The role of observation in the recall of informational text

International Journal of Educational Research 69 (2015) 88–97

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Educational Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedures

The role of observation in the recall of informational text John L. Nietfeld a,*, Roger H. Bruning b, Daniell DiFrancesca a a b

North Carolina State University, United States University of Nebraska-Lincoln, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history: Received 30 March 2014 Received in revised form 16 October 2014 Accepted 24 November 2014 Available online

This study, which reports on previously unpublished data gathered in connection with a summer literacy-science program, Summer Explorers (Bruning & Schweiger, 1997), examined the role and timing of observation on informational text recall by elementary school students. Students (N = 206) in Grades 3–5 observed and read about the Madagascar Giant Hissing Cockroach (MHC). Three conditions were employed: (1) students first observing live MHCs, then reading facts about them; (2) students first reading facts about MHCs and then observing them; and (3) students only reading facts about MHCs. Students in the observation conditions recalled more facts than those in the no observation condition, with Grade 4 and 5 students benefitting more from the observation experience than Grade 3 students. Grade 3 students showed heightened levels of interest but not improved recall in the observation conditions, findings consistent with potential developmental differences in metacognitive awareness for instructional activities. ß 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Observation Informational text Science learning

1. Introduction Contemporary views on science education emphasize acquiring scientific literacy through active, inquiry-based participation in science-related activities, with observation seen as a primary tool for inquiry (Bruning, Schraw, & Norby, 2011; Linn & Eylon, 2006). This emphasis on inquiry has led to programs that teach systematic observational skills to early elementary-aged students (e.g., Gelman & Brenneman, 2012). Observation – for instance, seeing a spider, butterfly, or deer in its natural habitat – clearly is an essential component of scientific inquiry and can provide a powerful stimulus to subsequent learning (e.g., Guthrie, McRae, & Klauda, 2007). Referring to this observation–learning relationship, Guthrie, Alao, and Rinehart (1997) have stated, ‘‘If this real-world interaction leads to conceptual questions that students desire to answer, they will read, write, and discuss with enthusiasm (p. 441).’’ As Guthrie et al. (2007) have argued, however, observation itself is not all that is needed to become an ‘‘expert’’ on any scientific topic. For example, while students’ sighting coyotes in a prairie setting or observing them in a zoo gives them unique knowledge and can stimulate a strong desire to learn more about coyotes, other forms of learning are needed to build essential knowledge, such as how their characteristics, behaviors, and habitats relate to those of other canines (e.g., dingoes, wolves, etc.). Reading, especially of informational texts, is arguably the most prominent among these other forms of learning, providing the descriptive and comparative information needed for deep conceptual understanding. To date, however, little

* Corresponding author at: North Carolina State University, Curriculum, Instruction, & Counselor Education, 602D Poe Hall, Raleigh, NC 27695, United States. Tel.: +1 919 270 8688; fax: +1 919 513 1687. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.L. Nietfeld). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2014.11.001 0883-0355/ß 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

J.L. Nietfeld et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 69 (2015) 88–97

