The influence of achievement goal orientation on plagiarism

This investigation considered how undergraduate students with different achievement goal orientation profiles view plagiarism. Thai student volunteers (N = 867) completed an achievement goal survey [Niemivirta, M. (1998). Individual differences in motivational and cognitive factors affecting self-regulated learning — A pattern-oriented approach. In P. Nenninger, R. S. Jäger, A. Frey, & M. Woznitza (Eds.), Advances in motivation (pp. 23–42). Landau, DE: Verlad Empirische Pädagogik] and a “Dimensions of Plagiarism” survey [Koul, R. (2007). Dimensions of Plagiarism. Downloaded April 8, 2008 from http://dimensions-of-plagiarism.wikispaces.com/]. Mixed analysis of variance of attitudes towards plagiarism with goal orientation and gender showed several significant findings: high performance oriented students were substantially stricter than low performance orientated students in evaluating all Dimensions of Plagiarism. Low mastery oriented students were stricter regarding the “motive” dimension of plagiarism while high mastery oriented students were stricter regarding the “source” dimension of plagiarism. Significant differences between females and males were observed across the six factors of the Dimensions of Plagiarism survey. These results are interpreted within the framework of social comparison theory in respect to competitive learning environments.     

Can research on science learning and instruction inform standards for science education?

We contrast the current science education reform effort with the reforms of the 1960s and suggest how the current effort could be enhanced. We identify insights from recent research that we believe can inform the reform process, in particular, to reach all science students and also impart a cohesive view of science. We propose an alternative models view of scientific explanation and show how this view would contribute to reforms of (1) course goals, (2) social aspects of science learning, (3) instructional practices, and (4) roles for technology.This paper summarizes discussions and debates that the authors have had over the last few years. The dialogue stems, in part, from our joint participation in the American Educational Research Association Special Interest Group on Education in Science and Technology (AERA SIG:EST) leadership. This paper communicates the spirit of our thinking and does not necessarily reflect the view of SIG:EST, or any other organization.We gratefully acknowledge the support of National Science Foundation Grant MDR-9253462 in work related to this paper. We appreciate helpful comments from Eileen Lewis and the Computer as Learning Partner group.This material is based upon research supported by the National Science Foundation under grant RED-9155744. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.     

Supporting teachers in making innovative changes in the use of computer‐aided practical work to support concept development in physics education

There continues to be a gulf between what have been identified from the literature as the potential benefits of using computer‐aided practical work and the difficulties of realizing them as reported by practising teachers, even from those who are committed to the use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT). This article reports on a pilot study that aimed to explore ways in which teachers could be supported as they explore the extent to which this approach could enhance the development of pupils’ understanding of physics concepts. The study was based on a collaborative partnership between a researcher and a classroom teacher. The indications are that there is the potential for considerable benefits from such an approach, with the need for further development of materials and teaching methods being identified.