SCIED 552: Science Teaching and Learning Developing Models of Science Teaching

This week’s reading covered the theory of cognitive apprenticeship, or the process by which a master of a particular skill teaches it to an apprentice; Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher by Brown et al. (1989) and chapter three of the NRCs A Framework for K-12 Science Education (2012).

While reading this weeks articles, I tried to find any instances of the other models and ideas we’ve discussed so far to try and add to my current concept map. One of the first similarities in reading chapter three of the NRC (2012) I found was to Skinner; it seems for assessments sake, at the end of grade 12, students are expected to perform and think, and possess certain ‘behaviors’, if you will, in order to demonstrate their learning of the material. It isn’t really that simple, though, as unlike Skinner, and more like Dewey and proponents of conceptual change, cognitive apprenticeship requires the building of concepts on prior knowledge. The focus is not on just memorization of facts, as we’ve come to a associate with Skinner, but the broader knowledge of how those facts fit in to the larger picture. 

Something that was on my mind as I read this week was also the current anti-science rhetoric that is playing out in the United States, and the unspeakable consequences. I think the NRC (2012) actually made the case for this on page 43 when it stated – “Any education that focuses predominantly on the detailed products of scientific labor—the facts of science—without developing an understanding of how those facts were established or that ignores the many important applications of science in the world misrepresents science and marginalizes the importance of engineering.”. I think that science for so long has been represented as merely a list of facts, and this has misrepresented science, so much so that there is a general mistrust of science among some folks who, because they don’t know the process of science, are quick to dismiss it. 

I also found myself thinking of my own experiences while teaching an introductory biology at a community college. Every semester I had one class of dual-enrolled students from the nearby high school in an underprivileged district. My course was their first experience in a biology classroom, and I remember my very first semester teaching them was the most difficult for me. To them, biology was hard (misconception!) and who actually uses this stuff anyways (another misconception!!)?? So for every lecture topic that we covered, I included an actual real life scientists work (and twitter handle!) to show the students this isn’t just a pile of facts you have to spit out for an exam, this is how what we learned in lecture is being used, and by a real live person. In the semesters thet followed, I brought researchers from the two local universities in to the class room where we would have hands on seminars where the students would be immersed in the process of science, eventually taking small groups to the labs to partake in actual research – from field collections of speciemns to extractions of nucleic acids to bioinformatically analyzing sequences. I think the ideas discussed in Brown et al. (1989) definitely lend to this mindset of building by doing. I know with my own students, their retention of information improved when they were a part of the process in obtaining it. However, this does bring up an issue that I did have which was assessing. I found that students were more confident in their knowledge in casual conversation, but I didn’t ever find a way to asess them fairly. This may be interesting to discuss…

Brown, J. S., Collins, A. M., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education. Ch. 3, 41-79. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165.

Brown et al has a few different quotes that stand out to me (and that I don’t like), but overall my larger conclusion isn’t all negative… Brown compares learning (to acting) at one point as “being a continuous, life-long processes resulting from acting in situations” (33). I don’t like the comparison of acting and learning- however when I think of them through the lens of performing an action, it makes me think of how Skinner would (possibly, likely?) argue his definition of learning- proof that you have mastered the thing, can you do it? Can you show me you that you know this thing? And that makes senses to me- learning as a performance of knowledge or understanding…

Brown also provides a connection (for me) to conceptual change from last week. When we discussed conceptual change, the focus falls heavily on the change from one way of thinking to another. And Brown at one point says that teachers should “begin with a task embedded in a familiar activity, it shows the students the legitimacy of their implicit knowledge” (38). This illustrates to me that Brown acknowledges how learning/knowledge is largely built upon (whether a change in elemental understanding or in complex constructs is irrelevant! It’s still learning!)