89

empirical work has focused specifically on how relationships between observation and reading of related informational texts can affect recall of science-related informational content. These connections, we argue, merit further exploration. This article reports previously unpublished data gathered in a study conducted in the context of an observation-based summer program for elementary school students (Explorers, Bruning & Schweiger, 1997). The purpose of this study was to examine the effects observation and its timing might have upon the recall of information encountered in learning from informational text sources and on interest in learning more about what was observed. It also sought to gather information on how age-related factors might influence relationships between observation and learning from reading. As described in the following sections, we posited that observation can stimulate both cognitive (e.g., directing learning, providing episodic anchors for later experience) and motivational responses (e.g., providing novel experiences, enhancing situational interest) that may increase engagement and learning from text-related information. 1.1. Observation and informational text There has been increasing recent recognition of the importance of early experience with informational texts. For instance, Duke (2004) and others (e.g., Gregg & Sekeres, 2006) have pointed out a neglect of informational texts in the early grades, resulting in policy-oriented proposals calling for greater emphasis on informational texts early in the elementary years (e.g., National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). Britt, Richter, and Rouet (2014) argue that unfamiliarity with text structure of expository texts is a significant challenge for young learners attempting to gain scientific literacy. Gregg and Sekeres (2006) have suggested that children need to be taught how to comprehend and learn from expository texts in younger grades (K-3), positing that providing students with ‘‘realia,’’ or actual objects that students can see and touch, will increase their interest and motivation for reading expository texts. Similarly, Schwan, Grajal, and Lewalter (2014) describe the need for authencity that involves the learner being provided with something ‘‘real’’ or ‘‘original’’ commonly with hands-on approaches. This coincides with Duke’s (2004) emphasis on providing authentic purposes for reading expository texts. She has argued that students having real experiences or purposes for reading will better engage and comprehend information from that reading. Providing observational experiences for students prior to exposure to expository texts has the potential to create just such authentic experiences and purposes for learning. Categories and knowledge of relationships young children have acquired from their visual world, even though tacit and typically unexpressed, may help direct their attention and assist in organizing the knowledge coming to them through the relatively abstract dimension of a text description. Because of the immediacy of visual perception, observation also may play a motivational role in reading tied to the child’s visual-perceptual world. As indicated previously, contemporary theories of science learning emphasize the active construction of knowledge through direct experience (Linn & Eylon, 2006; NSTA, 2004). Observation, a vital component of this experience, gives students the opportunity to form schematic representations with which text-based information can be integrated. It also arguably establishes episodic memories that can later serve to anchor subsequent text-based information. For instance, analogous work with pictures and learning from text by Glenberg and Langston (1992) led them to conclude that pictures accompanying text can help build mental models from which inferences can be drawn more flexibly than when no pictures are involved. Varelas, Pieper, Arsenault, Pappas, & Keblawe-Shamah (2014) reported on a five-day instructional sequence with 28 Latina/o third graders that combined dialogical read-alouds with hands-on activities related to earthworms. Their findings, using a qualitative, interpretive framework led them to conclude that hands-on experiences and the use of informational texts have a synergistic relationship within science instruction and that both are needed in combination for appropriate meaning making to take place. In terms of motivation, observation clearly functions to direct students’ attention, provides opportunities for sharing new discoveries with peers, encourages questioning, and increases situational interest (Guthrie et al., 2006, 2007), coinciding with Deci and Ryan (1987) description of autonomy-supporting environments with the goal of developing self-determined learners in our schools (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991). When this framework is adopted, a fundamental shift – from teacher centered to student centered – is likely to occur in the classroom. The novel experience of observation also is likely to heighten student curiosity. Given that students have enough background knowledge to form questions, observational experiences can create curiosity as students seek to resolve gaps in their knowledge that become apparent to them while observing (Lowenstein, 1994). Observation may also capitalize on personal (long-standing, stable) or situational (contextually based) interest. Hidi and her colleagues (Hidi, 1990; Hidi & Renninger, 2006) have argued that situational interest, which appropriate observational experiences are likely to stimulate, can be a particularly effective tool for motivating students with low levels of background knowledge. Maintaining interest is important for unmotivated students given that higher levels of interest have been shown to increase learning from text (Schiefele, 1999). A number of prior studies have shown that observation generally can have positive effects both on enhancing memory and increasing interest in a topic. For instance, Henry (1992) reported on a class of 51 middle school students who were asked to recall their experiences from a field trip to an art museum that took place 18 months previously. One hundred percent of the students provided description about the artwork, 88% provided judgments about the artwork, and 78% provided an analysis of the artwork that included at least some formal components. In the realm of science, Finson and Enochs (1987) reported significantly more positive attitudes toward science and technology for visiting versus nonvisiting students after a trip to a science/technology related museum. Chang and Linn (2014) showed that use of an online visualization program by middle-school students led to significant gains in performance on knowledge integration items

90

J.L. Nietfeld et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 69 (2015) 88–97

