The Effect of Concept Mapping on Changes in Motivation and Self-Regulation as a Function of Learners’ Goal Orientation James D. Trifone 20 Verbena Court Cheshire, Connecticut, 06410 USA All correspondence should be communicated to the author at jtrifone@me.com Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved Abstract The motivational and cognitive learning strategy use subscores of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) were correlated with mastery, performance and work-avoidant goal-orientations in establishing adaptive versus maladaptive goal orientation profiles of 104 10th grade biology students. Then the efficacy of concept mapping in enhancing students’ motivation to learn was explored in a controlled study amongst 37 10th grade biology students. Whilst concept mappers demonstrated large gains over control group subjects in Fall to Spring motivational and cognitive learning strategy use profiles, a disparity was observed between the ways concept mapping enhanced motivation to learn amongst adaptive versus maladaptive goaloriented students. Specifically, it was shown to increase many, but not all, adaptive goal-oriented learners’ level of intrinsic goal orientation, task value, control beliefs and self-efficacy, whilst leading to large increases in extrinsic goal orientation and negative changes in the other motivational subscores amongst most maladaptive goal-oriented learners. Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 2 Introduction Joseph Novak and his colleagues at Cornell University developed the concept map as a direct consequence of the results obtained during their 12-year longitudinal study (Novak & Musonda, 1991). An analysis of interview transcripts revealed to them the means by which students appeared to conceptualize scientific conceptual understandings, as well as change them over time. Additionally Novak and Gowin (1984) reviewed thousands of studies to support a set of knowledge claims about students’ prior knowledge and the effect of it on subsequent science classroom learning (Wandersee, Mintzes, & Novak, 1994). Concept mapping is founded on Ausubel’s (1968) assimilation theory of cognitive learning. His learning theory proposes that one’s cognitive framework is organized in a hierarchical manner with concepts linked propositionally from more general and inclusive to more specific and less inclusive (Novak, 1977). The concept map has since been referred to in the literature to be a valid and reliable tool for visualizing learners’ conceptual frameworks (Novak & Gowin 1984), as well as in investigating the cognitive changes and conceptual understanding among students and teachers (Beyerbach, 1988; Mason, 1992; Roehler, Duffy, Conley, Hermann, Johnson, & Michelson, 1990; Wallace & Mintzes, 1990). Most importantly, concept mapping has been reported to serve as a learning strategy to promote meaningful learning (Horton, McConney, Gallo, Wood & Senn, 1993). Much has been written extolling the efficacy of concept mapping as a constructivist learning strategy to foster deeper conceptual understanding and academic achievement, particularly in physics (Bascones & Novak, 1985) and biology (Heinz-Fry & Novak, 1990; Schmid & Telaro, 1990; Martin, Mintzes and Clavijo, 2000; Kinchin, 2000; Mintzes, Wandersee & Novak, 2000). In Horton et al’s (1993) literature review of published studies that demonstrated the efficacy of concept mapping, only three studies (Bodulus, 1986; Jegede, Alaiyemola, & Okebukola, 1989; and Okebukola & Jegede, 1989) explored the effect size of concept mapping on student attitudes. Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 3 However, in none of the studies was “attitude” defined in terms of students’ goal orientations nor the specific motivational component affected (i.e. self-efficacy, control beliefs or task value). Cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies are defined as ”mental processes that learners can deliberately recruit to help themselves learn and understand something new” (Resnick, cited in Brandt, 1988-1989, p. 12). Motivation, on the other hand, is typically defined in the literature as the driving force responsible for directing students’ thought and behavior towards the achievement of specific learning goals (Campbell & Bickhard, 1986; Ford, 1992; Rothstein, 1990; Woolfolk, 1990). Goals here may be defined as cognitive representations that serve as the focus of the transaction between one’s motivation and cognition (Ford, 1992). Goal directed behavior is affected by external (social) and internal (cognitive) factors. Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 4 Learning is affected by is affected by Internal Processes/ Events includes Conceptual knowledge schema includes Learner beliefs includes Learning envir onment Emotion affect affect Intellectual abili ty beliefs inclujdes External Processes/ Events Learning task Experience affects can be can be perceived perceived affects Constru ctivist perceived affects Interest is believed to be Fixed includes Teaching style Utility affects affect is believed to be includes perceived Selfefficacy beliefs Control beliefs includes affects Self schema affects Malleable Traditional Value affects affects affects Difficulty affects affects Abili ty cannot change over time Abili ty can change over time affects affects Motivational Goal Orientation Figure 1: Factors affecting motivational goal orientation (literature synthesis by Trifone, 2002, unpublished) Figure 1 summarizes literature findings for the multivalent context in which learners’ motivational goal orientation emerges from internal and external influences. Here one can see that learning is a consequence of internal processes (i.e.. learner beliefs, emotions and construction of conceptual frameworks), as well as external processes (i.e. the learning environment; utility, value and perceived difficulty of the learning task; traditional or constructivist teaching style; and past and present experiences). Learners’ beliefs take myriad forms like whether they perceive their ability to be a fixed or malleable entity, as well as how efficacious they perceive themselves in being able to learn a specific subject or have personal control of how or what they learn. Students engagement in a learning task is thus motivated by a complex set of goals that manifest themselves as a particular goal orientation (Dweck & Elliot, Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 5 1983; Maehr & Nicholls, 1980). Learner’s goal orientation is a mindset which is primarily a consequence of the internal beliefs regarding their intellectual ability, self-efficacy and control of the learning situation, as well as external influences such as the learning environment, learning task and teaching style. Each goal orientation is further characterized by employment of a specific set of learning strategies which the learner uses in attaining their goals. It is through these goal orientations that learners’ level of task engagement can be best interpreted. Thus, a learner’s goal orientation provides a context within which they are motivated to engage in a learning task. In the last few years there has emerged a plethora of literature urging for a science pedagogy that not only provides students with opportunities to construct concepts as to how the world works but also foster students' ability to self-regulate their learning processes. This new thinking calls for providing students with opportunities to not only discover and construct concepts but internalize them through a dialogue between themselves and others as to how the world works. Self-regulation refers to the processes whereby students create and sustain thoughts and actions which are intentionally oriented toward goal attainment (Schunk, 1994). Pintrich & DeGroot (1990a) found a close relationship between self-regulated learning and learner’s self-efficacy beliefs. Students with high self-efficacy beliefs utilize higher quality learning strategies (Kurtz & Borkowski 1984 ). Zimmerman (1994, p. 3) further defined self-regulated learning behavior by the degree to which students are "metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active participants in their own learning process". Self-regulated behavior is also characterized by using specific cognitive strategies designed to increase encoding, understanding, or retention of learning, perceived academic goals, as well as regulatory strategies that provide learners a means to self-monitor and control their own learning (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons 1986; Corno, 1989; Sternberg, 1988, Weinstein & Mayer, 1986; Zimmerman, 1989b). Risemberg & Zimmerman (1992) demonstrated that gifted students spontaneously employ self-regulatory Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 6 learning strategies more frequently and effectively than non-gifted students. Their research suggests the possibility of enhancing academic achievement through self-regulation training. Developing self-regulated learners has significant implications for science teaching. If students can be taught and provided with learning strategies that demonstrate effective ways to learn then they should be able to acquire a higher level of conceptual understanding. White and Gunstone (1989) concluded that “if meta-learning can be taught, then the problem of how to bring about conceptual change may be solved”. Their research is supported by others in suggesting that successful students of science typically use cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies such as panning, monitoring, controlling and regulating their own learning (Chi, Glaser& Farr, 1988; Larkin, 1983). Researchers have found that there are three motivational components linked to self-regulated behavior including: self-efficacy (self-perceptions as to the capability to competently perform specific tasks), perceived task value, and anxiety (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990a; Pintrich, Roeser & DeGroot, 1994; Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992). Albert Bandura's seminal work (1989,1986,1977), in proposing and researching the nature of self-regulating processes, has emphasized that one’s self-efficacy beliefs have as great an impact, if not more, as cognitive factors on learning. Stipek & Gralinski. (1996) found that students’ beliefs about their level of intelligence are powerful predictors of achievement outcomes. What a learner thinks they are capable of doing or understanding typically delineates the limits of their learning. Bouffard-Bouchard’s (1990) work supports this notion showing students with high perceptions of self-efficacy completed more problems, had more efficient and problem-solving strategies. Researchers have also found that students' self-efficacy beliefs are directly related to task persistence (Zimmerman & Ringle 1981), task choice (Bandura & Schunk 1981), skill acquisition (Schunk 1984) and academic achievement (Thomas, Iventosch & Rohwer, 1987; Zimmerman, 1996). Furthermore, several investigations (Bandura & Schunk, 1981; Bouffard-Bouchard, 1990; Lent, Brown & Larkin, Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 7 1984; Schunk & Hanson, 1985) support Bandura’s (1986) contention that self-efficacy beliefs mediate skill acquisition and performance by influencing effort, persistence and perseverance. Garcia and Pintrich (1993) noted that learner self-schemas (i.e. beliefs pertaining to how individuals perceive themselves), motivational strategies (i.e. goal orientations) and cognitive strategies (i.e. heuristics or learned approaches that aid learners in understanding concepts) serve as significant factors in self-regulated learning. Zimmerman (1996) found that students’ use of self-regulatory processes, such as learning strategies, goal setting, self-monitoring, and selfefficacy beliefs, predict level of self-motivation. However, while many educational researchers (Dweck & Elliot, 1983; Meece, Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988; Ames & Archer, 1988; Pintrich, 1989; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991; Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992; Pintrich, Marx & Boyle, 1993a; Risemberg & Zimmerman, 1992; Schunk, 1994; Zimmerman, 1990) have examined the role that motivation plays in relation to employment of cognitive learning strategies, no one has empirically investigated the role that concept mapping, as a cognitive learning strategy, plays in fostering students’ motivation to learn. Rationale In this study the efficacy of concept mapping was investigated as a constructivist learning strategy to foster an enhanced motivation to learn biological concepts amongst 37 tenth grade high school biology students. It is proposed that if students perceive and attribute academic success to utilizing concept mapping than it should promote motivation to learn. This notion has been already widely established by social cognitivists, most notably Albert Bandura, that high self-efficacy is a key to enhancing learners’ motivation to learn. Hence, the study’s design is predicated on a multivariate impacting of learners’ goal orientation and learning strategy usage. While it is expected that concept mapping should foster motivation amongst all students who Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 8 perceive enhanced ability to learn, it is predicted that mastery-oriented learners would have a decided enhanced ability to demonstrate concept mastery and test performance due to the accepted notion that they typically display high self-efficacy, task persistence (Meece, Blumenfeld, and Hoyle, 1988; Pintrich, 1989; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990a, 1990b; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991; Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992 Obach & Moely, 1993) as well as a belief that ability is a malleable quality changeable with the acquisition of new learning strategies and or increased effort (Dweck & Elliott, 1983). Therefore, it is the objective of this paper to explore the tenability of the proposition that if concept mapping enhances students’ perceived ability to learn, then it should foster their motivation to learn, and to employ other self-regulating learning (SRL) strategies as well. Furthermore, Paul Pintrich et al. (1993a) suggest a