Cognitive apprenticeship also highlights another…area for me. Learning, to me, requires navigating multiple areas, connecting multiple ideas and fields (whether the thinker is fully aware of the extent/depth of their connections is also irrelevant here), connecting new thoughts and old thoughts and other people’s thoughts, etc etc- is learning. Learning is complex… However, what does Brown mean by “authentic activity” or “ordinary practices of the culture” (33)? That can easily sound as though there is one dominant approach or an expected context- and if the learner is unfamiliar with the approach or context- then what is the focus of the learning truly? When Brown discusses enculturation and clearly connects the importance of where/how/when/with who learning occurs- it all matters and it all shapes what information is gleaned.

This week’s reading showed me how my neurons are lighting up. I’m not there yet… but I am seeing the core bases of Skinner and Dewey and how they lead us to Posner and now how Brown comes in. This week further defines learning while focusing on (what I would consider barriers to learning) how learning is “provided” to learners and the issues within/around the current school culture/setting structure.

Which also connects to… It didn’t escape me how the NRC discussed classroom norms. We are told that “the structure of classroom norms is often left tacit, making it difficult for students to figure out the rules on their own, especially if these ways of thinking, talking, and behaving are not as frequently encountered in their home communities” (191). This seems crazy. Even just on reading- ignoring the fact that I do have life experience in these settings- just on paper alone, it seems crazy. And that isn’t a new thought or new idea! Why is the first focus of school/learning about getting students restructured to a new way of acting, being, and existing? Because it’s not about learning. The ways in which learning is not the focus of the school context, so to speak, also connects to other things we’ve discussed in class recently- additional context reading here (not fully on topic with defining learning specifically here) is Pushout by Monique Morris or The School to Prison Pipeline by N. Heitzeg.

It is acknowledged that learning takes place within a community and thereby based in culture has so many applications and parallels- this also means that culture can be shifted and communities can shift. It can be different.

How do we incorporate more “real world” culture/learning with the existing school culture?

Brown, J. S., Collins, A. M., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A. M., & Duguid, P. (1989). Debating the Situation: A Rejoinder to Palinscar and Wineburg. Educational Researcher, 10-12.

National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Cognitive apprenticeship and conceptual change models of learning seem to begin with a very similar idea: “Many schooling practices overlook [students own learning experiences] and implicitly treat students like empty vessels into which knowledge can be poured” (Brown et al 1989b, p. 10).  Although both theories contain this idea of prior knowledge affecting the process of learning, cognitive apprenticeship takes it a step farther saying that the prior knowledge is affected by the culture in which it was developed.  Furthermore, both learning and knowledge are dependent not just on cognitive processes that are internal (as with conceptual change) but are situated in the environment in which they are learned or obtained.  For instance, there are pieces of knowledge that cannot be easily recalled without the presence of the situation.  Two examples that I can easily think of for myself are the ability to play video games or construct Jacob’s Ladder with a piece of string.  I know how to do these things, but I am absolutely not confident in being able to explain how to do these things without my controller or a piece of string; my knowledge is not independent of my environment (or culture).

A question that came to mind as I was reading about cognitive apprenticeship was the idea of how assessments would work.  With traditional apprenticeships or internships, they don’t end if you don’t understand something immediately or fail at something; they continue until one is able to stand on their own with their own acquired skills or knowledge.  This begs the question of how this would align with the more traditional idea of schooling with grading being a quantitative evaluation of one’s abilities.  Would a proper implementation of cognitive apprenticeship also necessitate the doing away with traditional grading schema? Or is there a way to bring the two together in a way that is still authentic to the cognitive apprenticeship theory of learning?

Finally, the NRC Framework piece brought up some excellent points about the importance of impressing upon students the processes involved in science and engineering, and how they are not a stagnant set of rules to follow.  A good quote to note is: “Any education that focuses predominantly on the detailed products of scientific labor—the facts of science—without developing an understanding of how those facts were established or that ignores the many important applications of science in the world misrepresents science and marginalizes the importance of engineering. ” (NRC 2012, p. 43)  They go on to argue that allowing students to partake in these scientific processes would highly benefit learning, and would allow for students to possible awaken their curiosity and encourage future experimentation in science.  I would argue one further thing about this method of teaching science: it is vital to a well-functioning society.