related to thermodynamics. Arguing from the perspective of dual coding theory, Paivio (1971, 1986) has long contended that visual images improve recall because of one’s ability to encode information in both a visual and a verbal code. Nonetheless, observation’s effect upon subsequent learning from informational text generally has been afforded relatively little attention in the reading and science learning literature. A major exception to this, however, is work by Guthrie and his colleagues (Guthrie, 1996; Guthrie, Van Meter, et al., 1996; Guthrie et al., 1998, 2006, 2007, 2009), who have proposed that a greater emphasis should be placed on preceding and energizing literacy acts with observation. Guthrie and his associates have recommended that observation is a reliable mechanism for bringing emerging readers into the fold of engaged reading, an approach that encourages active learning and exploration and promotes future interest in reading. For example, in Guthrie et al.’s (2009) study, low and high achieving 5th grade students were taught within the ConceptOriented Reading Instruction (CORI) model, which includes observation as a key element in a formalized, holistic model of reader engagement (see Guthrie, McGough, Bennett, & Rice, 1996). In Guthrie et al. (2009), CORI students were matched with students learning within traditional instruction classrooms over a 12-week period. Those in CORI classrooms observed a live horseshoe crab to spark interest in the new science unit and to provide an anchor for upcoming reading selections. Findings showed that the CORI students outperformed those in the traditional instruction classroom on several literacy outcome measures, with positive effects noted for both high and low achieving students. CORI instruction is designed around seven themes, including real-world observation, conceptual theory, strategy instruction, self-directed learning, collaboration, self-expression, and coherence. In the CORI model, observation is operationalized as giving students a relevant episode in which ‘‘the content of instruction is linked to students’ direct or recalled experience’’ (Guthrie et al., 2007, p. 242). Guthrie and McCann (1997) have argued that observation is a first step on a continuum of developing more complex and abstract conceptual knowledge. In this view, observation serves as a critical entry point for the development of higher levels of knowledge. Thus, CORI-based instruction is designed to build conceptual knowledge by first capturing interest through hands-on activities and then moving to reading, writing, and discussion to ensure that knowledge advances to more abstract levels. These models of learning rest primarily upon a social constructivist framework that recognizes the roles of teacher scaffolding, classroom discourse, and self-regulated learning (e.g., Bruning & Schweiger, 1997). In summary, observation has been shown to play an important role in student-centered science learning. Observation during fieldtrips and visual images in text, for instance, can be effective for improving motivation and interest and increasing the recall of related information. Observation is assigned a key role within the CORI model (Guthrie, Van Meter, et al., 1996; Guthrie et al., 1998, 2006, 2007, 2009), where it has been shown to capture students’ interest in science-related content and provide an experiential foundation for conceptual knowledge acquired through other inputs. Studies conducted within the CORI model have made significant contributions to the literature with regard to the role that observation plays in learning, nonetheless there remains a need for targeted research relating to specific observation–reading relationships, including the timing of observational experiences and reading, and to possible developmental differences in how students relate observation and reading. This study, although conducted some time ago, addresses these issues explicitly in its design. 1.2. Current study The study reported here was conducted in the context of alternative summer school program, Explorers (Bruning & Schweiger, 1997), which was aimed at increasing elementary students’ literacy engagement and skills. This six-week summer program, offered to 3rd, 4th, and 5th graders, combined science and literacy learning and was designed to utilize inquiry-based science experiences to increase student interest in and ability to comprehend expository text. Classes were structured around a science curriculum that integrated direct observational experiences taking place primarily in two natural settings (a forest and a pond environment) with classroom-based reading and writing activities involving informational texts keyed to these settings. Students in the program, who were predominantly drawn from four elementary schools serving low-SES, inner city environments, typically spent one half-day per week in the observational setting, a riverside farm and forest area. Classroom time was spent planning observations in advance of field trips led by their teachers, acquiring information through reading about what had been observed, and working on integrative projects for reporting their findings. The present study is a reanalysis and summary of an unpublished study by Bruning, Schweiger, and Nietfeld (1997). Our desire to have this information included in the archival literature is motivated by our judgment that the study’s design, which involves specific combinations of observation and reading activities, could be valuable to instructional designers and others wishing to combine science observation and literacy activities. Given the growing recognition of the importance of informational texts in the elementary grades (e.g., Duke, 2004; Gregg & Sekeres, 2006) and a large body of evidence showing observation’s importance to science learning (e.g., Guthrie et al., 2007, 2009), we also felt our findings could contribute to current and future research. We further judged that this study would be relevant to classroom learning because it specifically focused on testing contrasting but realistic ways of pairing observation with reading text-based information. It additionally included a condition in which no observation was provided until after reading and recall were concluded, providing a general test of observation’s effects. Finally, participation of students from three grade levels allowed for initial examination of potential developmental differences related to the observational experience. In order to investigate the impact and timing of observation on retention of facts learned from informational text, we manipulated the order in which 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students (1) observed an insect (the Madagascar Giant Hissing

J.L. Nietfeld et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 69 (2015) 88–97

91

Cockroach, MHC) and (2) read information about it. Three conditions were created. The observe first group first observed the MHC and then read facts about the MHC. In contrast, the read first group first read about the MHC and then observed the MHC. Finally, the no observation group read about the MHC but did not observe it until after both reading and recall had been completed. All three conditions were represented within each grade level. The day following students’ reading about the MHC, students in all three groups were tested for recall both on the information they had read and, for those in observation conditions, on what they observed when seeing the MHC. Finally, all participants were queried about their interest in the MHC and learning more about it. This study generally addressed the broad question of whether observation has an impact on the recall of facts in informational text? Within this question we first compared students in the two observation conditions with those in the no observation condition. We then followed up with two additional questions, whether the timing of observation in relationship to reading mattered and whether developmental levels of the students might impact any relationships noted between observation and learning from informational text. Finally, to explore a potential extension of observation-related outcomes beyond recall of information from reading, we asked whether observation would affect interest for future learning about a topic. To answer the first research question, we compared recall scores for the students in three conditions. The first two conditions varied in the timing of their observation in relationship to their reading (before or after), but in both all students observed the MHC before they were asked to recall information. Students in the third condition, however, did not observe the MHC until after they attempted to recall what they read. Based upon the relative support for visual encoding as described in Paivio’s dual-coding theory (1971, 1986) and the findings from the use of images with text (e.g., Glenberg & Langston, 1992), we hypothesized that observation would positively affect recall of information about the MHC, with students in both observation conditions expected to recall more facts than students who had not yet observed the MHC. With regard to the second question, we hypothesized that the ‘‘observe first’’ group would recall more information than either their peers in the ‘‘read first’’ or ‘‘no observation’’ condition. We made this prediction based on Guthrie’s (e.g., Guthrie et al., 2006, 2007, 2009) findings of observation’s role in engaged reading and improved learning. For the third question, given the fact that no existing studies to our knowledge have reported differential effects of observation across grade levels we assumed the outcomes would be consistent for the three grades. Finally, for the last question, we hypothesized that observation would increase students’ interest in learning more about the MHC, heightening students’ situational interest in the topic because of the uniqueness of the experience (Hidi & Anderson, 1992; Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000). Therefore, we predicted that the ‘‘observe first’’ and ‘‘read first’’ groups would have significantly higher interest scores than the ‘‘no observation’’ group. 2. Method 2.1. Participants A total of 206 students (53% female) in 23 different Grade 3, 4, and 5 summer school classrooms participated in this study. All were students in an urban public school system in the Midwest region of the United States; most were from ethnic minority backgrounds. Class sizes ranged from 4 to 15 students. The range of class sizes in the current study was due to variation in participation of the Explorers program across the participating schools. The average total score on California Achievement Test (CAT) for the group was at the 31st percentile (N = 143; scores not available for all students). Classes of students were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions. The observe first condition (53% female students) included 26 Grade 3 students, 17 Grade 4 students, and 35 Grade 5 students. The read first condition (59% female students) included 23 Grade 3 students, 36 Grade 4 students, and 11 Grade 5 students. The no observation condition (46% female students) included 30 Grade 3 students, 15 Grade 4 students, and 19 Grade 5 students. Differences in the number of participants in each condition were due to the quasi-experimental nature of our design wherein classroom groups were randomly assigned to treatment conditions. Students’ CAT Total scores did not differ (p > .05) between conditions, nor were there differences between conditions within grades, as indicated by one-way ANOVAs. 2.2. Materials The focus of observation for this study was Madagascar Giant Hissing Cockroaches (MHC). This particular type of cockroach has been used and continues to be recommended for hands-on science learning and teaching (e.g., Darmo & Ludwig, 1995; Wagler, 2011). The MHCs were obtained from our university’s children’s exploratory science museum. During the experiment, an aquarium containing approximately 4–6 MHCs was brought into the classroom. As the study was being conducted, students did not handle the MHCs, but were allowed to do so after the experiment was concluded. Students did not have any instruction related to the MHCs in the Explorers program prior to the study. The primary dependent variable of interest included recall of information presented on a single sheet of paper in list-like format that we called Interesting Facts About Madagascar Giant Hissing Cockroaches. This information, consisting of 12 facts about MHCs, was compiled from various sources. The facts were presented as short sentences ranging between 6 and 10 words. Some examples of facts included were, ‘‘Madagascar Giant Hissing Cockroaches do not bite,’’ ‘‘They live on the island of Madagascar, near Africa,’’ ‘‘They are 2–3 in. long,’’ and ‘‘They make a distinct hissing sound.’’ The facts were intended to be general and not topical in nature. Only two facts contained information about the MHCs that could have potentially

