability of an intentional learning model in the change of preservice early childhood teachers’ conceptual understanding of lunar phases. Fifty-two preservice early childhood teachers who were enrolled in an early childhood science methods course participated in the study. Results indicated that the use of metacognitive strategies facilitated preservice early childhood teachers’ use of deep-level cognitive strategies, which in turn promoted conceptual change. Also, preservice early childhood teachers with high motivational beliefs were more likely to use cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Thus, they were more likely to engage in conceptual change. The results provided evidence that the hypothesized model of intentional learning has a high predictive ability in explaining the change in preservice early childhood teachers’ conceptual understandings from the pre to post-interviews. Implications for designing a science methods course for preservice early childhood teachers are provided.


Preservice early childhood teachers Early childhood science methods course Early childhood teacher education Intentional learning Conceptual change 


  1. Akerson, V. L. (2004). Designing a science methods course for early childhood preservice teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 16(2), 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alao, S., & Guthrie, J. T. (1999). Predicting conceptual understanding with cognitive and motivational variables. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(4), 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, D., & Nashon, S. (2007). Predators of knowledge construction: Interpreting students’ metacognition in an amusement park physics program. Science Education, 91(2), 298–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Antonietti, A., Ignazi, S., & Perego, P. (2000). Metacognitive knowledge about problem-solving methods. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Appleton, K. (1992). Discipline knowledge and confidence to teach science: Self-perceptions of primary teacher education students. Research in Science Education, 22(1), 11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Appleton, K. (1995). Student teachers confidence to teach science: Is more science knowledge necessary to improve self-confidence. International Journal of Science Education, 17(3), 357–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arbuckle, J. L. (1994). AMOS: Analysis of moment structures. Pyschometrika, 59(1), 135–137.Google Scholar
  9. Ausubel, D. P. (2000). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view. Netherland: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive process through perceived self-efficacy. Developmental Psychology, 25(5), 729–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barlia, L. (1999). High school student’s motivation to engage in conceptual change-learning in science. Unpublished dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  12. Barlia, L., & Beeth, M. E. (1999). High school students’ motivation to engage in conceptual change learning in science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Associations for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 428 966).Google Scholar
  13. Beeth, M. E. (1998). Teaching for conceptual change: Using status as a metacognitive tool. Science Education, 82, 343–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bell, R. L., & Trundle, K. C. (2008). The use of a computer simulation to promote scientific conceptions of moon phases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 346–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essasy in honor of Robert Glasser (pp. 361–392). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  16. Bielaczyc, K., Pirolli, P. L., & Brown, A. L. (1995). Training in self-explanation and self-regulation strategies: Investigating the effects of knowledge acquisition activities on problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 13(2), 221–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Blumenfeld, P. C., & Meece, J. L. (1988). Task factors, teacher behavior, and students’ involvement and use of learning strategies in science. The Elementary School Journal, 88(3), 235–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Burgoon, J. N., Heddle, M. L., & Duran, E. (2010). Re-examining the similarities between teacher and student conceptions about physical science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(7), 859–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Butler, D. (2002). Individualized instruction in self-regulated learning. Theory into Practice, 41, 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chambers, S. K., & Andre, T. (1995). Are conceptual change approaches to learning science effective for everyone: Gender, prior subject matter interest, and learning about electricity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 377–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analysis of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chin, W. W., & Newsted, P. R. (1999). Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least squares. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical strategies for small sample research (pp. 307–341). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Cohen, J. (1968). Weighted Kappa: Nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin, 70(4), 213–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  26. Covington, M. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An integrated review. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 171–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Duncan, T. G., & McKeachie, W. J. (2005). The making of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Educational Psychologist, 40(2), 117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Eccle, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. Akron, OH: The University of Akron Press.Google Scholar
  30. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Garbett, D. (2003). Science education in early childhood teacher education: Putting forward a case to enhance student teachers’ confidence and competence. Research in Science Education, 33(4), 467–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Georghiades, P. (2000). Beyond conceptual change learning in science education: Focusing on transfer, durability and metacognition. Educational Research, 42(2), 119–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Georghiades, P. (2004a). From the general to the situated: Three decades of metacognition. International Journal of Science Education, 26(3), 365–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Georghiades, P. (2004b). Making pupils conceptions of electricity more durable by means of situated metacognition. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The d0iscovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  36. Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2009). A macro-level analysis of SRL processes and their relations to the acquisition of a sophisticated mental model of a complex system. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 18–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Heikkila, A., & Lonka, K. (2006). Studying in higher education: Students’ approaches to learning, self-regulation, and cognitive strategies. Studies in Higher Education, 31(1), 99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hewson, P. W., Beeth, M. E., & Thorley, N. R. (1998). Conceptual change teaching. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  39. Hobson, S. M., Trundle, K. C., & Saçkes, M. (2010). Using a planetarium software program to promote conceptual change with young children. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19, 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hofer, B. K., & Yu, S. L. (2003). Teaching self-regulated learning through a “learning to learn” course. Teaching of Psychology, 30(1), 30–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Horvath, M., Herleman, H. A., & McKie, R. L. (2006). Goal orientation, task difficulty, and task interest: A multilevel analysis. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hoyle, R. H., & Kenny, D. A. (1999). Sample size, reliability, and tests of statistical mediation. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  43. Inagaki, K., & Hatano, G. (2008). Conceptual change in naïve biology. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 240–262). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  45. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  46. Joreskog, K. G., & Wold, H. (1982). The ML and PLS techniques for modeling with latent variables: Historical and comparative analysis. In K. G. Joreskog & H. Wold (Eds.), Systems under indirect observation, part I (pp. 263–270). Amsterdam: North Holland Press.Google Scholar
  47. Kallery, M., & Psillos, D. (2001). Pre-school teachers’ content knowledge in science: Their understandings of elementary science concepts and of issues raised by children’s questions. International Journal of Early Years Education, 9(3), 165–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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(9), 1037–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kowalski, P., & Taylor, A. K. (2004). Ability and critical thinking as predictors of change in students’ psychological misconceptions. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(4), 297–303.Google Scholar
  50. Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(16–25), 46.Google Scholar
  51. Kutza, D. M. (2000). The role of prior beliefs, refutational text, intrinsic and extrinsic goals, and extrinsic reward structure in conceptual change of preservice teachers. Unpublished dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.Google Scholar
  52. Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of motivational beliefs in conceptual change. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 115–135). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Linnenbrink, E., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). Achievement goals and intentional conceptual change. In G. L. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 347–374). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  54. Lohmoller, J. B. (1989). Latent variable path modeling with partial least squares. Heidelberg: Physica.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Luques, M. L. (2003). The role of domain-specific knowledge in intentional conceptual change. In G. L. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 133–170). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  56. Lyke, J. A., & Kelaher Young, A. J. (2006). Cognition in context: Students’ perceptions of classroom goal structures and reported cognitive strategy use in the college classroom. Research in Higher Education, 47(4), 477–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Margaret, M. (1997). Designing intentional learning environment. Proceedings of the 15th annual international conference on Computer documentation (pp. 173–180). Salt Lake City, Utah: ACM.Google Scholar
  58. Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning: 1. Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976b). On qualitative differences in learning: 2. Outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. McDermott, L. C. (1996). Physics by inquiry. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  61. McWhaw, K., & Abrami, P. C. (2001). Student goal orientation and interest: Effect on students’ use of self-regulated learning strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 311–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 487–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  64. Nolen, S. B. (1988). Reason for studying: Motivational orientations and study strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 5(4), 269–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Olson, J. K. (1999). Learner factors associated with radical conceptual change among undergraduates. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  66. Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Parker, J., & Heywood, D. (1998). The earth and beyond: Developing primary teachers’ understanding of basic astronomical events. International Journal of Science Education, 20(5), 503–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Parker, J., & Heywood, D. (2000). Exploring the relationship between subject knowledge and pedagogic content knowledge in primary teachers’ learning about forces. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 89–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Pell, A., & Jarvis, T. (2003). Developing attitude to science education scales for use with primary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 25(10), 1273–1296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pintrich, P. R. (1999). Motivational beliefs as resource for and constraints on conceptual change. In W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou, & M. Carretero (Eds.), New perspective on conceptual change (pp. 33–50). Amsterdam: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  71. Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993a). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 338 122).Google Scholar
  73. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993b). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Pither, R. T., & Soden, R. (2000). Critical thinking in education: A review. Educational Research, 42(3), 237–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Pokay, P., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1990). Predicting achievement early and late in the semester: The role of motivation and use of cognitive strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 221–227.Google Scholar
  77. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.Google Scholar
  78. Pressley, M., Woloshyn, V., Burkell, J., Cariglia-Bull, T., Lysynchuk, L., McGoldrick, J., et al. (1995). Cognitive strategy instruction that REALLY improves children’s academic performance (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Brookline.Google Scholar
  79. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS (version 2.0.M3 (beta)). Hamburg, Germany: University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
  80. Romainville, M. (1994). Awareness of cognitive strategies: The relationship between university students’ metacognition and their performance. Studies in Higher Education, 19(3), 359–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Saçkes, M., Trundle, K. C., Bell, R. L., & O’Connell, A. A. (2011a). The influence of early science experience in kindergarten on children’s immediate and later science achievement: Evidence from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 217–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Saçkes, M., Trundle, K. C., & Krissek, L. (2011b). The impact of a summer institute on inservice early childhood teachers’ knowledge of earth and space science concepts. The Science Educator, 20(1), 23–33.Google Scholar