Currently, we have found ourselves in a time of several anti-science movements and misinformation that I believe to be a partial result of previously only teaching science as a set of immutable facts.  In reality, science is built on theories that grow and change as experimentation and models are developed, but it seems there is a massive understanding about the scientific process.  Many seem to believe that if science gets something wrong, that the experts can no longer be trusted, when in fact, this “getting things wrong” is a feature of the scientific process, not a bug.  If this idea of science being a growing and changing thing filled with continuous arguing, re-evaluations, and analyzations were taught, maybe we wouldn’t see such massive anti-science movements.  It is very important to realize that the ways things are taught in schools has a very real, and sometimes extreme affect on the society in which we live.

References:

Brown, J. S., Collins, A. M., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A. M., & Duguid, P. (1989). Debating the Situation: A Rejoinder to Palinscar and Wineburg. Educational Researcher, 10-12.

National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Palinscar, A. S. (1989). Less Charted Waters. Educational Researcher, 18, 5-7.

Wineburg, S. (1989). Remembrance of Theories past. Educational Researcher, 18(4), 7-10.

Compared to previous weeks, I see an even more drastic shift in what is being constituted as learning but one that is more complex and encompassing of what research tells us. Brown et al. describe learning as a” a process of enculturation” (Brown et al. 1989, P. 33), which is accomplished in their eyes through doing cognitive apprenticeship. The idea of cognitive apprenticeship is rooted in meaningful practices, which is something I see as beneficial for preparing students in contexts that are not just the school environment. The authors continue by stating that “cognitive apprenticeship supports learning in a domain by enabling students to acquire, develop, and use cognitive tools in authentic domain activity” (Brown et al. 1989, P.35) Going off of that, knowing is being able to produce whatever cultural product is provided by the field in a satisfactory manner (ex. In graduate student research it would be diligent research methods and some form of data/evidence based results).  I totally understand the authors perspective, as for another class we spent a lot of time researching how authentic practices help students not just understand concepts, but develop critical thinking skills, stimulate interest in topics, and ultimately positively influence student education. Following off of this, I have questions if we do enough in the way of building cognitive apprenticeship in schools. I would argue that we as educators likely do with placements, student teaching, pre-student teaching, etc. but what about other fields that students are entering? They mention graduate research as one that happens via these methods. Is a sufficient amount of cognitive apprenticeship being provided to students/young people entering the workforce?

One similarity I did notice with previous weeks is the critique on what is defined as school learning. Brown et al. state that “School activity too often tends to be hybrid, implicitly framed by one culture, but explicitly attributed to another” (Brown et al. 1989, P.34). This sounds all-too-familiar- traditional teaching being offered is not reflective of the needs of whatever jobs and positions we may be placed in once we leave that environment. Why can we not (traditionally) provide authentic environments for students to practice the skills they need? Why do we as a society treat school learning (predominantly) like a separate domain than the one students will spend their life in? Considering Ambitious Science Teaching, in what ways does AST move us closer to that idealized picture, and in what ways do we as AST users need to push toward that picture more?

When it comes to the NRC readings, a specific quote stuck out to me. “Thus knowing why the wrong answer is wrong can help secure a deeper and stronger understanding of why the right answer is right. (NRC 2012, P.44)”. This is a highly important distinction between traditional teaching and more idealized teaching like AST. When one teaches to cover material, knowing what is right and wrong is king, and there is no purpose in truly understanding why something as wrong beyond making sure the material you “know” is right. But there is power in confronting misconceptions and deconstructing them, it helps us in many ways- it makes us better thinkers, not just someone who knows one more fact. This framework for science teaching recognizes that idea clearly and explicitly, and that is very appealing.

