![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
Abstract
Educators and psychologists have evidence that students’ conceptions of learning have a profound influence on the learning process, and thus are related to learning outcomes. The purpose of this paper was to explore the conceptions of learning science held by 120 Taiwanese high school students. The interview data gathered from these students, analysed by a phenomenographic method, revealed seven categories of conceptions of learning science, including: learning science as memorizing, preparing for tests, calculating and practising tutorial problems, the increase of knowledge, applying, understanding, and seeing in a new way. The educational contexts or curricular programmes in which these high school students enrolled also played a role in their conceptions of learning science. This study finally proposed a framework to describe the variations of the conceptions of learning science, consisting of the following features: the forms of knowledge acquisition, motivational orientations, and standards of evaluating learning outcomes. How to change students’ unfruitful conceptions of learning science was also discussed.
Acknowledgment
The funding of this study is supported by National Science Council, Taiwan, under grant contract numbers NSC 90‐2511‐S‐009‐001 and NSC 91‐2511‐S‐009‐006.
Notes
The interview transcripts presented in this paper were translated by the author, and were validated by a second independent researcher.
The interview quotations presented are those perceived as the most representative or fruitful ideas expressed by the interviewed students.
The College Entrance Examination is a nationwide test that determines many Taiwanese high school students’ entrance for college study.
For S53, his conception for learning was somewhat across the first three categories (‘memorization’, ‘testing’, and ‘calculating’). However, his conception was toward a target, the tests.
In some cases, the students might express mixed views across different categories. This situation was also revealed in a previous study (Marton et al. Citation1993). In order to provide a more direct and clear analysis for students’ conceptions, this study, similar to the method utilized by Tsai (Citation2002) and Koballa et al. (Citation2000), used the most dominant or fundamental category as perceived by the researchers to represent each student’s interview data (e.g. the case of S53, described in note 4). Two researchers have classified the students’ conceptions of learning science into one of the seven categories. For the interview data that did not have the researchers’ agreed categorization, the researchers reviewed the interview transcripts again and discussed case by case, and then determined a final categorization. In other words, the reliability check for categorization was undertaken.
This feature is similar to that proposed by Dahlin and Regmi (Citation1997) for categorizing students’ conceptions of learning. Dahlin and Regmi viewed conceptions of learning as three levels of depth about knowledge, including acquiring, knowing, and applying.
This feature is modified from Dart et al. (Citation2000).
It is plausible to believe that students categorized in ‘memorizing’ and ‘calculating’ may be motivated by external factors (e.g. tests), as the assessment of science learning often involves a recall of scientific facts or a series of calculations.
Although constructivism is still a controversial topic in science education (Matthews Citation2000, Niaz et al. Citation2003, Osborne Citation1996), the position of this paper, as that proposed by Staver (Citation1998) and Tobin (Citation1993), asserts that constructivism is a sound theory to help science educators understand how students learn science, as well as to explicate the practice of science and science teaching.
A probably related study was conducted by Trigwell et al. (Citation1999), reporting that science teachers’ approaches to teaching were associated with their students’ approaches to learning science.
Certainly, some science teachers would argue that the conceptions they have are the most instrumentally functional when confronted by the summative assessment for which they must prepare their students.