notion which furthers the thesis espoused in this paper: students who are mastery goal oriented, that is, intrinsically motivated learners should be more receptive, than their non-mastery goal-oriented peers, to adopting learning strategies, like concept mapping, due to the fact that these strategies offer ways to reach greater levels of concept mastery. To investigate these notions, a controlled experimental study was conducted focusing on using concept mapping as a knowledge representation tool in investigating the utility of concept mapping as a means to foster motivation to learn biological concepts and take a meaningful approach to learning. The rationale to support this proposal derives from the assumption that any learning strategy that promotes or enhances academic achievement and success should affect perception of self-efficacy in a positive manner. According to Dweck and Elliott’s (1983) model, a learner's goal orientation and subsequent learning behavior is predicated upon their theory of intelligence. Therefore, if they believe that intelligence is malleable, they will tend to embrace a learning goal orientation and demonstrate a mastery behavioral pattern regardless of whether their own intelligence is LOW or HIGH. These Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 9 profiles are adaptive behavioral patterns in that students who embrace a mastery orientation believe that they can overcome any shortcomings in ability and adapt to the demands of a task by either increasing their ability over time through the acquisition of new skills and or by increasing their effort. On the other hand, if a learner believes that intelligence is fixed, they typically will embrace a performance goal orientation. Their goal orientation is adaptive only if they believe they have the ability to do a task. Unlike their mastery-oriented peers, they believe that ability is fixed. Furthermore, if they find themselves expending too much effort they perceive the task to lie outside their ability level. This may eventually lead to a decrease in task engagement, persistence and effort. Thus, their goal orientation tends to foster maladaptive behavioral patterns in that they are less likely to adapt to the demands of a challenging task by increasing their effort. They nonetheless can demonstrate a mastery oriented behavioral pattern, only if their self-assessment of ability is HIGH. However, if it is LOW they will fall into a maladaptive or helpless pattern, typically resulting in loss of effort, persistence and task avoidance behaviors. Thus, attribution of success and or failure is distinctly different for students adopting a mastery versus performance goal orientation. Hereafter, the terms adaptive and mastery, as well as maladaptive and performance will be used interchangeably. In summary: • While a few researchers have demonstrated the efficacy of concept mapping to enhance conceptual understanding, and others suggested that students adopting an adaptive goal orientation should demonstrate larger gains in conceptual understanding and achievement, no one has empirically investigated the efficacy of concept mapping, in the context of a students’ motivational goal orientation, to foster motivation to learn. It was therefore hypothesized that as a direct consequence of utilizing concept mapping: (1) students will demonstrate positive changes in motivation to learn, and as a consequence (2) adaptive goal-oriented students will demonstrate a predilection to utilize cognitive and selfregulating learning strategies to a greater extent than those who are maladaptive goal-oriented. Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 10 These were consolidated into the following hypothesis. 1. Concept mapping fosters motivation to learn biology. particularly for adaptive goal oriented students. Methodology Students in both control and experimental groups were provided with the same level of instruction (lectures, laboratory experiments, learning activities, audio-visuals, text readings) and assessment (quizzes, unit tests, laboratory reports, projects). Additionally, both groups were provided with a constructivist teaching and learning environment. More explicitly, this is defined here as one in which students are challenged with actively constructing their own meaning and therefore knowledge, rather than passively assimilating that given by their teacher. Therefore, the teacher’s role was that of a facilitator rather than “provider” of knowledge. Thus, constructivist pedagogies (Brooks & Brooks, 1993) like The Learning Cycle (Trifone, 1991) that embrace "conceptual change teaching" (Lawson, 1988) served as the major instructional format to provide students with a context in which to develop their conceptual understanding. The only difference in instruction between the two groups of students was that those in the experimental group utilized concept mapping to aide in their construction of conceptual understanding, while those in control group relied on more traditional means (review and summary questions in their textbook). A quasi-experimental design (control and experimental groups are classes of students who were randomly assigned to receive or not receive the treatment strategy- concept mapping) was chosen along with a mixed methodology in examining the hypotheses from the quantitative perspective of a controlled experimental format together with the qualitative perspective of structured Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 11 interviews and phenomenological self-assessments. The choice for this design was: (1) to produce sufficient statistical data to generate effect size determinations, as well as other statistical determinations, on the efficacy of concept mapping as a learning strategy to promote motivation to learn and, (2) to elicit first-person responses to use of concept mapping as a learning strategy. The latter is particularly important since one of the parameters of the study was to measure motivation to learn biology. Due to the very idiosyncratic nature of motivation, it was decided that a measure of it would best be viewed and understood from a phenomenological perspective. Therefore, self-assessment questionnaires were employed to qualitatively assess goal orientation, rote or meaningful learning approaches, as well as changes in motivation and cognitive strategy use profiles. Subject Sampling The subjects in the study consisted of 37 tenth grade high school biology students consisting of two classes from the high (level 1) ability level. One class was randomly assigned to serve as either an experimental or a control group. Students were all enrolled in Cheshire High School, Cheshire, Connecticut. Cheshire is a suburban town consisting of about 25,000 middle to upper middle-income residents. The high school student population consists primarily of Caucasian with small minority populations of African-American, Hispanic, Asian and Indian. The subject population of this study consisted of 3% Indian, 6% Asian and 91% Caucasian. Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 12 Experimental Design Experimental Group Students in the experimental group were asked to respond to items on Somuncuoglu & Yildirim’s (1999) Achievement Goal Orientation Questionnaire (AGOQ), Pintrich, Smith, Garcia & McKeachie’s (1991) Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) and Schmeck and Ribich’s (1978) Inventory of Learning Processes (ILP) questionnaire (see below). Additionally, they were taught the learning strategy of concept mapping and asked to construct concept maps (see below) for the purpose of identifying their level of understanding and growth of several major biological concepts. Their conceptual understanding was assessed by traditional instruments (teacher-constructed quizzes and tests) as well as by analyzing changes in their concept maps over the instructional period. Thus, experimental group students was taught the technique of concept mapping as a learning tool to potentially aide them in understanding biological concepts and perhaps enhance their self perception, as well as to provide an instrument to assess their learning . Control Group Students in the experimental group were also asked to respond to items on the AGOQ, MSLQ and ILP questionnaires. Students in the control group were taught and provided with the same classroom learning experiences as those in the experimental group with the one exception that they were not instructed in the technique of using concept mapping. Their level of conceptual understanding was assessed using only the same traditional instruments used with experimental groups of the same ability level. Additionally, differences in motivation between control and experimental groups were assessed by comparing Fall and Spring responses to the MSLQ. Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 13 Questionnaires &Methods Employed for Data Collection Somuncuoglu and Yildirim's (1999) Achievement Goal Orientation Questionnaire(AGOQ). (1) The Achievement Goal Orientation Questionnaire (AGOQ), is a 34 item 5-point Likert type questionnaire composed of three orientation subscales: mastery, ego-social and work-avoidant which are the three goal orientations typically referred to in the literature as representative of those employed by learners in approaching a learning task. During the Fall of 2000 I received a copy of the Achievement Goal Orientation Questionnaire from the authors and administered it to students in both control and experimental groups. Students’ motivational goal orientation was determined on the basis of the interplay between these three subscales. Student responses were tabulated for each subscale and then a median split procedure, similar to that employed by Ames and Archer (1988) was used to place students into either adaptive (mastery) or maladaptive (non-mastery) goal orientation groups. More specifically, students were subsequently organized into two groups on the basis of whether they could be characterized as depicting a mastery or non-mastery goal orientation. Adaptive goal orientations were designated by those with a high mastery and low work-avoidant components while maladaptive ones were designated by having either low mastery and or high work-avoidant components, or high mastery together with high work-avoidant components. Descriptive statistics were obtained by analyzing the percentages and means for each of the three subscales. Questionnaire items were also subjected to an inferential statistical analysis using a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). Mean differences for each of the subscale scores was analyzed with the Hotellings T2 test and found to be significant at the 0.001 Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 14 level. The reliability of the subscale questions was assessed for internal consistency. An alpha score of .85 was calculated for the mastery goal orientation, while a .83 and .79 were determined for the ego-social and work-avoidant scales respectively. The 13 items comprising the mastery subscale are designed to measure the degree to which learners’ possess an intrinsic goal orientation to learn. Mastery goal orientation is characterized by an interest in studying or reading to increase the comprehension of a subject. Additionally, learners who adopt a mastery goal orientation tend to approach assignments and tests as challenges, and perceive achievement as the learning of the skills and concepts requisite to mastering the subject matter. Students with this type of goal orientation are not fearful of failure and typically realize that mastery only occurs as a result of trial and error learning experiences. Somuncuoglu and Yildrim used questionnaire items for this subscale that are similar to those used by Park (1992) and Nolen (1986). For example, the item “In this course, to me comprehending the course content well is more important than the grade I get” is very similar to the statement used by Park, while the item “I feel most successful in this course if what I learn in class sessions makes me think about things” is similar to the one used by Nolen. The 13 items comprising the performance (ego-social) subscale include statements that reflect an extrinsic goal orientation by learners. In contrast to a mastery orientation, learners’ adopting a ego-social orientation are more motivated to learn on the basis of what external rewards, grades or impressions they may receive as a result of their effort. They perceive assignments and tests as opportunities to get high grades, impress the teacher Additionally, their task involvement typically requires little chance of failure and making errors. Questionnaire items for this subscale are typical of those used by Pintrich and Garcia (1991) and include statements like “I Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 15 aim at accomplishing this course with a high grade because I want to improve my GPA” and “If I complete this course with a high grade, I will have shown my ability to others”. The remaining 8 items making up the work-avoidant subscale reflect a learner goal orientation characterized by doing only enough work to get by and pass a course. Achievement is perceived as not failing. Assignments are perceived as extra work. Additionally, learners adopting this goal orientation display low task engagement in activities, especially where there is a high likelihood of failure. Some of the items for this subscale are similar to those employed by Meece et al. (1988). Learners characterized by this goal orientation would answer in the affirmative to the items such as: “In this course I aim at doing as little as possible to finish the course: and “I would prefer not to do any project work or assignments in this course because to me they only mean extra work”. (2) The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ), (Pintrich et al., 1991) instrument is designed to have students self-assess their level of motivation and use of cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies, as well as the degree to which they are self-regulated learners in a specific context (e.g. biology course). Pintrich et al. (1993b) have demonstrated that the MSLQ is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing three factors that affect learners’ motivational profile (value: intrinsic and extrinsic goals and task value; expectancy: control beliefs and self-efficacy; and affect: test anxiety, as well as in assessing learners’ use of cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies. The MSLQ was administered early in the Fall semester of 2000 and in the following Spring. The MSLQ assessed student motivation with regard to their level of intrinsic and extrinsic goal orientation, task value, self- efficacy, control beliefs and test anxiety, as well as use of cognitive learning strategies including: elaboration, organization, critical Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 16 thinking, self-regulation, and effort regulation. Student responses were tabulated for each subscale. Correlational studies were conducted with the MSLQ to analyze student goal orientation with self-assessed task value, control beliefs, self-efficacy, test anxiety, as well as, deep cognitive strategy use and self-regulation. (3) The Inventory of Learning Processes (ILP) assessed students' learning approaches on a continuum of rote to meaningful using the Synthesis-Analysis and Elaborative Processing subscales of the inventory's questionnaire. The Synthesis-Analysis and Elaborative Processing subscale question items of Schmeck and Ribich’s (1978) Inventory of Learning Processes (ILP) provides students with an opportunity to self-assess themselves with regard to where they lie on a rote (passive) to meaningful (active) learning continuum. The authors describe the ILP as “a self-report inventory using behaviorally oriented statements to assess important learning processes in the academic setting” (Schmeck, Ribich & Ramanaiah, 1977). A factor analysis of the inventory’s 62 learning true-false statements, yields 4 subscales with factor loadings ranging from 0.25 to 0.53. The two subscales used in the proposed study (Synthesis-analysis and Elaborative Processing) were found to have an estimated KR21 (internal consistency) of 0.58 to 0.82 and test-retest measures of 0.79 to 0.83. The Synthesis-Analysis scale measures students’ use of organizational processes. Students who score high on this subtest tend to be proficient in semantic organization or structure and have a clear awareness and intentional use of words and their meanings (Fisher, 1991; Schmeck & Ribich, 1978). The Elaborative Processing scale focuses on students’ facility with verbal and visual encoding mechanisms. Students who score high on Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 17 this subtest typically demonstrate making connections between new and prior knowledge, employing visual imagery methods, summarize and or interpret information in their own language, and tend to employ “deep” as opposed to “surface” processing strategies (Schmeck et al 1977). The authors of the ILP report high correlation in criterion-related validity between the SynthesisAnalysis and Elaborative Processing subscales to an achievement test. Specifically, Pearson correlation’s were found to be 0.42 (p<.05) for the Synthesis-Analysis scale and 0.51(p<.01) for the Elaborative Processing scale. In another reported study, the authors found that when students were asked to recall or recognize 30 words recorded in random order on an audiotape, that Pearson correlations between scores on the Synthesis-Analysis scale and the verbal learning task’s recall scale were 0.51 (p<.01) and 0.44 (p<.05) for the recognition scale. The Pearson correlation between scores on the ILP’s Elaborative Processing scale and recall of concrete words only was 0.35 (p<.05). In the proposed study, the predominant learning approach of each student will be determined on the basis of the total percentage score from each of the two subscales. Categorization of students predominant learning approach as being either a “rote” or meaningful” learning approach is not an absolute designation but rather due to a specific context and or students’ active choice. Novak, (1977) more specifically delineated this designation as follows: “…the extent to which learning is rote or meaningful is partly a function of the learner’s predisposition toward the learning task”. Consistent with the learning theories of David Ausubel and Joseph Novak, Pearsall, Skipper & Mintzes, (1997) suggest that it is highly plausible to suggest that “rote” Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 18 learners will typically self-report their learning approach using ILP statements such as : “ I often memorize material that I don’t understand”; “I have trouble seeing the difference between apparently similar ideas”; and “I find it difficult to handle questions requiring comparison of different concepts”. Conversely, “meaningful” learners will select statements like: “New concepts usually make me think of many other similar concepts”; “I learn new ideas by relating them to similar ideas”; and “I learn new concepts by expressing them in my own words”. Pearsall et al., (1997) and Martin et al (2000) report that students who self-report themselves as being “meaningful” learners tend to display a greater use of “deep” processing strategies, as well as more highly structured concept maps as compared with self-reported “rote” learners. Independent & Dependent Variables As the title of my thesis states I am interested in exploring the relationship between motivation and conceptual change learning. Although it has been suggested in the literature that masteryoriented students should show greater gains in conceptual change learning it has never been formally supported in a definite way with an empirical study. The literature suggests and shows evidence for learners’ motivational goal orientation to be a major factor in determining the use level of any cognitive learning strategy. It is therefore predicted that mastery-oriented students should demonstrate a proclivity to use and become proficient in any strategy that leads to enhancing their MASTERY of the material. According to Dweck (1986) these type of students work from the premise that ability is malleable and by learning new strategies and or applying more effort they can overcome any limitations and failures. Conversely, students who are more performance-oriented should not demonstrate a preference to use nor become proficient in using learning strategies to enhance their mastery. They are only interested in getting a good grade, impressing others etc. and when they are challenged beyond what they perceive is their Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 19 ABILITY, they back down and may even withdraw from performing in order to preserve their self-esteem. Concept mapping was designed to not only evaluate but potentially enhance conceptual change learning (Novak 1977; 2002). Since the relevant literature, as suggested by the work of Novak et al. (Novak 1977; Novak, 1990; Novak & Gowan, 1984; Novak & Musonda, 1991), assumes that concept mapping fosters conceptual change learning. Thus, one of this study’s objectives was to empirically investigate whether concept mapping can also foster motivation to learn. Hence, I decided that a controlled experimental design would best address that question as well. It was on this basis that I planned to assess motivational goal orientation (using the AGOQ) and motivational and learning strategy profile (using the MSLQ) as an initial baseline reading of where each student was in September. Then later in the following Spring, the MSLQ was readministered to students in both control and experimental groups to see if concept mapping affected students’ motivation to learn biology. Thus, motivational goal orientation, as well as whether students employed concept mapping, served as the independent variables while changes in motivational and learning strategy use profile served as the dependent variables. Concept Maps: Introduction to Technique Early in the Fall of 2000, experimental group students were taught concept mapping following the method of Novak (Novak & Gowin, 1984 p. 32-34). Once students demonstrated skill in concept mapping, they were asked to construct concept maps for specific clusters of concepts which serve as the foundation of a course unit (e.g. cell transport, ecological pyramids). Once competency in mapping concepts was observed the experimental portion of the study began. Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 20 Following introductory lessons and activities on a unit, the teacher had experimental group students construct a concept map using a list of concepts and organizing questions. This was typically assigned as a homework and or class work assignment. Control group participants were assigned a more traditional assignment (i.e. review and or section review questions, vocabulary list etc. in order to provide them with a similar time on task experience with the subject material. Concept maps were then collected and each student was then provided with feedback on the validity of the concept propositions, number of examples, hierarchical design and number of crosslinks. Another colleague using concept maps with students, provided little or no feedback, and saw little or no facilitation of learning. Thus it was found that feedback on the progress of students’ concept maps was critically important. Following further instruction, students were then assigned the task of revising their concept maps. Final concept maps were collected and scored using a specific scoring rubric based upon the one suggested by Novak & Gowin (1984 p. 36-37). Structured Student Interview A Structured Student Interview Schedule was designed in order to provide a more in-depth and qualitative dimension to understanding any changes in the nature of students’ motivational profile, use of cognitive strategies, level of self-regulation, effectiveness of concept maps in revealing growth in conceptual understanding, as well as to get a handle on any impact, positive or negative, concept mapping has had on student motivation. In February 2001, all concept mapping students were interviewed. All interviews were taped and later transcribed. Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 21 RESULTS Pre-Study Correlation Analysis of the Interrelationship Between Goal Orientation, Motivational Profile and Learning Approach The Achievement Goal Orientation Questionnaire (AGOQ), along with the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) and the Inventory of Learning Processes questionnaire (ILP) were administered to 104 tenth grade students (including those in the experimental and control groups) in order to observe and establish relationships between goal orientations, as measured by the AGOQ, and the motivational and learning strategy subscales, as measured by the MSLQ. Additionally, the relationship between both goal orientation (AGOQ) and motivational profile (MSLQ) was investigated in relation to students’ learning approach, as determined by the ILP. As one can see from an interpretation of table 1 below, intrinsic goal orientation correlates highly with a mastery goal orientation, while extrinsic goal orientation correlates highly with a performance goal orientation. Expectedly, an intrinsic goal orientation negatively correlates to a very high degree with work-avoidant goal orientation. Table 1: Pearson moment correlation values between intrinsic and extrinsic goal orientation subscales of the MSLQ and the three subscales of the Achievement Goal Orientation Questionnaire (AGOQ) for all ability levels MSLQ Subscale n=104 Intrinsic Goal Orientation p value Extrinsic Goal Orientation p value AGOQ Subscale Mastery Goal Orientation 0.57 AGOQ Subscale Performance Goal Orientation 0.16 AGOQ Subscale Work-Avoidant Goal Orientation -0.52 p<.01 0.30 p<.01 0.51 p<.01 0.26 p<.01 p<.01 p<.01 Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 22 Table 2 demonstrates the high positive correlation between mastery goal orientation and, with the exception of test anxiety, all the motivational and cognitive learning strategy subscales of the MSLO. It is interesting to note that with respect to the performance goal orientation the only correlation that was statistically significant was that for extrinsic goal orientation. As expected the work-avoidant goal orientation was highly negatively correlated with all subscales and not correlated at all with test anxiety. Table 2: Pearson moment correlation values between the three subscales (mastery, performance and work-avoidant) of the Achievement Goal Orientation Questionnaire (AGOQ) and the motivational and cognitive learning strategy subscales of the Motivational Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) for all ability levels AGOQ Subscale: Mastery Goal Orientation n=104 AGOQ Subscale: Performance Goal Orientation AGOQ Subscale: Work-Avoidant Goal Orientation MSLQ Subscale Motivation Intrinsic Goal Orientation Extrinsic Goal Orientation Task Value 0.57 p<.01 0.30 p<.01 0.51 p<.01 0.43 p<.01 0.46 p<.01 0.05 Control Beliefs Self-Efficacy Test Anxiety 0.16 0.51 p<.01 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.23 -0.52 p<.01 0.26 p<.01 -0.47 p<.01 -0.46 p<.01 -0.31 p<.01 0.00 Cognitive Learning Strategy Elaboration Organization Critical Thinking Self-Regulation Effort Regulation 0.53 p<.01 0.43 p<.01 0.39 p<.01 0.52 p<.01 0.36 p<.01 0.22 0.29 p<.01 0.24 0.27 p<.01 0.16 Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved -0.41 p<.01 -0.41 p<.01 -0.25 -0.53 p<.01 -0.55 p<.01 23 It was found that the most adaptive goal orientations (high mastery, high or low performance, and low work avoidant showed statistically significant positive correlations with all MSLO subscales with the exception of test anxiety. These results demonstrate that adaptive goal orientations are positively correlated with high scoring motivational and learning strategy use profiles of the MSLQ. As such, they corroborate the literature findings (Pintrich, 1989; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990a, 1990b; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991; Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992; Trifone, 2001; Obach et al. (1993); Meece et al., 1988) by showing a significant positive correlation between an adaptive (mastery) goal orientation (high levels of intrinsic motivation to learn, task value, control beliefs, self-efficacy and demonstrated use of self-regulating learning strategies) and a meaningful approach to learning. Table 3 shows that the most adaptive goal orientations (high mastery, high or low performance, and low work avoidant showed statistically significant positive correlations with all MSLO subscales with the exception of test anxiety. Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 24 Table 3: Pearson moment correlation values between motivational grouping (Adaptive to Maladaptive goal orientations) derived from student reporting on the AGOQ and the motivational and cognitive learning strategy subscales of the Motivational Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) Achievement Goal Orientation (AGOQ) Grouping (from most adaptive to most maladaptive) n=104 Level of significance p value MSLQ Subscale Motivation (Pearson’s moment correlation value) 0.49 Intrinsic Goal Orientation Extrinsic Goal Orientation Task Value Control Beliefs Self-Efficacy Test Anxiety p<.01 0.31 p<.01 0.51 0.38 0.36 0.03 p<.01 p<.01 p<.01 0.41 0.43 0.35 0.47 0.43 p<.01 p<.01 p<.01 p<.01 p<.01 Cognitive Learning Strategy Elaboration Organization Critical Thinking Self-Regulation Effort Regulation Table 4 shows that the sum of the score from the Synthesis-Analysis and Elaborative Processing subscales of the Inventory of Learning Processes was found to be highly positively correlated with the motivational and cognitive learning strategy subscales of the MSLO. Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 25 Table 4: Pearson moment correlation values between sum of the Synthesis-Analysis and Elaborative Processing subscales of the Inventory of Learning Processes (ILP) questionnaire and the motivational and cognitive learning strategy subscales of the Motivational Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) ILP total score n=104 MSLQ Subscale Motivation Intrinsic Goal Orientation Extrinsic Goal Orientation Task Value Control Beliefs Self-Efficacy Test Anxiety Level of Significance p value 0.35 p<.01 0.23 0.43 0.32 0.45 -0.27 p<.01 p<.01 p<.01 0.41 0.16 0.37 0.38 0.42 p<.01 Cognitive Learning Strategy Elaboration Organization Critical Thinking Self-Regulation Effort Regulation p<.01 p<.01 p<.01 Table 5 shows that the ILP score is also positively correlated with a mastery goal orientation and negatively correlated with both performance and work-avoidant goal orientations. This is not surprising seeing that a high ILP score is associated with a highly meaningful approach to learning. Additionally, since students who display adaptive goal-orientations also tend to have higher intrinsic levels of motivation, self efficacy and use of self-regulating learning strategies, one would expect to find adaptive goal-oriented students also interested in embracing a meaningful approach to learning. As a consequence they should be expected to have higher ILP scores. Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 26 Table 5: Pearson moment correlation values between sum of the Synthesis-Analysis and Elaborative Processing subscales of the on the Inventory of Learning Processes (ILP) questionnaire and the three subscales of the Achievement Goal Orientation Questionnaire (AGOQ) for all ability levels Test Subscore Comparison Pearson’s Moment correlation value n=104 ILP Score/Mastery Goal Orientation Subscore of AGOQ 0.34 ( p<.01) ILP Score/Performance Goal Orientation Subscore of AGOQ ILP Score/Work-Avoidant Goal Orientation Subscore of AGOQ -0.03 -0.24 (p<.01) Hypothesis: Concept mapping fosters learners’ motivation to learn biology An analysis of the differences between Fall and Spring responses to the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) are displayed in figure 2. Here one can see that the experimental group displayed positive Fall to Spring mean changes for the intrinsic & extrinsic goal orientation, task value, control beliefs, self-efficacy. . This is in dramatic contrast to the observed negative change on those subscales for the control group! Although not shown, the same result was observed for elaboration, organization, and effort regulation MSLQ subscales. Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 27 Figure 2: Percent Differences Between Fall to Spring Means For MSLQ Motivation Subscales The positive effect of concept mapping on students’ motivational profile and cognitive strategy use is more explicitly displayed in table 6 . Here the effect size differences for Fall and Spring MSLQ motivational subscores are shown for control and experimental groups. The motivational subscores that showed the effect size differences between the experimental and control groups for intrinsic (61st percentile) and extrinsic goal orientation (63rd percentile) were significant although smaller in comparison to the relatively more moderate differences for task value (63rd percentile), control beliefs (73rd percentile) and self-efficacy (68th percentile). Differences for extrinsic goal orientation and test anxiety scores were not statistically significant. However, a much more interesting picture emerged when effect sizes were calculated for experimental group Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 28 adaptive versus maladaptive goal-oriented students. mappers showed While adaptive goal-oriented concept large positive effect size differences in intrinsic goal orientation (80th percentile), control beliefs (84th percentile), and self-efficacy (83rd percentile) maladaptive goaloriented concept mappers showed negative effect size differences in all three subscores. More specifically, maladaptive students showed negative effect size differences on intrinsic goal orientation (37th percentile), control beliefs (49th percentile), and self-efficacy (28th percentile). What is even more interesting is that maladaptive goal oriented students showed large positive effect size difference for extrinsic goal orientation (82nd percentile) while adaptive students displayed only a relatively small and insignificant change (56th percentile). Table 6: Effect Size Differences in Fall to Spring Results in MSLQ Motivational Subscores Between Experimental and Control Groups n=37 Effect Size Differences in Fall to Spring Results Between Experimental & Control Groups (Standard Deviation Units) MSLQ Motivational Subscores: All Experimental Students vs Control Group Adaptive Goal Oriented (Exp) vs Control Group Maladaptive Goal Oriented (Exp) vs Control Group Intrinsic Goal Orientation 0.27 0.83 -0.37 Extrinsic Goal Orientation 0.32 0.15 0.89 Task Value 0.04 0.33 -0.21 Control beliefs 0.62 1.01 -0.02 Self-Efficacy 0.47 0.94 -0.29 Test Anxiety 0.03 0.18 0.06 Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 29 Similar effect size differences for adaptive goal-oriented students were observed for MSLQ cognitive learning strategies (see table 7.) This was especially the case for organizational, critical thinking and effort regulation subscores. As reported earlier in this paper students with adaptive goal orientations were positively correlated with all of the MSLQ learning strategy subscores (see table 3). By contrast, students with more maladaptive goal-orientations were found to show far lower correlations with all MSLQ learning strategy subscores. Therefore, when effect size Fall and Spring differences for MSLQ cognitive learning strategy use were calculated for adaptive and maladaptive goal-oriented concept mappers it was expected to find positive although less significant changes for maladaptive students as compared to adaptive ones. Instead what was observed was that maladaptive students showed a significant (68th percentile) change in elaboration strategies while adaptive goal oriented students displayed no difference. With regards to organizational strategies both showed expected patterns of positive effect size changes (adaptive: 84th percentile; and maladaptive: 68th percentile). However, while adaptive goal-oriented students showed a small to moderate positive change in critical thinking (59th percentile) maladaptive students showed a significant but negative effect size change (31st percentile)! Both groups displayed small to moderate effect size changes in effort regulation strategies (adaptive: 63rd percentile; maladaptive: 63rd percentile). Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 30 Table 7: Effect Size Differences in Fall to Spring Results in MSLQ Cognitive Learning Strategy Subscores Between Level 1 Experimental and Control Groups n=37 MSLQ Cognitive Learning Strategy Subscores: Effect Size Differences in Fall to Spring Results Between Experimental & Control Groups (Standard Deviation Units) All Students vs Control Group Adaptive Goal Oriented vs Control Group Maladaptive Goal Oriented vs Control Group Elaboration 0.16 0.02 0.47 Organization 0.69 1.0 0.48 Critical Thinking -0.37 0.23 -0.5 Effort Regulation 0.3 0.33 0.34 Summary of Student Interview Transcripts All concept mappers were interviewed using a structured interview question format. The responses of the four most proficient and least four proficient concept mappers were selected and included below. It was observed that the former happen to have an adaptive (mastery) goal orientation, while the latter were determined to have a maladaptive (non-mastery) goal orientation. The four adaptive goal-oriented students had a mean ILP score of 23.5 with 28 as the highest, while the maladaptive goal-oriented students had a mean ILP score of 14.75 with 19 as the highest. This is similar to the experimental group as a whole which had a mean ILP score of 22.4 for the adaptive goal-oriented students and a mean ILP score of 16.3 average for the maladaptive oriented ones. Thus adaptive goal-oriented students appeared to adopt a more meaningful approach to learning biology, while maladaptive goal-oriented students were characterized by a more rote-learning approach. There were differences between adaptive and maladaptive goal-oriented learners with regard to their perceived ability to learn biology. Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 31 Student responses are grouped according to adaptive versus maladaptive goal orientations. Responses to student questionnaires supported this difference in learning approach between the two groups of students. The following transcript excerpts point to some of the reasons for this difference. These excerpts were often from different students, so it is important to note how the students are characterized as well as the quotes. The relationship between goal-orientation and competence to learn biology. Characteristically adaptive goal-oriented student comments portrayed seeing themselves as strong and competent science students with statements such as: ‘Yeah. Science has always been one of my favorite subjects.’ It was quite a different response from the maladaptive goal-oriented students: ‘Not as well as some of my other classes. I usually like subjects like Lit (literature) I like Foreign Language’. It is not surprising to see that the adaptive goal-oriented students typically liked science and believed they considered themselves strong science students. It was interesting to observe that all four maladaptive goal-oriented students felt that science was not a strength of theirs. Learners should be expected to adopt a mastery goal orientation in subject areas they have a strong interest and or ability. It is reasonable to conclude that subjects for which one has strong aptitude would lead to high performance and thus foster interest. For this reason, one might expect adaptive goal-oriented students to be the most proficient concept mappers. However, this trend need not be taken as a general rule. One of the most proficient concept mappers was a maladaptive goal-oriented student. It is however, interesting to note that all four adaptive goalCopyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 32 oriented students cited above were among the highest achieving students in either control or experimental classes. Two of them received A+’s for a final grade in the course. Conversely, it is interesting to note that all four maladaptive goal-oriented students cited above were not only the least proficient at concept mapping but also were the four lowest achieving students in the experimental class. An analysis of interview transcripts revealed that concept mapping appeared to help both adaptive and maladaptive goal-oriented students. However, both groups differed in the extent to which it was perceived to aid them in learning biology. What follows are six significant ways in which concept mapping was found to impact adaptive and maladaptive goal-oriented learners. (1) The role of concept mapping in fostering a meaningful approach to learning biology. It appears that concept mapping provided all the interviewees with an aid to learning. It seemed to provide them with a means to make meaningful connections between the concepts. Here are a few of the main themes found amongst the adaptive goal-oriented learners: ‘I definitely understand the material better. Because like before I just would see everything, like the vocabulary as separate things and what they are, but now I see that everything is connected… before I just memorized them as separate things”; “It’s helped with some connections between certain topics that I wouldn’t think about connecting until I saw them on the paper’; ‘I definitely think it has been an aid to my learning because I’m learning a lot more than I would have if I hadn’t been using it…’; ‘It’s helped because it’s gotten me to look more at the links between concepts rather than just memorizing the concepts and knowing it just straight. I can connect one concept to other concepts. Before I would just read text and then memorize that. But concept mapping is kind of changed me. While taking tests I can sometimes Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 33 see my concept map. I just have it so ingrained in my head that I usually don’t think about my concept maps’. Here are a few of the main themes found amongst the maladaptive goal-oriented learners: ‘It makes the learning easier if I can organize the topics right…. It does help me retrieve information’; ‘I think it’s helped because not only can you study from the final map, but while putting it together it is kind of sinking in, you’re understanding better rather than just memorizing the definition of a word. You are pacing your learning as you go along’; ‘I think when I actually sit down and focus and do it helps me’; ‘It definitely has helped me. Once I get the concept map done it helps me a lot because all the concepts are placed in front of me, all linked together. So it helps me understand how everything is connected’. (2) The role of concept mapping in enhancing achievement. Both types of students reported attributing concept mapping to higher levels of achievement due to the fact that it helped them make connections between concepts. Concept mapping appeared to help both adaptive and maladaptive goal-oriented students. Adaptive goal-oriented students responded with comments such as: ‘I definitely would say concept mapping has definitely helped me before the tests. Because I always look over them and study them.’; ‘I think concept mapping played a role. I think I would have been like half a grade lower …because it forced me to like learn stuff better.’; ‘I usually take more interest in science than I do in other subjects…I don’t mind studying it or studying it for a long period of time in any detail because I don’t get bored with it. And concept mapping has helped that too’. Likewise, maladaptive goal-oriented students’ comments were similar to those of the adaptive goal-oriented ones with statements like : Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 34 ‘concept mapping is helping me even though I don’t like it much’ ; ‘I think that concept mapping kind of helps a lot because it’s like taking one topic and breaking it down and then putting it all together…I think the year so far is maybe tied together better because I have been doing concept maps’; ‘I could probably work harder. Biology is not something that I am interested in learning about. I am inconsistent about the time I put into concept mapping. But when I take the time and do the concept map I do better’. (3) Difficulty with learning and using concept mapping. The experience with concept mapping amongst the most proficient (adaptive goal-oriented mappers) students was generally a positive one. They all seemed to catch on fairly quickly. This is particularly the case with developing a hierarchy and making crosslinks: ‘…the crosslinks have been easy most of the time…’; ‘I think it helps me a lot. It makes sure that I knew all the concepts in order to put them onto the paper yet to be able to understand them when you have to put them into the web…’; ‘…as I got used to concept mapping, like the technique of it, I was able to make more concepts, more links between concepts and make them more complicated…’. The experience amongst the least proficient (maladaptive goal-oriented) mappers was generally perceived in more negative terms. They all seemed to have a much harder time understanding how to construct hierarchies and crosslinks. Also the process appeared very tedious to them: ‘But it doesn’t come easy to me. It takes forever. What is specifically difficult is making the hierarchy. Organizing things from bigger to smaller. I can’t do it…’; ‘The hardest part was just to fit the terms together from most general to least general. Just trying to make all the crosslinks. Trying to tie it all together…’; ‘I don’t like it. The hardest thing for me has been tying in the concepts and adding the linking words and the crosslinks. I am so bad at crosslinks. I also kind of Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 35 have a problem with thinking hierarchically…’; ‘It’s kind of hard for me to put the concepts together. It is hard for me to distinguish what are the broader more inclusive concepts…’ In general, both groups appeared to like concept mapping but the maladaptive goal-oriented students apparently had more problems with it than the adaptive goal-oriented group. This was especially true for having to group the concepts hierarchically as well as in making crosslinks. Both groups felt that concept mapping forces them to think more about the concepts and process it at a deeper level. They both liked how it aided them in tying together discrete concepts into a meaningful web. Supportive of these observations were the following comments. Adaptive goaloriented student comments: ‘What I like about concept mapping is the hierarchy. I think that really helps label things and where they are in the bigger picture. I like the crosslinks also. There’s nothing I don’t really like about concept mapping’; ‘I really like how it makes learning the information and I like the way you give us feedback and make sure instead of just saying “go do this” and hand in a finished copy, you seem like you are talking with us and giving us more information’. Maladaptive goal-oriented student comments: ‘I like the way we have to figure out all the terms and which terms we have to include. And then you can kind of relate them which helps on the test. But like the hierarchy I don’t like the special form we have to do it in’; ‘I really don’t like if sometimes I don’t understand concepts and I don’t have a clear definition I can’t really tie it in very well… I like how you can make so many connections and like see it on paper rather than try to think them up.… In some ways it is like you are kind of teaching yourself biology more than you are teaching it to me’; ‘I don’t like the crosslinks…I’m better at learning definitions than linking... concept mapping forces me to apply the learning’; ‘When I’m doing it it’s good because it forces me to learn everything and put everything together… it is just hard in the beginning to get the map done’. Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 36 (4) The impact of concept mapping on studying. Concept mapping has forced them to apply a higher level of effort. Both groups of students also reported a reduction in memorization due to concept mapping stating that it apparently helped pace their learning, as well as making it more efficient over the course of the unit. In general both groups tended to feel that concept mapping helped with their studying because it reduced the amount of memorizing they had to do because it helped them pace their learning. Adaptive goal-oriented student comments: ‘I have to study less now... I just know the stuff. I don’t have to look at a book now, I just know it, it’s in my memory now…I’m not memorizing things last minute as much as I used to’; ‘if I make a concept map right before a test it already reviews automatically what I need to know. And that would save me the time having to going back at night and re-reading or trying to memorize other things in the book.’; ‘The thing that is the most different about how I would have studied is that I have been pacing myself through this whole time…But with concept mapping like a week before if I don’t understand it then I already know that I don’t understand it. It helps me keep my time paced out. So I don’t really have to study a lot the night before the test. So now I feel, well I don’t know everything but I know things when it comes to the test’; ‘It helps me at first to recognize the concepts and the connections and then I take that knowledge and then take it the night before I study and I just study the book. I make visual concept maps in my head now. I didn’t make those before’. Maladaptive goal-oriented student comments: ‘Now that we’re doing concept mapping I don’t do as much memorizing’; ‘My study habits have changed. I used to use a lot of memorization, but now with the concept maps I can just study off of that. And it just helps me understand the information in some order that can be useful. It’s a lot more meaningful and more efficient. Because I think I end up remembering a lot longer than with Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 37 just memorization’; ‘I’m definitely studying more because of the maps. Now I just connect everything more than just memorizing everything. Because I am looking for links between concepts rather than just memorizing, when I study I am forced to ask myself questions or anticipate questions that you may ask me on a test’. (5) The impact of teacher’s feedback on students’ learning with concept maps. Both groups of students attributed enhanced motivation to learn biology as a consequence of concept mapping. One of the most significant findings was to learn of the importance of constructive feedback to students’ concept maps. Constructive feedback is critical to creating meaningful concept maps. Good feedback requires teacher’s to have a firm conceptual understanding of the topics covered in each unit. It thus requires teacher’s being able to recognize misconceptions and incomplete propositions, as well as a way to communicate to the student how to approach correcting it without giving away the answer. This is a very difficult thing to do. However, what I found was that this communication provided a forum for teacher and student to dialogue about learning. This appeared to break down some of the barriers typically set up between teacher and student. Adaptive and maladaptive goal-oriented learners tended to benefit from this feedback. Here is a sampling of the comments from the adaptive goal-oriented learners: ‘Well I think it has helped too because I think my concept maps have gotten better over the course of the year like due to comments you make’; ‘I think when I get the feedback I know exactly where my problem is so then I can go back and look in the book or ask a question and this way it usually solves my problems’; ‘it helps me to realize what I need to know more’. Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 38 The comments from the maladaptive goal-oriented learners were similar but still not without some problems: ‘Yeah it helps. But I still have to figure out what you’re talking about’; ‘I think the feedback is very helpful that you give me, because then I can take a look at and realize that “Oh that isn’t really suppose to be there”’; ‘My first maps are like, nothing, and then there’s all that feedback that I have to respond to’; ‘The questions that you ask me force me to think a little bit more about the relationships between the terms but they are not something I would normally do on my own’. (6) Impact of concept mapping on motivation to learn biology. Both groups of students appeared to believe that concept mapping enhanced their motivation to learn biology. Adaptive goal-oriented student comments: ‘Oh I’m definitely more motivated to learn biology because I guess I’m think it is more interesting… Probably because I’m doing better in science…probably because of concept mapping’. Maladaptive goal-oriented student comments: ‘I’m more interested because it’s a different type of thing than what I do in normal classes. In the other classes I pretty much just memorize…It’s makes it more interesting. It makes me think more about the topics than I normally would’; ‘I am also more motivated… I mean I think that concept mapping is kind of an encouragement to learn it instead of just being stuck with memorizing all these terms…With concept mapping it is a little bit easier and kind of takes the pressure off cause I’ve got you to help give me… I feel more confident about my ability to learn biology than when I came into this class in September’; ‘I do feel more confident in my ability to learn biology now than when I first entered this class in the Fall. I don’t have an interest to take biology. But if given a choice of taking another biology course I would feel that I would be able to do well in it if I set Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 39 my mind to it’; ‘I’m probably more motivated because I’m starting to understand things more and studying more. In the beginning I didn’t’. However, it appeared to enhance motivation more so amongst maladaptive goal-oriented students. This is documented with adaptive goal-oriented students comments like: ‘I think that it has just stayed the same. There’s nothing to make me not motivated to learn biology. I’ve always liked this more than some of my other courses. Nothing has really made me more motivated’; ‘I think I am about the same because I was pretty interested in biology because it is an interesting thing to learn about…I think I have just learned a little bit more’; ‘Not really, because I was interested in biology anyway. So concept mapping has just helped to make learning it different than the way I learn concepts in other classes. I do think my level of confidence in being able to learn biology is higher now than when I first entered the class. I guess I feel more confident now because I seem to understand things more than in the past…It’s not my ability so much as it is the time I need to put in to doing the maps’. These comments are not surprising seeing that adaptive goal-oriented learners tend to have a more intrinsic goal orientation and are generally more self-regulated than their maladaptive goaloriented peers. Both groups of students apparently thought that concept mapping was an effective learning strategy. Typical of adaptive goal-oriented students comments were: ‘Probably like an “8” or “9ish”’; ‘I would probably rate it an “8” because it does help a lot’; ‘I would rate it as an “8” or “9” I think for myself it is a “10”’; ‘Probably a “7”. Cause although it hasn’t really helped me in the way I study it has helped in the way I learn. But I know from talking to other people that it has really helped them a lot, like with more visual people it has really helped them’. Likewise, maladaptive goal-oriented students rated it quite effective with comments like: ‘Pretty high. Probably about a “9”. It does help’; ‘I would probably rate it around an “8” or “9”. Cause I think it is just a really good tool but that it is not for everyone you know. But I think it is a good one for me and I like it. I think concept mapping is probably best for the visual learner. Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 40 Someone who is just trying to organize their thoughts better’; ‘An “8””; “A “7”. If I had an option to stop or continue using concept mapping I would probably use it’. DISCUSSION A comparative analysis of the responses to the Fall and Spring MSLQ clearly points to the efficacious consequence of concept mapping on learners’ motivation (especially intrinsic goal orientation, task value, self-efficacy and control beliefs) to learn biology and greater use of cognitive learning strategies, (especially that of organization (see figure 3.). Table 1 clearly supports the notion that the intrinsic goal orientation subscale of the MSLQ is positively correlated with the mastery goal orientation subscale and negatively with the work-avoidant subscale of the AGOQ. Conversely, the extrinsic goal orientation subscale of the MSLQ appears to be positively correlated with the performance goal orientation and moderately correlated with the work-avoidant subscale of the AGOQ. This last result is not surprising seeing that an extrinsic and therefore performance goal orientation appears to issue from a difference in how ability and effort are interpreted. As mentioned previously, Dweck and Elliott’s (1983) model proposes that mastery oriented students tend to interpret lack of success to a lack of effort rather than ability, while performance oriented students tend to attribute a lack of success to a lack of ability. Hence performance oriented students perform well as long as the task lies within their ability level. If they perceive that this is not the case, and or if they appear to be applying too much effort to complete the task they may show a decrease in persistence and effort. In extreme cases they may even withdraw from the task entirely, and assume a more work-avoidant orientation. Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 41 As the results of tables 2 & 3 demonstrate, both motivation questionnaires (AGOQ and the MSLQ) appear to be consistent in their measure of motivational components. The results also support the literature findings (Pintrich, 1989; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990a, 1990b; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991; Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992; Trifone, 2001; Obach et al. (1993); Meece et al., 1988) in that all motivation and cognitive learning strategy subscales of the MSLQ positively correlate with the mastery goal orientation subscale of the AGOQ with the expected exception of the test anxiety subscale. Thus, students identified as adopting adaptive goal orientations (mastery) typically were found to have the highest levels of intrinsic motivation to learn, task value, control beliefs, self-efficacy and demonstrated use of self-regulating learning strategies when compared to those identified as adopting maladaptive goal orientations (performance and work-avoidant). The results displayed in tables 4 & 5 corroborate these findings by showing a similar significant positive correlation between the MSLQ subscales and the results of the Inventory of Learning Processes (ILP) questionnaire. Therefore, students identified as adopting adaptive goal-orientations were also found to show a high correlation with assuming a meaningful approach to learning biology. Additionally, the data from interviews with experimental group students supports the notion that concept mapping enhances the motivation to learn. Therefore, one plausible explanation for the disparity in observed achievement results amongst control and experimental groups might lie in the fact that concept mapping was found to have a positive effect on both experimental group students’ motivation and cognitive learning strategy usage profiles.. Hence, as the old saying goes, “success breeds success”. It is therefore reasonable to suggest that enhanced performance and learning would tend to foster higher levels of motivation. Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved Furthermore, if students 42 associated that enhanced performance and learning to be a consequence of utilizing a learning strategy (i.e. concept mapping), then one would also expect to also observe positive feelings about using that strategy. Lastly, since concept mapping is a visual aid that facilitates the organization of knowledge one should expect to see an increase in students’ reported use of organizational learning strategies. Thus, the sum of the changes observed amongst the concept mappers all point towards making positive gains in their motivational and learning strategy use profiles. While it was observed that both adaptive and maladaptive concept mappers showed larger effect size differences for achievement relative to those in the control group, adaptive goal-oriented concept mappers displayed disproportionately larger effect size changes relative to the maladaptive goal-oriented concept mappers. One interpretation for these results might be that adaptive goal-oriented students respond very differently to academic challenge in comparison to students displaying maladaptive goal orientations. As reported earlier in this study (see table 3), adaptive goal orientations were initially found to be more positively correlated than maladaptive goal orientations to an intrinsic goal orientation, control beliefs, task value and self-efficacy. Thus, as the year wore on each motivational group became more polarized and truer to their type. Therefore, concept mapping appears to affect students in different ways dependent upon whether they adopt an adaptive or maladaptive goal orientation. On the basis of the results in this study and in the literature (Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Harter, 1981; Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992; Pintrich, 1989; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990a & 1990b; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991; Obach et al. 1993; Meece et al., 1988), it would be expected that students who are more interested in learning (adaptive goal orientations) would take a more meaningful approach to their learning Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 43 and seek and become more proficient in any strategy (i.e. concept mapping) that would enhance their mastery of learning a subject. Furthermore, since concept mapping requires additional effort, relative to memorizing, maladaptive goal oriented students might over time come to develop negative attitudes towards being requested to use concept mapping. These negative affects could occur, despite the fact that concept mapping actually aided them in performing at a higher level! Dweck & Elliot’s (1983) fixed versus incremental intelligence theory can possibly account for this paradoxical outcome. This theory suggests that learners who believe their intelligence, and therefore ability, to be a fixed entity, perform well only when they perceive that the challenge lies within their perceived ability range. If they find themselves expending an excessive amount of effort, then they conclude that the task lies beyond their capabilities. Some may even go so far as to become “work-avoidant” perhaps in an attempt to prevent the shame and embarrassment of failure. It is for this reason, that students adopting this belief are termed “maladaptive”. On the other hand, Dweck & Elliott found that learners who believe their ability to be more malleable, and therefore able to increase incrementally as they acquire new skills and strategies, also believe that they can overcome any shortcomings in their present ability with an increase in effort. It is on this basis that these types of learners are termed adaptive. Thus, the more effort the maladaptive students applied the more they developed negative attitudes to learning with concept mapping leading to negative Fall to Spring MSLQ scores in intrinsic goals, task value and self-efficacy. Thus, concept mapping affects adaptive goal oriented students to a different extent than those adopting maladaptive goal orientations. In addition to differences in motivational profiles, were differences in cognitive strategy use over the course of the school year. Specifically, maladaptive Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 44 students appear to increase their use of elaborative and organizational strategies to a moderate degree while expending more effort in regulating their learning. Adaptive students display a larger and significant increase in organizational strategies and small to moderate increases in critical thinking strategies while expending more effort in regulating their learning. Organizational strategies like clustering, outlining, and selecting the main idea from texts, would be expected to aid students in selecting specific and appropriate information necessary to constructing useful knowledge frameworks (Pintrich et al. 1991). Concept mapping is a learning strategy that does just that. Therefore, it was not surprising to see that students who used concept mapping employed an increased use of organizational strategies in their learning. It is also not surprising to see adaptive oriented students displaying much higher degrees of organizational usage seeing that they tended to show higher levels of proficiency in concept mapping. Concept mapping appears to positively affect the motivational profile of adaptive goal-oriented learners to a greater extent than maladaptive goal-oriented learners. Specifically it appears to increase adaptive goal-oriented learners’ level of intrinsic goal orientation, task value, control beliefs and self-efficacy while serving to drive maladaptive goal-oriented learners in becoming even more extrinsically motivated (see table 6). Intrinsic goal orientation is a measure of the degree to which a student values learning a task or subject matter as an end in itself rather than serving as a means to an end (i.e. a good grade) (Pintrich et al. 1991). In strong contrast, extrinsic goal orientation is a measure of the extent to which a student values learning a task or a subject more as a means to an end (i.e. specifically earning a grade, reward or impressing others) (Pintrich et al. 1991). Task value is a measure of the degree to which a student views how interesting, important or useful a task or subject matter Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 45 is to them Intrinsic goal orientation assesses the degree to which a student values learning a task or subject matter as an end in itself rather than serving as a means to an end (i.e. a good grade) (Pintrich et al. 1991). Control beliefs pertain to the set of beliefs or set of expectations that students have regarding controlling their performance. If students perceive they are very much in control of their own learning they are more likely to expend more effort in learning since they believe that their efforts can make a difference in the learning outcome (Pintrich et al. 1991). Self-efficacy is a measure of students level of confidence in being able to perform, accomplish and master tasks or set of skills necessary to be successful in a subject area (Pintrich et al. 1991). Therefore, one interpretation for the observed results is that adaptive goal-oriented students respond very differently to academic challenge and specifically the use of concept mapping than do students displaying maladaptive goal orientations. Adaptive goal orientations were previously shown to be more positively correlated than maladaptive goal orientations to an intrinsic goal orientation, control beliefs, task value and self-efficacy (see tables 2 & 3). Conversely, maladaptive goal orientations were found to be more positively correlated than adaptive goal orientations to an extrinsic goal orientation. Thus, as the year wore on each motivational group became more polarized and truer to their type. It would be expected that a learning strategy that provides opportunities for more student control of learning should lead to a positive change in perceived control beliefs. One would expect that students’ motivation to learn and use of cognitive learning strategies should increase as they experience success. Furthermore, it would be expected that this increase in success should lead to an increase in self-efficacy. It is particularly interesting to note that the experimental group actually began in the Fall from a Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 46 lower level of self-efficacy than the control group but ended up making large gains particularly in relation to the decrease in self-efficacy Fall to Spring mean change amongst the control group! Concept mapping was also found to help adaptive goal-oriented students become even more adept at using cognitive learning strategies while helping to close the gap between them and students who don’t have an intrinsic interest in learning the subject matter. Thus, in summary concept mapping was found to enhance intrinsic goal orientation, task value, self-efficacy, control beliefs, elaborative, organizational critical thinking and effort regulating strategy use. Together, these can be construed to mean that concept mapping is efficacious in providing students with the necessary learning skills, as well as fostering students to become more motivated to learn biology. It would be expected that if adaptive goal-oriented students were provided with a learning strategy that aids in developing a more meaningful approach to learning that they would embrace it. It is also logical to assume that if these students achieve higher levels of academic success and attribute that success to use of a self-regulated learning strategy like concept mapping, that they may even become more intrinsically goal oriented and perceive that they are more competent in and in control of their learning. By the same token, it would be expected that students who are more maladaptive goal oriented would be less likely to embrace a self-regulating learning strategy like concept mapping that affords an opportunity to develop a greater depth of conceptual understanding. Specifically, they would also be expected to withdraw from any learning activity, no matter how potentially helpful, that requires them to spend an increased amount of time and effort, particularly if the conceptual level becomes too challenging (Dweck, 1986). Thus, it is no wonder why such contrasting results in effect size differences Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 47 amongst adaptive and maladaptive goal oriented students, as those shown in table 6, were observed. However, it remains to be determined why this dual effect was not found to be true for all of the students who used concept mapping. Further research needs to be conducted to explore if there are any other reasons why concept mapping was not efficacious in motivating all adaptive goal oriented students. Furthermore, it is perplexing as to why a few maladaptive goaloriented students