According to this theory knowing is to acquire cognitive tools and learning happens enculturating students in authentic practices through activity and social interaction. When Brown et al. say that “The activity in which knowledge is developed and deployed, it is now argued, is not separable from or ancillary to learning and cognition. Nor is it neutral. Rather, it is an integral part of what is learned.” they hit a key aspect of learning that we don’t even think about in school. We don’t see it. I found what they say to have really some genius. They look at a very big problem in current science education “Many methods of didactic education assume a separation between knowing and doing”. We usually think in school that if we apply knowledge “we do”, but if we don’t work with knowledge in an authentic context, it is not really effective. It was clear the correspondence between this paper and the insistence on science and engineering practices in the framework. Also, Ambitious Science Teaching practices look being inspired by this theory: the use of scientific practices as much as possible close to the real ones and in a social interaction. The biggest difficulty of a way of teaching that takes this theory seriously is to get as much as possible close to the authentic practices. This is not easy. At the same time, if we look at how effective is apprenticeship, we can’t ignore it. People like Leonardo da Vinci or Michelangelo did not learn about art taking a class at the university but they went to learn from artists. It gave me some pain to read things that I could recognize in my experience, like the way students learn to solve problems based on where they are in the textbook and that this does not mean that they can use that knowledge in a real situation. I was a little bit surprised by the people that replied to the paper, because what Brown et al. said looked so true that I could not understand how we can say that the way we learn in school today is good. For sure it is not easy to change things in the way they describe, but at least we can get as much close as we can.

The ideas in cognitive apprenticeship can be compared to Skinner’s model and conceptual change.  Compared to Skinner, I think there is a similarity that learning needs to be situated in a behavior.  With Skinner, this is obvious.  With cognitive apprenticeship, we (educators) know that students have learned something when they can ‘use’ their knowledge in some real world context.  A comparison to conceptual change can be made with the idea of ‘tools.’  C.A. discusses knowledge as a set of tools.  I think this has a direct comparison to the collection of ideas that we said a concept was.  The main difference is that to fully know, you have to use this tool set.  In other words, you can have a fully mapped out concept in your mind, but not fully ‘know’ it until you apply your knowledge to the ‘real world.’

I am still trying to consider how Na’ilah Nasir’s ideas fit into this theory of learning.  I don’t think they do.  In fact, I think cognitive apprenticeship does a poor job of promoting equity and anti-ractist teaching in the classroom.  I think there was an attempt to consider that learning has cultural implications.  In fact, the theory definitely says that knowledge is dependent on ‘enculturation.’  This dependence is certainly not equitable though, especially in science teaching.  Science has its own culture, which has heavy white European influences.  If I am to situate science learning in this culture, which students benefit the most?  Which students miss out, or feel uncomfortable in the subject?  I think this idea of situating science learning in the culture of science is going to marginalize your students.  To me, learning science should be about learning your own ways to interpret the world around you.  This can definitely be done without “enculturation.”

I also think it’s notable that each theory we have read about includes some subject as its example.  Skinner used math because it that is a good application of the theory.  Likewise, conceptual change used science.  Cognitive apprenticeship used vocabulary in the beginning to show the problems with current teaching methods, then suggested ways to improve.  There were also math examples, but I think it is interesting that vocabulary was used as a way to show how learning definitions isn’t effective, but using language is.  This is probably not important at all, but just thought I’d make a note of it.

Brown et. al discuss their learning theory in their paper titled “Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning”. Throughout the paper, Brown et. al emphasizes that knowing something and doing something are inseparable. They claim that someone can’t really know something unless the learning happened in an authentic environment, or through an authentic activity. This statement fundamentally contradicts typical school processes. Schools typically don’t provide the level of authentic activity that would satisfy this learning theory, bringing up the argument that in some ways, schools aren’t doing their job. Scott has alluded to this quite a bit throughout all of the time I have had with him, and the way that claim is laid out here makes sense to me.

Brown et. al described knowledge like a tool to use in the outside world. A comparison can be made between a tool user that has real life experience using said tool and a student who has been “taught” how to use the tool, but without ever being actually immersed in the use of it. Brown would argue that the tool user would really know how to use the hammer since real world authentic experiences were gained, while the student does not, since interaction with said tool was zero. This brings us back to behavior-based learning. While Browns theory is quite different than Skinners, I think both of them would expect you to demonstrate knowledge in order to prove you have it.

Another comparison that I made while reading was to conceptual change. Last week’s theory felt like something happens, a change gets made, something new happens or is observed, change gets made. It felt incremental rather than continuous. Here, Changes in ideas or knowledge feels like it can be more fluid.