  83. Schoon, K. J., & Boone, W. J. (1998). Self-efficacy and alternative conceptions of science of preservice elementary teachers. Science Education, 82(5), 553–568.Google Scholar
  84. Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as a part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36, 111–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sinatra, G. M., & Mason, L. (2008). Beyond knowledge: Learner characteristics influencing conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 560–582). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  86. Sinatra, G. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of intentions in conceptual change learning. In G. L. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 1–18). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  87. Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V. E., Chatelin, Y., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modeling. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 48, 159–205.Google Scholar
  88. Thomas, J. W., & Rohwer, W. D. (1986). Academic studying: The role of learning strategies. Educational Psychologist, 21(1&2), 19–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Thorley, N. R. (1990). The role of conceptual change model in the interpretation of classroom interactions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
  90. Tilgner, P. J. (1990). Avoiding science in elementary school. Science Education, 74(4), 421–431.Google Scholar
  91. Tobin, K., Briscoe, C., & Holman, J. C. (1990). Overcoming constraints to effective elementary science teaching. Science Education, 74(4), 409–420.Google Scholar
  92. Trundle, K. C., Atwood, R. K., & Christopher, J. E. (2002). Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of moon phases before and after instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 633–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Trundle, K. C., Atwood, R. K., & Christopher, J. E. (2006). Preservice elementary teachers’ knowledge of observable moon phases and pattern of change in phases. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Trundle, K. C., Atwood, R. K., & Christopher, J. E. (2007). A longitudinal study of conceptual change: Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of moon phases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(2), 303–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Trundle, K. C., & Bell, R. L. (2003). Using planetarium software to teach standards-based lunar concepts. School Science and Mathematics, 103, 397–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Trundle, K. C., & Bell, R. L. (2010). Use of computer simulation to promote conceptual change: A quasi-experimental study. Computers & Education, 54, 1078–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Trundle, K. C., & Saçkes, M. (2012). Science and early education. In R. C. Pianta, W. S. Barnett, L. M. Justice, & S. M. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood education (pp. 240–258). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  98. Tuckman, B. W. (2003). A performance comparison of motivational self-believers and self-doubters in competitive and individualistic goal situations. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 845–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Tuckman, B. W., & Sexton, T. L. (1992). The effects of informational feedback and self-beliefs on the motivation to perform a self-regulated task. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 121–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. VanderStoep, S. W., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). Learning to learn: The skill and will of college success. Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  101. Vermetten, Y. J., Lodewijks, H. G., & Vermunt, J. D. (2001). The role of personality traits and goal orientations in strategy use. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 149–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 45–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Vosniadou, S. (1999). Conceptual change research: State of the art and future directions. In W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou, & M. Carretero (Eds.), New perspective on conceptual change (pp. 3–13). Amsterdam: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  104. Vosniadou, S. (2003). Exploring the relationships between conceptual change and intentional learning. In G. L. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 377–406). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  105. Vosniadou, S. (2007). The conceptual change approach and its reframing. In S. Vosniadou, A. Baltas, & X. Vamvakoussi (Eds.), Reframing the conceptual change approach in learning and instruction (pp. 1–15). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  106. Vosniadou, S., & Ioannides, C. (1998). From conceptual development to science education: A psychological point of view. International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1213–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A., & Papademetriou, E. (2001). Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and Instruction, 11, 381–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Vosniadou, S., Vamvakoussi, X., & Skopeliti, I. (2008). The framework theory approach to the problem of conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 3–34). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  109. Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching and learning (pp. 315–327). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  110. Wold, H. (1989). Introduction. In H. Wold (Ed.), Theoretical empiricism: A general rational for scientific model-building (pp. VII–XL). New York: Paragon House.Google Scholar
  111. Wolters, C. A. (1999). The relationship between high school students’ motivational regulation and their use of learning strategies, effort, and classroom performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 3(3), 281–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Wolters, C. A., & Rosenthal, H. (2000). The relation between students’ motivational beliefs and their use of motivational regulation strategies. International Journal of Educational Research, 33, 801–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Yin, Y. (2005). The influence of formative assessments on student motivation, achievement, and conceptual change. Unpublished dissertation, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.Google Scholar
  114. Yuruk, N. (2007). A case study of one student’s metaconceptual process and the changes in her alternative conceptions of force and motion. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(4), 305–325.Google Scholar
  115. Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-regulation involves more than metacognition: A social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 217–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Zusho, A., Pintrich, P. R., & Coppola, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Necatibey School of EducationBalıkesir UniversityBalıkesirTurkey
  2. 2.School of Teaching and LearningThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations