Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Springer 2006
DOI 10.1007/s11251-005-6922-4
Introduction
Methods
Measurement instrument
tive thinking, was used (See Table 1 for the question items used in the
instrument). Each question dealt with one of the instructional-design
elements predicted, from the literature, to prompt reflective thinking.
Factor 1 Factor 2
Note. C: Communalities.
68
PBL environments
Procedure
Data analysis
Results
Facilitative Constructivist
scaffolding learning
methods environment
Note. C: Communalities.
74
Table 3. Factor loading of instructional-design elements (college students)
Task-related Student-centered
scaffolding learning
methods environment
Note. C: Communalities.
Table 4. Means, standard deviations, and interfactor correlations for the two factors for middle-school and college students
Factor 1 – Facilitative 3.37 0.87 0.84a Factor 1 – Task-related 2.21 0.63 0.62a
scaffolding methods scaffolding methods
Factor 2 – Constructivist 3.85 0.78 0.65 0.76a Factor 2 – Student-centered 2.00 0.61 0.41 0.55a
learning environment learning environment
Table 5. Means, standard deviations, and correlations for nine items (middle-school
students)
Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10
1. Ill-structured tasks
2. Authentic tasks 0.52
3. Teacher explanations 0.56 0.37
4. Teacher questions 0.58 0.47 0.63
5. Collaborative learning 0.34 0.43 0.29 0.25
6. Teacher wait time 0.47 0.49 0.49 0.41 0.49
8. Concept mapping 0.28 0.17 0.48 0.30 0.19 0.21
9. Writing 0.42 0.33 0.56 0.47 0.32 0.32 0.48
10. Question prompts 0.44 0.43 0.52 0.52 0.35 0.56 0.42 0.58
M 3.79 3.66 3.75 3.35 4.05 3.80 3.40 3.00 3.30
SD 0.93 0.99 0.95 1.04 1.19 0.99 1.24 1.20 1.09
Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Ill-structured tasks
2. Authentic tasks 0.25
3. Teacher explanations 0.22 0.22
4. Teacher questions 0.24 0.17 0.32
5. Collaborative learning 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.12
6. Teacher wait time 0.15 0.21 0.20 0.06 0.20
7. Learner control 0.22 0.30 0.17 0.11 0.24 0.33
8. Concept mapping 0.26 0.25 0.15 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.26
9. Writing 0.28 0.17 0.16 0.21 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.30
10. Question prompts 0.23 0.12 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.17 0.14 0.24
M 2.39 1.98 1.98 2.39 2.16 1.79 2.05 2.10 2.38 2.01
SD 1.01 0.80 1.01 1.08 1.11 0.82 1.00 1.06 1.08 0.92
Table 7. Means and standard deviations of question items (middle-school and college students)
Item M SD Item M SD
Factor 1 – 3. When my teacher explains 3.75b 0.95 Factor 1 – 4. When my teacher asks me 2.39c 1.08
Facilitative how to solve difficult tasks it Task-related how to solve difficult tasks it helps
scaffolding helps me think more scaffolding me think more
methods methods
8. Drawing pictures to illustrate 3.40 1.24 1. Working on activities in class that 2.39c 1.01
my under-standing of a topic have many different answers helps
helps me think more me think more
4. When my teacher asks me 3.35 1.04 9. Writing about my understanding 2.38c 1.08
how to solve difficult tasks of a topic helps me think more
it helps me think more
10. Answering questions about 3.30 1.09 8. Drawing pictures to illustrate my 2.10 1.06
a topic helps me think more under-standing of a topic helps me
think more
9. Writing about my understanding 3.00 1.20 10. Answering questions about a 2.01 0.92
of a topic helps me think more topic helps me think more
3. When my teacher explains 1.98 1.01
how to solve difficult tasks it
helps me think more
a
Factor 2 – 5. Working with partners during 4.05a 1.19 Factor 2 – 5. Working with partners during 2.16 1.11
Constructivist classroom activities helps me think more Student-centered classroom activities helps me
learning learning think more
environment environment
6. Having time to think about a 3.80 0.99 7. Having freedom in class to 2.05 1.00
question before answering helps explore topics I am interested
me think more in helps me think more
1. Working on activities in class that 3.79 0.93 2. Working on activities in 1.98 0.80
have many different answers helps class related to real problems
me think more on earth or in our society
helps me think more
2. Working on activities in class related 3.66 0.99 6. Having time to think 1.79 0.82
to real problems on earth or in our about a question before
society helps me think more answering helps me think more
Note: 1. astatistically different from all other mean scores at the 0.05 level.