I have experienced this “knowledge gap” between practical and “school” knowledge. The summers of my engineering undergrad years at PSU I had engineering internships. I had learned so much in school, but a very large majority of that stuff I learned either didn’t apply to what I was doing or needed to be supplemented with experience to really get it. Without going into too much boring detail, I found that learning about a discipline and actually being in that discipline are two different things.

Situated cognition seemed to strike some cords with me this week – I found myself recalling and grappling with the article while measuring honey and oil for my granola and several other times over the course of the days after I read Brown, Collins and Duguid’s work. I certainly sensed links to Dewey (a likely reason that the experiential educator in me was drawn to situated cognition), although, as the reviewers point out, the authors did not present much (if any) historical background/context. This was an interesting choice that the authors made, particularly as historical context seems to be a (if not the) central organizing theme for our course. 

Brown, Collins and Duguid’s theory of situated cognition is all about differentiating “know what” vs “know how.” I found this interesting because last week we thought conceptual change went beyond the “know what” of skinnerian theory, but situated cognition takes it a large step further: the whole theory revolves around practice and “authentic activity.” On page 33, the authors state that “Learning and acting are indistinct.” I noticed that whereas conceptual change was very focused on the internal processes associated with learning, situated cognition involves a lot of external means of demonstrating through action and practice. Also, in the vein of comparing the most recent theories we’ve explored, in situated cognition, a concept “continually evolve(s)”(page 33). This seems much more fluid in contrast to the in-depth stepwise process of conceptual change theory. 

Indeed, as the reviewers mention, it would have been helpful for the authors to provide more examples outside of mathematics – they give their reasoning for using mathematics, but of course I’m always thinking about science and so I wonder how their theory would look in terms of scientific disciplines. I think I can contextualize some pieces of their theories in science learning – for example, setting up scientific norms for students in classrooms in order to evoke scientific culture, or in the authors’ terms, enculturate students into scientific communities of practice. I can also relate to many of the questions that the two reviewers asked about application in instruction, and the largeness of this request of the schooling world without much specificity, despite their numerous assertions that their theory is nearly completely counter to traditional (conventional?) instructional methods.

In comparison to previous theories, we’re starting to see more social/community links, especially with enculturation. While I found the idea of enculturation intriguing, I agree with one reviewer that the authors’ actual notion of enculturation is vague. The vagueness of this term did not hit me until I was reading the Framework chapter and several questions arose as I was trying to reconcile (assimilate(?) accommodate(?)) Brown’s theory of enculturation into the Framework’s practices. I wondered: What is the culture that the authors refer to in the context of different disciplines? Is it practices? Is it epistemic knowledge? There certainly seem to be threads from situated cognition within the Practices of the Framework. Seemingly direct links included the emphasis on “how,” and the specific use of the term “practices” to signify “the coordination both of knowledge and skill simultaneously” (page 41). 

 A couple of final thoughts: I hadn’t read an article with reviews before, and I found it to be an insightful process. Coincidentally (or not? Was it Scott’s intention?), reading the reviews alongside the Brown article made a great case for the Framework’s emphasis on the role of evaluation and critique in scientific practices. On an unrelated note, I was left with a bit of confusion about the terms “situated cognition” vs “cognitive apprenticeship.” Is cognitive apprenticeship one piece of situated cognition theory? 

Like most of us, I have been a student for almost the entirety of my life, and the very vast majority of the things I have been taught deal with concepts that we already know so much about. No one has to question algebra, right? I had somewhat of a realization when I first started actually learning about relativity and quantum mechanics. Once I had learned the basics of physics and the physical world, I was able to then understand the approach to quantum physics, but it was uncomfortable to learn about things that seemingly directly conflicted with previous knowledge. It wasn’t because I was taught the wrong thing or went astray in my thinking. Once told that quantum mechanics is relatively new, I realized my discomfort was in the change. This process gets showcased in the readings about conceptual change.