92

J.L. Nietfeld et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 69 (2015) 88–97

facilitated recall after observation (They are 2–3 in. long; They make a distinct hissing sound). The list was chosen as the focus of student learning for three reasons. First, we judged that the facts selected would comprise a relevant and interesting body of knowledge for these elementary students. Second, since most of the students were enrolled in the summer program specifically because of deficits in reading achievement, especially reading comprehension, we judged that a more extensive set of facts might overwhelm them. We thus kept the amount of information to be learned at a level judged to be within their capabilities. Third, since this was an initial examination of observation-text learning connections, we sought to minimize the role that text structure might play in student learning by presenting information in a list-like format. Upon recall students were encouraged (see procedures following) to report what they had remembered both from the text materials (the ‘‘Interesting Facts’’ list) and from their observations of the MHC (‘‘Observation facts’’). Observation facts included observations not listed on the ‘‘Interesting Facts’’ list such as physical descriptions of the MHC or how they looked and moved. Given our focus on text learning we limited our data analysis to only recall of ‘‘Interesting Facts.’’ These ‘‘Interesting Facts’’ comprised approximately 53% of the total responses, while observation-based information totaled approximately 35% of the responses; the remaining 12% of responses consisted of information not provided in the ‘‘Interesting Facts’’ list or other inaccurate responses. Students also were asked to complete the Explorers Student Survey. This survey (see Appendix) was divided into two parts. The first part had 10 options of contrived book titles pertaining to animals (e.g., ‘‘Amazing Praying Mantises’’, ‘‘Amazing Aquatic Snails’’). Students were asked to select the two they would be most interested in reading about. Embedded among the 10 titles was ‘‘Amazing Hissing Cockroaches.’’ The second question included a list of 24 topics comprised of various animals and insects (e.g., millipedes, bees, snakes, etc.). Students were asked to choose three topics from this list that they would be most interested in researching. Embedded within this list was ‘‘cockroaches.’’ During their observation of the MHC, students in the two observational conditions were asked to draw a picture of what they were observing on a blank sheet of 8½  11 in. paper. This activity functioned to ensure treatment implementation and also guide the students focus on their observation. The drawings were coded by raters blind to condition and grade level by assigning one point for physical accuracy on each of seven attributes: body shape, body segments, number of legs, number of antennae, presence of back spots, texture on legs, and presence of eyes. Thus, scores could range from zero to seven for each student. Two coders worked separately to rate approximately 40% of the drawings and then compared scores. All scores were in agreement, allowing a single coder to finish scoring the remainder of the drawings. 2.3. Design and procedure The students in this study participated under one of three different conditions. The conditions differed with respect to the order in which the students were given the opportunity to observe the MHC during a mini unit covering MHC. For the observe first condition, on Day 1 students were introduced to the unit by the teacher saying: ‘‘We have a really interesting activity today. We’ll be observing and reading about a very interesting insect – the Madagascar Giant Hissing Cockroach. We’re going to start by observing it closely and drawing a picture of it.’’ Students participated in the activity as a group but were instructed to conduct their observation and drawing on their own. Drawing paper was then distributed and the MHCs brought into the room in an aquarium. Students were then given 10 min to observe the MHC and to draw their picture. Students were encouraged to produce a good drawing with as many details as possible. During this time the cockroaches remained in the aquarium. At the conclusion of the 10-min observation period, the teachers then removed the MHC from sight, collected students’ drawings, and handed out the ‘‘Interesting Facts about MHC’’ sheet. The students were instructed that they would be using the facts when the activity continued the next day; they then were given 5 min to read the facts silently to themselves. After the 5-min period the fact sheets were collected from the students. On Day 2 they were given a lined sheet of paper and asked: ‘‘You remember that we observed and read about the Madagascar Giant Hissing Cockroach yesterday. On this sheet of paper, I want you to write down everything you know about the Madagascar Giant Hissing Cockroach. Just make a list of things you know, one on each line. What you list can come either from what you read and what you saw. Later on, we’ll look back at the list you got yesterday and see how much we remembered.’’ The students were then given 8 min to record everything they could recall from the facts and observations from the previous day. This time period was sufficient for students to recall what they could remember about the MHCs. The final activity for Day 2 included giving students the ‘‘Explorers Student Survey.’’ Five minutes were allowed for its completion. Teachers took students through this activity as a group while reminding them that no answer was ‘‘right’’ or ‘‘wrong,’’ but that they were most interested in the students’ preferences. The remaining two conditions involved variations in the procedural order from the first condition. For the read first condition, on Day 1 students first read the list of ‘‘Interesting Facts about MHC’’ for 5 min then observed the MHC for 10 min. Like students in the observe first condition, students in the read first condition also drew a picture during their time of observation but did not have access to the ‘‘Interesting Facts about MHC.’’ On Day 2, students were given the same instructions for recall and allowed the chance to write everything they could remember about MHC and to complete the Explorers Student Survey. For the no observation condition, on Day 1 students read the list of ‘‘Interesting Facts about MHC’’ for 5 min. On Day 2, they were given the same oral instructions as students in the other two conditions, asked to write as