demonstrated higher levels of academic success, and or motivation as compared to their adaptive goal-oriented peers. These results suggest that concept mapping affects adaptive goal oriented students to a different extent than those adopting maladaptive goal orientations. Specifically, maladaptive students appear to increase their use of elaborative and organizational strategies to a moderate degree while expending more effort in regulating their learning. Adaptive students display a larger and significant increase in organizational strategies and small to moderate increases in critical thinking strategies while expending more effort in regulating their learning. Elaborative strategies like paraphrasing, summarizing, and creating analogies aid students in integrating new conceptual knowledge with prior understanding and knowledge networks (Pintrich et al. 1991). Thus, it would be expected to observe high levels in use of these types of strategies particularly amongst students who showed displayed adaptive goal orientations. Thus, adaptive goal oriented students’ relatively high initial levels of elaborative strategy usage might help explain why they didn’t show any change over the course of the year. On the other hand, while maladaptive goal oriented students showed much lower initial use of elaborative skills their much greater effect Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 48 size differences over the year suggest that concept mapping may, in fact, be responsible for enhancing this type of skill. Organizational strategies like clustering, outlining, and selecting the main idea from texts, would be expected to aid students in selecting specific and appropriate information necessary to constructing useful knowledge frameworks (Pintrich et al. 1991). Concept mapping is a learning strategy that does just that. Therefore, it was not surprising to see that students who used concept mapping employed an increased use of organizational strategies in their learning. It is also not surprising to see adaptive oriented students displaying much higher degrees of organizational usage seeing that they tended to show higher levels of proficiency in concept mapping. Critical thinking strategies aid learners in assimilating new experiences or conceptual understandings into prior knowledge constructs as a consequence of solving problems and or analyzing or evaluating new information. Once again it was expected that adaptive oriented students should show the greatest gains in critical thinking seeing that they, in contrast to their maladaptive peers, place higher intrinsic value on learning and developing a conceptual understanding within a specific content area of interest. It was also not surprising to see quite the opposite result amongst the maladaptive goal oriented students. These students are not interested nor intrinsically motivated to learn the subject area. Instead they are more interested in more extrinsic goals like getting a good grade or impressing others. Thus, any activity requiring them to process information at other than a superficial level may not be of interest to them. This would Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 49 be particularly true for concepts whose mastery of is too challenging a task or that requires too much effort in order to adequately grasp their meaning. Lastly, effort regulation strategies include activities that students employ to control their level of effort and attention in completing a task and or achieving a goal (Pintrich et al. 1991). It was therefore, quite expected that concept mappers would show increases, above and beyond that of control group students, in these types of learning strategies. In summary, concept mapping appears to enhance use of elaborative, organizational, critical thinking and effort regulating activities amongst students to a degree dependent upon their goal orientation. While concept mapping appears to be more effective in enhancing organizational and critical thinking strategies amongst adaptive goal oriented learners, it nonetheless appears to aid maladaptive oriented learners in their use of elaborative, organizational and effort regulating strategies. Concept mapping does appear to serve as an effective cognitive learning strategy to demonstrate, as well as promote conceptual change learning and achievement. Furthermore, although the results are not conclusive, they nonetheless suggest that the greatest gains in conceptual change learning are manifested in learners identified as adopting mastery goal orientations. While concept mapping has been cited in the literature as an effective learning strategy those findings have been criticized for being either conducted only among teachers or over a short-term period in actual classrooms by students. In contrast, this study was conducted with students over an entire school year. Therefore, the results of this study suggest that if (1) concept mapping is embedded as an integral component of a constructivist classroom teaching and learning Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 50 philosophy, that provides students with effective feedback on the progress of their concept maps and (2) if students are evaluated with tests that assess deep conceptual understanding, then other educators may experience the same positive gains in conceptual understanding, achievement and motivation. Thus, the most profound findings of this study appear to be that concept mapping was found to be an effective learning strategy with students over an entire school-year term and appeared responsible for changing students motivation to learn specifically with regard to enhancing intrinsic goal orientation, task value, self-efficacy, control beliefs, as well as in promoting the use of cognitive learning strategies such as elaboration, organization, critical thinking and effort regulation. Nonetheless, more research is needed to address why concept mapping is not effectively utilized by all adaptive goal--oriented students. Specifically, what is the unique motivational profile of adaptive goal-oriented students who demonstrate the largest gains in achievement, conceptual change learning and motivation. Although concept mapping does appear to improve the motivational and learning strategy use profiles of all students as compared to control group students this does not translate into closing the motivational profile gap between adaptive and maladaptive goal orientated students. Concept mapping appears to positively affect the motivational profile of adaptive goal-oriented learners to a greater extent than maladaptive goal-oriented learners. Specifically it appears to increase adaptive goal-oriented learners’ level of intrinsic goal orientation, task value, control beliefs and self-efficacy while serving to drive maladaptive goal-oriented learners in becoming even more extrinsically motivated. Concept mapping was also found to help adaptive goal-oriented students become even more adept at using cognitive learning strategies while helping to close the gap between them and students who don’t have an intrinsic interest in learning the subject matter. Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 51 I would add here something along these lines: It should be recognized that we have been discussing the effects of concept mapping in one class for one school year. Other classes taken by the students during the year of the study and all preceding years did not use concept mapping and may have been pressing students to resist their movement toward meaningful learning. In fact, the non-adaptive learning strategies and self perceptions are more likely a product of prior education that an inherent characteristic of some students. Thus, in summary concept mapping was found to enhance intrinsic goal orientation, task value, self-efficacy, control beliefs, elaborative, organizational critical thinking and effort regulating strategy use. Together, these can be construed to mean that concept mapping is efficacious in providing students with the necessary learning skills, as well as fostering students to become more motivated to learn biology. However, it remains to be determined why this effect was not found to be true for all of the experimental population. Further research needs to be conducted to explore the reasons why concept mapping was not efficacious in fostering students motivation to learn biology amongst maladaptive goal-oriented, as well as amongst all adaptive goal oriented students, It also remains a little puzzling not to see the adaptive goal-oriented concept mappers remain the same if not increase on the metacognitive self-regulation subscore. This will need to be further explored with next year’s group of students. Additionally, it is perplexing as to why some performance oriented students demonstrated higher levels of academic success, and or motivation as compared to their adaptive goal oriented peers. Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 52 Implications The results of this study support the notion that concept mapping enhances students’ motivation to learn. However, there is a disparity between the way it affects mastery and non-mastery goal oriented learners. Therefore, the challenge will also be to create learning environments that urge students’ to adopt a more adaptive goal-orientation to learning. Since concept mapping is perceived by most students to enhance their ability to learn and construct meaning, it is plausible to suggest that concept mapping itself may serve as one tool to foster students’ adopting a more adaptive goal-orientation. Cognitive learning strategies are designed to enhance understanding. However, there are some that are more effective than others. The literature refers to two types of strategies: surface and deep. Surface ones only tap low on Bloom's taxonomy and involve only the lowest forms of learning skills like rehearsing, memorizing etc. These skills comprise what has been referred to in this study as rote learning approach. Deep strategies involve having learner take a more indepth look at what the concept actually means and, or in relation to other ones. Strategies like these employ skills like critical thinking, elaborating and what are collectively called "selfregulated learning strategies (SRL)". In contrast to the surface strategies that promote rote learning, SRL strategies promote a more meaningful learning approach. As such one finds that the former are more characteristic of performance (extrinsically motivated) goal oriented learners and the latter of mastery (intrinsically motivated) goal oriented learners. All cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies are skills that can be developed, with a meaningful approach to learning. And although one will find learner's demonstrating different levels of competency in the self-regulating learning strategies, all learner's can with time and effort develop those Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 53 abilities to enhance understanding. Concept mapping is a cognitive learning strategy that requires learners to use deep processing thinking skills and, as such, promotes a more meaningful approach to learning. In my interviews time and time again I have heard students talk about how they are now taking a more meaningful approach to their learning. This has been especially true for the performance goal-oriented students who typically used to take a more rote learning approach. What I see happening with successful mappers is a change in their belief about their own self-efficacy and ability to understand biology. In my interview with the other teacher involved in the project, that has also been the case. She has been profoundly affected in how she teaches now as a result of integrating concept mapping into her pedagogy. Thus, one important implication of this study is that concept mapping is a learning strategy that can be learned by any student. Furthermore, it appears to provide students’ with a means to “learn how to learn” and in so doing take a more meaningful approach to learning. A result of this change in learning approach will in many cases lead to measurable gains in conceptual understanding and achievement and therefore motivation to learn. While there are a few exceptions, it appears that adaptive goal-oriented students experience the greatest level of success with concept mapping, as well as in motivational change. However, even amongst adaptive learners there appear to be students who don’t fall into this category. Therefore, it will be of interest to investigate why students who experience success with concept mapping do so and more importantly, why others do not embrace it to the same level of effectiveness. Concept mapping may be a more effective learning tool to students who view themselves as ‘visual-spatial learners’ (Silverman 1989). From interviews of successful and unsuccessful concept mappers performed during this study, it has become apparent that students Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 54 who tend to feel more comfortable with memorizing do not embrace, nor are as successful with, concept mapping to the same extent as those who take a more meaningful approach to learning. Silverman (1989) supported this notion by suggesting that ‘visual-spatial learners’ tend to take a more holistic view in looking for how the parts relate to the whole rather than merely memorizing isolated ideas. Schmid and Telaro (1990) suggested that concept mapping is inviting or effective with rote memorizers as a result of the fact that: ‘Biology is so difficult to teach and to learn because it consists of a myriad of unfamiliar concepts involving complex relations. The schools’ favored approach to teaching unfamiliar material is rote learning. Rote learning predictably fails in the face of multilevel, complex interactions involved in biology. Concept mapping…stresses meaningful learning, and appears to be ideally suited to address biological content’ (pg. 78-79). It is also of interest to investigate how and in what ways students’ beliefs about themselves and concept mapping change as a consequence of becoming effective at using concept mapping and how these differ with students who do not demonstrate effectiveness in using concept mapping. Specifically, do students who initially characterize themselves as rote memorizers change their approach to learning as a consequence of embracing concept mapping? If so, then why? Moreover, it will be of interest to investigate how to develop more effective use of concept mapping among students identified as performance goal-oriented. The following questions emerged from this study: Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 55 • How does success or lack of success with concept mapping affect the perception of students as learners of biology? • What causes and reasons do successful/unsuccessful biology students attribute as critical to their actual level of achievement? • Why don’t all students perceive concept mapping as an effective learning tool? • Are study beliefs and practices different amongst students who demonstrate success or lack of success with concept mapping? • And finally, a question that hopefully we can address some day: What would happen if all students did concept mapping in all subjects throughout their years of schooling? References Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271. Ames, C.A., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 3, 260-267. Ausubel, D.P., (1968). Educational Psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall Bandura, A., & Schunk, D.H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41 586-598 Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-Hall Bandura, A. (1989). Human Agency in Social Cognitive Theory. American Psychologist, 44 No. 9 1175-1184 Bascones, J., & Novak, J.D. (1985). Alternative instructional systems and the development of problemsolving skills in physics. European Journal of Science Education, 7(3), p. 253-261. Beyerbach, B.A. (1988). Developing a technical vocabulary on teacher planning: Preservice teachers’ concept maps. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14 No. 4, 339-347. Bodolus, J. E. (1986). The use of concept mapping strategy to facilitate meaningful learning for ninth grade students in science. Doctoral Dissertation, Temple University. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 852A. Bouffard-Bouchard, T. (1990). Influence of Self-efficacy on Performance in a Cognitive Task. Journal of Social Psychology, 130, No. 3 Brandt, R. (1988/1989). On learning research: A conversation with Lauren Resnick. Educational Leadership, 46(4), 12-16 Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). The Case for Constructivist Classrooms, Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 56 Campbell, L.R., & Bickhard, M.H. (1986). Knowing levels and developmental stages. Basel, Switzerland: Karger Chi, M., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. (1988). The nature of expertise, Hillsdale, NJ.: Erlbaum. Corno, L. (1989). Self-regulated learning: A volitional analysis. In B.J. Zimmerman & D.H. Schunk, eds., Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theory, research, and Practice (pp. 111-141). New York: Springer-Verlag. Dweck, C. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, pp. 1040-1048. Dweck, C.S. & Elliot, E.S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In E.M. Hetherington (Ed.), Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 643-691). New York: Wiley Dweck, C.S. & Leggett, E.L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), p. 256-273. Fisher, K. (1991). Teaching students meaningful learning strategies in biology. Technology in science and Math educational panel, Critical Issues Conference, Greeley, CO. Ford, M.E. (1992). Motivating humans: goals, emotions and personal agency beliefs. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Garcia, T., Pintrich, P. (1993). Self-Schemas, Motivational Strategies and Self-Regulated Learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA, April 12-16 Harter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the classroom: Motivational and informational components. Developmental Psychology, Vol. 17, p. 300-312. Heinz-Fry, J.A. and Novak, J.D. (1990). Concept mapping brings long-term movement toward meaningful learning. Science Education, 74, pp. 461-472 Horton, P.B., McConney, A/A., Gallo, M. Woods, A.L. Senn, G.J. and Hamelin, D. (1993). An investigation of the effectiveness of concept mapping as an instructional tool. Science Education, 77, pp. 95-111 Jegede, O. J., Alaiyemola, F. F., & Okebukola, P.A. (1989). The effect of a metacognitive stategy on students’ anxiety and achievement in biology, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 313219. Kinchin, I.M. (2000). Concept mapping in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 34 No. 2, pp. 61-68 Kurtz, B.E. & Borkowski, J.G. (1984). Children's metacognition: Exploring relations among knowledge, process, and motivational variables. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 37, 335-354 Larkin, J. (1983). The role of problem representation in physics. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds.) Mental models (p.75-98). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum Lawson, A. (1988). The acquisition of biological knowledge during childhood: Cognitive conflict or tabula rasa? Journal of Research in Science Teaching,. 25, No. 3, p. 135-199. Lent, R.W., Brown, S.D., & Larkin, K.C. (1984). Relation of self-efficacy expectations to academic achievement and persistence. Journal of Counseling Psychology,. 31, p. 356-62 Maehr, M., & Nicholls, J. (1980). Culture and achievement motivation: A second look. In N. Warren (Ed.), Studies in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 221-267). New York: Academic Press. Martin, B;L., Mintzes, J.J., & Clavijo, I.E. (2000). Restructuring knowledge in biology: Cognitive Processes and Cognitive Reflections, International Journal of Science Education, 22(3), 303-323 Mason, C.L. (1992). Concept mapping: A tool to develop reflective science instruction. Science Education, 76, No. 1, p.51-63. Meece, J.L., Blumenfeld, P.C. & Hoyle, R.H. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514-523. Meece, J.L. & Holt, K. (1993). A pattern analysis of students’ achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 582-590. Mintzes, Wandersee , & Novak, J.D. (2000). Assessing Science Understanding: A Human Constructivist View. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 57 Nolen, S.B. (1986). The role of personal goals in students’ selection of learning strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. Novak, J. (1977). A Theory of Education. Ithaca, NY. Cornell University Press. Novak, J, & Gowin, B. (1984). Learning How To Learn. Cambridge University Press, 32-34. Novak, J.D. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, No. 1o, p. 937-949. Novak, J.D. & Musonda, D. (1991). A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning. American Educational Research Journal, 28, No. 1, p.117-153. Novak, J.D.(2002). Meaningful learning: the essential factor for conceptual change in limited or appropriate propositional hierarchies (LIPHs) leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86(4):548-571 Obach, M., Moely, B. (1993). Does metacognition about study activities predict motivational orientation in school-aged children? Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA. April 12-16. Okebukola, P.A. & Jegede, O.J. (1989). Students’ anxiety towards and perception of difficulty of some biological concepts under the concept-mapping heuristic. Research in Science and Technological Education, 7, 85-92 Park, S;H. (1992). Motivational belief, volitional control and self-regulated learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan), Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol. 53, No. 5, 1456A. Pearsall, N. R., Skipper, J. & Mintzes, J.J. (1997). Knowledge restructuring in the life sciences: A longitudinal study of conceptual changes in biology. Science Education, 81, 193-215. Pintrich, P.R. (1989). The dynamic interplay of student motivation and cognition in the college classroom. In C. Ames & M. Maehr (Eds.). Advances in motivation and achievement: Motivation-enhancing environments Vol. 6, p.117-160. Greenwich, CT.:JAI Press. Pintrich, P.R. & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self regulation in the college classroom. In M. L. Maehr & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Goals and selfregulatory processes Vol. 7, pp. 371-402. Greenwich, CT. JAI Press. Pintrich, P., Smith, D., Garcia, T., and McKeachie, W. (1991). A Manual for the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning and the School of Education: University of Michigan.. 41-48. Pintrich, P.R. & DeGroot, E. (1990a). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, pp. 33-40 Pintrich, P.R. & DeGroot, E. (1990b April). Quantitative and qualitative perspectives on student motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston. Pintrich, P.R. & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students' motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagement in classroom tasks. In D. H. Schunk & J. Meece, (eds.), Student Perceptions in the Classroom: Causes and Consequences (pp. 149-183), Hillsdale, N.J.:Lawrence Erlbaum Pintrich, P.R., Marx, R.W., and 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, Summer, Vol. 63, 2, pp. 167-199. 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. Pintrich, P.R., Roeser, R. & DeGroot, E. (1994). Classroom and individual differences in early adolescents' motivation and self-regulated learning. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, pp. 139161 Risemberg,R., & Zimmerman, B. (1992). Self-Regulated Learning in Gifted Students. Roeper Review, 15 No. 2, 98-101 Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 58 Roehler,L., Duffy, G., Conley,M., Herrmann, B., Johnson., & Michelson, S. (1990). Teacher’s knowledge structure: Documenting their development and their relationship to instruction. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Institute for Teaching. Rothstein, R. (1990). Educational psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill. Schmeck, R., Ribich, F; & Ramanaiah, N. (1977). Development of a self-report inventory for assessing individual differences in learning processes. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 413-431. Schmeck, R. and Ribich, F. (1978). Construct validation of the inventory of learning processes. Applied Psychological Measurement, 2, 551-562. Schmid, R.F., and Telaro, G. (1990). Concept mapping as an instructional strategy for high school biology. Journal of Educational Research, 84, pp. 78-85 Schunk, D.H. (1994). Student Motivation for Literacy Learning: The Role of Self-Regulatory Processes. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. April Schunk, D.H. (1984). The self-efficacy perspective on achievement behavior. Educational Psychologist, 19, 199-218 Schunk, D.H.; & Hanson, A.R. (1985). Peer models: Influence on children’s self efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology,. 77, p. 313-322. Silverman, L.K. (1989). The visual-spatial learner. Preventing School Failure, Vol. 34, pp. 15-20. Somuncuoglu, Y. & Yildirim, A. (1999). Relationship between achievement goal orientations and use of learning strategies, Journal of Educational Research, 92, No. 5 Sternberg, R.J. (1988). The Triarchic Mind: A New Theory of Human Intelligence. New York: Viking. Stipek, D & Gralinski, J.H. (1996). Children’s Beliefs about Intelligence and School Performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, No. 3, 397-407 Sept Thomas, J.W., Iventosch, L., & Rohwer, W.D., Jr. (1987) Relationships among student characteristics, study activities, and achievement as a function of course characteristics. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12 , 344-364 Trifone, J. (1991). Addressing the Needs of the Concrete Learner. The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 53, p. 330 Trifone, J. (2001). The Relationship Between Ability Grouping, Motivational and Learning Strategy Profile and Performance on the Connecticut Academic Performance Test (CAPT), Connecticut Journal of Science Education, 38, No. 2 Spring-summer, pps 24-40. Wandersee, J., Mintzes, J., & Novak, J. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science in D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (p. 177-210). New York:Macmillan. Wallace, J.D., & Mintzes, J.J. (1990). The concept map as a research tool: Exploring conceptual changes in biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, No. 10, p. 1033-1052. Weinstein, C.E. & Mayer, R. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M.C. Wittrock (ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching, New York: Macmillan , pp. 315-327. White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1989). Metalearning and conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 11, p. 577-586. Woolfolk, A.E. (1990). Educational psychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Zimmerman, B.J. & Ringle, J. (1981). Effects of model persistence and statements of confidence on children's efficacy and problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 485-493 Zimmerman, B.J. & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986) Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 614-628 Zimmerman, B.J. (1989a). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81 No.3 , 329-339 Zimmerman, B.J. (1989b). Models of self-regulated learning and academic achievement. In B.J. Zimmerman & D.H. Schunk, eds. Self-regulated Learning and Academic Achievement:Theory, Research, and Practice, New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 1-25 Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 59 Zimmerman, B.J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25, No. 1, 3-17 Zimmerman, B.J. (1994). Dimensions of academic self-regulation: A conceptual framework for education. in D.H. Schunk and B.J. Zimmerman, eds., Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance: Issues and Educational Applications, Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 3-21. Zimmerman, B.J. (1996). Enhancing Student Academic and Health functioning: A Self-Regulatory Perspective. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, No. 1, 47-66 Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 60 Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 61 Copyright © 2004 James D. Trifone All Rights Reserved 62