While the wording and pace of this week’s Posner was difficult to understand at times, the main theory of learning to which Posner subscribes became clear. I liked the framing of learning happening in assimilation or accommodation. Calling back to my personal example, I think I had a textbook accommodation opportunity. Once presented with information that differed from my own past knowledge, I became apathetic toward this particular class, thinking that I would never have to know this information. (I had to late drop and retake this class. Turns out I did need to care). Posner mentions some of these “symptoms” of facing an anomaly on page 221. Posner’s line of learning by assimilation is methodically very similar to AST and breaking scientific events into anomalies and fundamental knowledge makes things simpler to understand, making this paper broader than Skinner’s by comparison. Skinner deals with absolutes; if you can display knowledge has been gained. If not, no dice. Here, discussions dealing with larger ideas are easier to entertain relative to a narrower Skinner.

In the diSessa reading, misconception was the word being thrown around. Defined as, “entrenched false beliefs that need to be overcome”, misconceptions can be as simple as thinking a speck of dust is massless, but misconceptions have the potential to cause plenty of harm. While the reading does not directly call social issues into play, I can see scenarios where student misconceptions lead to discrimination. It is becoming more and more clear to me that there is a need for nonbiased teaching and remedying these misconceptions can prove crucial.

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a Scientific Conception: Toward a Theory of Conceptual Change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227.

diSessa, A. A. (2006). A History of Conceptual Change Research: Threads and Fault Lines. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of The Learning Sciences (pp. 265-281). New York: Cambridge University Press

Posner et al. propose a surprisingly simple theory of accommodation (once you get past the initially intimidating dense text, that is) that dissatisfaction leads to finding an intelligible solution to integrate into the model that is plausible and leads to new areas of inquiry. At first, Posner’s model of conceptual change seemed to not fit-in well with Skinner’s work. Nowhere in Posner’s text does he posit that a change in behavior is necessary for learning, and he even goes as far to write “[learning] is not simple the acquisition of a set of correct…behaviors” (Posner, 1982). Stopping here, (and ignoring the 70 year difference between Skinner and Posner) one might argue the two men propose incompatible theories.

However, Posner et al. continue, writing that “learning, like inquiry, is best viewed as a process of conceptual change”. There’s that word again: process. I think I’ve heard Scott say learning is a process at least 15 times and we’re only in the second week. This sentence reminded me that Skinner doesn’t actually make the argument that a student learns by changing their behavior, only that an outsider can determine if a student has learned something by observing their behavior. When Posner et al. write about accommodation, they still claim that an experience causes a change in knowing, it’s just that everything is invisible. Moreover, I found that the reading from Duit & Treagust bridged the gap between Posner’s findings on conceptual change and Skinner’s instructional practice, writing about the unknown interactions of conceptual change and how that can lead to an observable change in student (or teacher) behavior.

As a meta-analysis like argument, I would claim that we can use the theory of conceptual change to accommodate Posner et al./Duits’ thoughts into our own educational framework, based initially off of solely Skinner’s work. Last week, Scott asked us to use Skinner’s model to judge if a student understands plate tectonics; the discussion that ensued led to a rather unsatisfactory answer based off memorization. So, maybe we shouldn’t use Skinner’s theory to study learning of plate tectonics? Next, we are given these readings about conceptual change to provide a (hopefully) intelligible conception to our problem, which we read and analyze through our blogs for initial plausibility. Lastly, the new paradigm opens up new areas of inquiry related to learning more complex/abstract ideas. I think the next logical question is what learning environments does the conceptual change model of learning fail or breakdown in? Some initial thoughts I have:

•  how do we form initial conceptions?
• how does the model work outside the classroom?
• how does the model work taking learning from inside to outside the classroom?
• is there a limit to how much we can learn?
• what happens when new conceptions/lessons aren’t “intelligible” anymore?
• how does this model work when we think about learning scientific writing, or other skills that you improve at but don’t do “right or wrong”?

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a Scientific Conception: Toward a Theory of Conceptual Change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227.

Duit, R. (2003). Conceptual change: a powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 25(6), 671-688.