J.L. Nietfeld et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 69 (2015) 88–97

93

much as they could remember about MHC, and completed the student survey. After recall, students then had the opportunity to observe the MHC. Because they had completed all phases of the experiment before observing the MHCs, students in this condition thus provided baseline data for comparison with the observe first and read first conditions. In order to ensure treatment integrity the researchers met with all of the participating teachers prior to the experiment to discuss the study design and to also provide the teachers with a procedural script. The meeting and script reinforced the importance of ensuring that all students read the facts about the MHCs and completed their observation as diligently as possible. 3. Results This section includes descriptive and correlational statistics for the major study variables, followed by analyses organized by the primary research questions for the study. Students were given credit for recall of a given fact if they included words essential to maintaining the meaning of the fact in their recall (e.g., ‘‘they make a hissing noise’’). Table 1 includes means and standard deviations for each grade and condition. Overall, the correlation between rated quality of student drawings and their recall of Interesting Facts was +.17 (p = .03). However, no significant relationships existed between these two variables when these were examined within conditions or grade levels. Results from the drawings indicate both engagement on the part of the students and successful treatment implementation as students across grades included a majority of MHC physical attributes in their drawings (Grade 3, M = 4.7, SD = 1.11 (out of a possible seven points); Grade 4 students, M = 5.4, SD = 1.21; Grade 5 students, M = 5.2, SD = 1.37). 3.1. Does observation have an impact on the recall of expository text? The analysis of recall data focused upon the number of informational facts correctly recalled from the ‘‘Interesting Facts about the MHC’’ handout. In order to examine the effects of the experimental conditions upon recall of the ‘‘Interesting Facts’’ recalled by students a 3 (grade levels)  3 (conditions) factorial analysis of variance model was computed. We chose ANOVA procedures as our method of analysis given that we were not interested in classroom effects and had employed controlled conditions across classrooms wherein the teachers’ roles were incidental to the primary outcomes of the study. Also, our study had available a marginal number of classes relative to the number typically required for multi-level modeling. Results of the ANOVA revealed a significant main effect for grade F(2, 197) = 5.01, p = .008, partial h2 = .05 with students in Grade 5 (M = 3.09, SD = 2.25) and Grade 4 (M = 2.76, SD = 1.91) recalling significantly more informational facts than students in Grade 3 (M = 1.85, SD = 1.52). A main effect was also found for condition F(2, 197) = 4.52, p = .012, partial h2 = .04 with students in the ‘‘observe first’’ condition (M = 2.95, SD = 2.22) reporting significantly more expository facts than students in the ‘‘no observation’’ condition (M = 2.16, SD = 1.77). A significant interaction between grade and condition, F(4, 197) = 3.93, p < .01, partial h2 = .07 also occurred (see Fig. 1). General guidelines for interpreting the size of these effects using partial eta squared come from Cohen (1988) and are .01 for ‘small’ effects, .06 for ‘medium’ effects, and .14 for ‘large’ effects. Simple effects were then computed at each grade level by condition. Findings indicated significant differences within Grades 4 (F(2, 2 2 67) = 4.39, p = .016, partial h = .12) and 5 (F(2, 55) = 4.07, p = .023, partial h = .13), but not for Grade 3. Simple effects comparisons for Grade 4 revealed ‘‘observe first’’ responses (M = 3.43, SD = 2.11) to be significantly greater than ‘‘no observation’’ responses (M = 1.45, SD = 1.04), but no significant differences between ‘‘observe first’’ and ‘‘read first’’ (M = 2.72, SD = 1.81) conditions. Simple effects for Grade 5 showed ‘‘observe first’’ responses (M = 3.77, SD = 2.30) to be significantly Table 1 Means and standard deviations for Interesting Facts. Grade

Condition

M

SD

3

Observe first Read first No observation Total

1.58 1.76 2.09 1.85

1.53 1.25 1.63 1.52

26 17 35 78

4

Observe first Read first No observation Total

3.43 2.72 1.45 2.76

2.11 1.81 1.04 1.91

23 36 11 70

5

Observe first Read first No observation Total

3.77 1.77 2.87 3.09

2.30 1.42 2.29 2.25

30 13 15 58

Total

Observe first Read first No observation Total

2.95 2.29 2.16 2.50

2.22 1.66 1.77 1.95

79 66 61 206

Note. Scores could range from 0 to 12.

N

[(Fig._1)TD$IG]

94

J.L. Nietfeld et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 69 (2015) 88–97

Fig. 1. Recall of Interesting Facts by grade level and condition.

greater than ‘‘read first’’ responses (M = 1.77, SD = 1.42), but no significant differences between the ‘‘observe first’’ and ‘‘no observation’’ (M = 2.87, SD = 2.30) conditions. These findings thus indicate differential effects on recall of facts by treatment condition occurred at Grades 4 and 5, but not for the Grade 3 students. Interestingly, no differences were found between grades in the ‘‘no observation’’ baseline condition. In sum, most effects for treatment conditions fell within the small to medium effect size (Cohen, 1988). 3.2. Does observation increase interest for future learning of a topic? We sought to measure interest in two ways on the Explorers Student Survey. The first of these was the probability of student selection of the title ‘‘Amazing Hissing Cockroaches’’ from among the multiple book titles listed as possible future reading. The second was selection of the topic of ‘‘cockroaches’’ from among a set of potential topics for future study. Separate 2 (selecting cockroaches/not selecting cockroaches)  3 (conditions) x2 procedures were conducted for book titles and topics. Overall x2 analysis of the tendency to pick the embedded cockroach titles revealed no significant differences between grades for book titles, x2 (2, N = 206) = 2.49, p = .29, or topics x2 (2, N = 206) = 4.72, p = .09. Additional x2 analyses were then conducted to examine interest selections by condition within each grade. One significant finding emerged from these analyses within Grade 3 for topics, x2 (2, N = 78) = 7.48, p = .02. Comparison between conditions for 3rd graders using Fisher’s exact test revealed significant differences between the ‘‘observe first’’ condition (31% selected MHC) and the ‘‘no observation’’ condition (6% selected MHC), p = .014, and between the ‘‘read first’’ condition (29% selected MHC) and the ‘‘no observation’’ condition, p = .031. With book titles there was a similar discrepancy between the ‘‘observation first’’ condition (42% selected MHC), ‘‘read first’’ condition (53% selected MHC), and ‘‘no observation’’ condition (26% selected MHC), however the differences were not significant. 4. Discussion This study was designed to test the impact of observation upon elementary students’ recall of factual content from texts describing topics tied to student observation. Observation, we argue, not only is important for stimulating students’ further engagement with such topics, but can serve as a tie to text-based sources of concepts and principles. Prior research (Guthrie et al., 2009) would suggest that compared to either observation or reading alone, integration of observational and literacyrelated processes has the potential to lead to deeper and better structured domain knowledge. The current results provide several interesting findings on observation’s effects on learning informational content through reading. Although students in the observe first condition overall recalled more information than those in the no observation condition, potential grade-related differences were revealed in the finding that observation had differential effects on recall by grade. In Grade 5, students in the observe first condition recalled more facts than their counterparts in the read first condition, while Grade 4 students in the observe first condition recalled more than those students in the no observation condition. No differences were found for observation condition in Grade 3, however, leading to a tentative judgment that observation in general and the observe first condition in particular had more influence on the older students. Although the results across grades are not systematic enough to permit firm conclusions, these findings suggest a potentially important role of observation in enhancing recall of factual content from informational texts. Also, the trend across grades supports the notion that older students may become more strategic in their observational learning. That is,

J.L. Nietfeld et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 69 (2015) 88–97

95

older students may begin to see observational experiences as more closely tied to other school-based learning and are able to report not only what they have directly witnessed but also what they are learning from other sources (e.g., the Interesting Facts). Our second research question was focused on how observation might affect interest for future learning about a topic. We predicted that students in the two observational conditions would show elevated levels of expressed interest for learning more about MHC. This hypothesis was only supported for Grade 3 students, with observation of the MHC having no effect upon reported interest levels in either Grade 4 or 5. This finding coupled with the lack of significant learning differences described above may suggest that, while younger students may be captivated by the novelty of an observational experience like seeing the MHC in the classroom, it does not necessarily serve as a cue for further learning. It is also possible that the Grade 3 students tended to pick MHC more frequently from the embedded lists either because they were influenced more by the recency of the event or because, compared to older students, they had relatively fewer competing topics from their prior experiences in which they had developed interest. In summary, observation and how it is tied to reading of text-based information was shown to affect the amount of information acquired from reading by Grade 4 and 5 students, but not by those in Grade 3. While students across all three grade levels showed evidence of engagement as indicated by their drawing scores only Grade 3 students showed heightened levels of interest tied to observation, providing some basis for speculation about ties between observational impact and developmental differences in metacognitive ability. Older students may be displaying a greater tendency to see the observational experience as a cue that other, related learning experiences are about to occur. In contrast, Grade 3 students may have focused upon the novelty of the experience, becoming attracted to seductive yet insignificant details of the observational experience (Wade, Schraw, Buxton, & Hayes, 1993). There is some evidence from the literature of this kind of shift in metacognitive abilities occurring in this age range. Roebers, Schmid, and Roderer (2009), for instance, found that Grade 5 students were more able to determine when they had provided incorrect answers to questions on a test than Grade 3 students. Schneider (2008) argued that metacognitive knowledge is well-developed (although incomplete) by the age of 11 or 12, finding that as children get older their control processes improve allowing them to allocate their time more effectively to more difficult tasks than younger students. Our findings generally lend support to the inclusion of observational activities within elementary education curriculum, but also suggest that younger students may not automatically see the relevance of what they observe. The differential findings by grade level may indicate that – for younger students at least – teachers need to more specifically tie what is being observed to subsequent learning activities (e.g., reading, projects, and the like). This study also provides numerous potential leads for follow-up investigations of observation’s role in learning from informational text. 4.1. Limitations There are several limitations to this study that should be considered. First, although general ability as measured by CAT scores did not differ across groups, it is possible that our classroom-based groups may have differed on other important, but unmeasured variables. Second, the effects due to conditions were not particularly robust and we acknowledge that follow-up studies are necessary to further understand the impact of observation and the degree to which the timing of observation is important for learning from informational text. Second, our measures of interest – which involved selection of a specific target from among multiple choices – no doubt were relatively insensitive and also were not attuned to potential differences between students’ familiarity with and interests in topics. Moreover, it is possible that the Grade 4 and 5 students were highly interested in MHC but that they became relatively more interested in learning about other creatures after the chance to study the MHC. The low recall scores for the Grade 5 students in the ‘‘read first’’ condition are difficult to explain, but it is important to note that only 11 Grade 5 students were included in the ‘‘read first’’ condition as a result of our randomly providing the experimental treatments classroom by classroom. Thus, replication is needed in order to more fully understand the impact of a ‘‘read first’’ condition for 5th graders and how it might compare to an alternate intervention beginning with observation. 4.2. Future directions We see at least two important directions for future studies investigating the relationship of observation to learning from informational texts on science-related topics. First, following paths suggested by this study, considerable additional research exploring relationships between observation and informational text learning can be envisioned. The current study was an initial and relatively informal test of the timing of observation vis-a`-vis encountering observation-relevant informational text; more highly controlled research on this topic almost certainly can further clarify the observation–reading relationship. Also likely to be productive, in our judgment, will be studies of student observation of other science-relevant creatures and phenomena in which student observation is specifically tied to text-based information in theoretically consistent ways. As this study suggests, differences seem likely for students of varying ages in how they utilize observation and tie it to subsequent learning. Thus, theory-driven developmental investigations of relationships between observation and reading could pay important dividends for inquiry-based science instruction. As a preliminary investigation of the observation–text learning relationship, the current study also leaves open multiple possibilities for improvements in both experimental methods and outcome measures.

96

J.L. Nietfeld et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 69 (2015) 88–97

A second area for future research is studies in which observational strategies linked to subsequent student learning activities are taught to students and their effectiveness tested. For instance, Guthrie and McCann (1997) have discussed the need to teach strategies such as identifying critical features, noting the course of events, making representative drawings, and collecting quantitative information. They further explain that these strategies can be taught through modeling, discussion among peers, and tracked through journal reflections. The relative effectiveness of such strategies for directing attention within or generally increasing learning from informational text can be experimentally tested with accompanying rubrics for scoring learning outcomes. Thus, this approach would offer a more analytical approach to testing outcomes of various strategies employed during observation. In addition, strategies could be tested for their efficacy to impact comprehension of informational texts at various levels of understanding (e.g., fact-level, inference, etc.). This approach of testing the effectiveness of specific observational strategies and then teaching the strategies that show promise in facilitating learning likely could be applied by teachers across content areas. Further, these observational skills could then be tested for transfer in their use across domains. Appendix. Explorers student survey

A. Listed below are the names of 10 books. Put a check beside the TWO books you’d be MOST interested in reading. “Amazing Backswimming Bugs”

“Amazing Aquatic Snails”

“Amazing Water Striders”

“Amazing Whirligig Beetles”

“Amazing Many-Legged Millepedes”

“Amazing Water Boatmen”

“Amazing Hissing Cockroaches”

“Amazing Chirping Crickets”

“Amazing Praying Mantises”

“Amazing Jumping Spiders”

[TD$INLE]