b
statistically different from all other mean scores at the 0.01 level.
c
Statistically the same, statistically different from all other mean scores at the 0.01 level.
2. Bold shows the highest ranked item among 10 items.
79
80
Discussion
The primary research aim of this study was to identify and descrip-
tively compare the instructional-design factors and elements that mid-
dle-school and college students perceive as helpful in prompting
reflective thinking in PBL environments.
ered during the factor analysis of the data from both middle-school
and college level learners in these two studies. Both middle-school and
college level learners perceived the learning environment and scaffold-
ing methods as helpful factors prompting reflective thinking in a PBL
environment, although the essence of these two and their order of
importance in prompting reflective thinking were different.
These results also differ from those of an early study by Koszalka
et al. (2002), conducted in a science learning environment, in which
three factors emerged. The reflective teaching-method factor reported
in the previous study was not replicated in this one. Two design
elements (teacher questions and teacher explanations) found previously
to load under teaching methods, loaded to the scaffolding-meth-
ods factor for both the middle-school group and the college-level
group. This loading suggests that teaching methods are integral to
scaffolding methods that help learners solve problems in PBL
environments.
The characteristics of two task-related design elements, the
ill-structuredness and authenticity of tasks, both loaded to the con-
structivist learning-environment factor for middle-school students,
whereas ill-structured tasks loaded to task-related scaffolding methods
and authentic tasks loaded to the student-centered learning-environ-
ment factor for the college students. One possible reason why the
task-design elements loaded together for the middle-school students
can be found in the characteristics of constructivist learning environ-
ments, which share attributes with PBL. Both PBL and constructivist
researchers report that authentic and ill-defined tasks are especially
important attributes of the learning environment (Albanese &
Mitchel, 1993; Honebein et al., 1993; Barrow, 1998). Therefore,
students might not perceive the helpfulness of the task-design
elements as distinctive from other factors.
On the other hand, college-level students perceived the helpfulness
of these two task-related design elements as belonging to separate
factors. Ill-structured tasks might have been perceived as asking
about the task of working on activities rather than on the ill-struc-
tured nature of the activity, hence the loading to task-related scaffold-
ing methods. Authentic tasks might have been perceived as related to
students’ experiences in the real world, that is, similar to the environ-
ment for learning, hence the loading to the student-centered learning
environment.
It is interesting that both the internal consistencies of the factors
and the portions of variance explained for the college-level students
82
were lower than those for the middle-school students. One possible
reason for the low reliabilities and low percentages of variance
explained may be related to the developmental stage of the college
students. Since college-level students are more self-regulated than
middle-school students, they might not need the reflective-thinking
strategies provided in their class and thus might not perceive the help-
fulness of the factors and elements that prompted their reflective
thinking as distinctively as the middle-school students did.
Conclusion
Acknowledgements
This project was made possible through funding from the National
Aeronautics Space Administration, Leading Educators to Applica-
tions, Research, and NASA-Related Educational Resources in Science
(LEARNERS), a Cooperative Agreement Notice from the NASA
Education Division and Learning Technologies Project. Project Num-
ber: NCC5-432: Learning Using ERAST Aircraft for Understanding
Remote Sensing, Atmospheric Sampling and Aircraft Technologies,
(LUAU II).
86
References