B. Put a check by the THREE topics you’d be most intested in learning more about. moths

ladybugs

aphids

mosquitos

squirrels

worms

snails

dragonflies

ants

cockroaches

rabbits

ticks

millipedes

bees

snakes

frogs

fruitflies

deer

birds

butterflies

raccoons

toads

crickets

tadpoles

References Britt, M. A., Richter, T., & Rouet, J. (2014). Scientific literacy: The role of goal-directed reading and evaluation in understanding scientific information. Educational Psychologist, 49, 104–122. Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Norby, M. M. (2011). Cognitive psychology and instruction (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Bruning, R., & Schweiger, B. (1997). Integrating science and literacy experiences to motivate students’ learning. In J. T. Guthrie & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Bruning, R., Schweiger, B., & Nietfeld, J. (1997, March). The role of observation in reading recall and interest: A preliminary study. Paper presented at society for scientific study of reading annual conference. Chang, H.-Y., & Linn, M. C. (2014). Scaffolding learning from molecular visualizations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50, 858–886. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Darmo, L., & Ludwig, F. (1995). Madagascan giant hissing roaches. Carolina Tips, 58, 9–12. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024–1037. Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26, 325–346. Duke, N. K. (2004). The case for informational text. Educational Leadership, 61, 40–44. Finson, K. D., & Enochs, L. G. (1987). Student attitudes toward science-technology-society resulting from visitation to a science-technology museum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 593–609. Gelman, R., & Brenneman, K. (2012). Moving young scientists-in-waiting onto science learning pathways: Focus on observation. In J. Shrager & S. Carver (Eds.), The journey from child to scientist: Integrating cognitive development and the education sciences. (pp. 155–169). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

J.L. Nietfeld et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 69 (2015) 88–97

97

Glenberg, A. M., & Langston, W. E. (1992). Comprehension of illustrated text: Pictures help to build mental models. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 129–151. Gregg, M., & Sekeres, D. C. (2006). Supporting children’s reading of expository text in the geography classroom. Reading Teacher, 60, 102–110. Guthrie, J. T. (1996). Educational contexts for engagement in literacy. Reading Teacher, 49, 432–445. Guthrie, J. T., Alao, S., & Rinehart, J. M. (1997). Engagement in reading for young adolescents. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 40, 438–446. Guthrie, J. T., & McCann, A. D. (1997). Characteristics of classrooms that promote motivations and strategies for learning. In J. T. Guthrie & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated instruction (pp. 128–148). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Guthrie, J. T., McGough, K., Bennett, L., & Rice, M. E. (1996). Concept-oriented reading instruction: An integrated curriculum to develop motivations and strategies for reading. In L. Baker, P. Afflerbach, & D. Reinking (Eds.), Developing engaged readers in school and home communities (pp. 165–190). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Guthrie, J. T., McRae, A., Coddington, C. S., Klauda, S. L., Wigfield, A., & Barbosa, P. (2009). Impacts of comprehensive reading instruction on diverse outcomes of low and high-achieving readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 195–214. Guthrie, J. T., McRae, A., & Klauda, S. L. (2007). Contributions of concept-oriented reading instruction to knowledge about interventions for motivation in reading. Educational Psychologist, 42, 237–250. Guthrie, J. T., Van Meter, P., Hancock, G. R., Alao, S., Anderson, E., & McCann, A. (1998). Does concept-oriented reading instruction increase strategy use and conceptual learning from text? Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 261–278. Guthrie, J. T., Van Meter, P., McCann, A. D., Wigfield, A., Bennett, L., Poundstone, C. C., et al. (1996). Growth of literacy engagement: Changes in motivations and strategies during concept-oriented reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 306–332. Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Humenick, N. M., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., & Barbosa, P. (2006). Influences of stimulating tasks on reading motivation and comprehension. Journal of Educational Research, 99, 232–245. Henry, C. K. (1992). Retention and recall of images: Evaluating museum experiences of schoolchildren. Visual Arts Research, 82–93. Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60, 549–571. Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1992). Situational interest and its impact on reading and expository writing. In A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 215–238). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70, 151–179. Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41, 111–127. Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B. S. (2006). Science education: Integrating views of learning and instruction. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 511–544). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Lowenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 75–98. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common core state standards. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) (2004). NSTA position statement: Scientific inquiry. Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Roebers, C. M., Schmid, C., & Roderer, T. (2009). Metacognitive monitoring and control processes involved in primary school children’s test performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 749–767. Schiefele, U. (1999). Interest and learning from text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 257–279. Schneider, W. (2008). The development of metacognitive knowledge in children and adolescents: Major trends and implication for education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 2, 114–121. Schwan, S., Grajal, A., & Lewalter, D. (2014). Understanding and engagement in places of science experience: Science museums, science centers, zoos, and aquariums. Educational Psychologist, 49, 70–85. Varelas, M., Pieper, L., Arsenault, A., Pappas, C. C., & Keblawe-Shamah, N. (2014). How science texts and hands-on explorations facilitate meaning making: Learning from Latina/o third graders. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.21173 Wade, S., Schraw, G., Buxton, W., & Hayes, M. (1993). Seduction of the strategic reader: Effects of interest on strategies and recall. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 3–24. Wagler, R. (2011). Look at that! Using Madagascar hissing cockroaches to develop and enhance the scientific inquiry skill of observation in middle school students Science Scope, 35, 58–69.