Res Sci Educ

DOI 10.1007/s11165-014-9440-z

Identifying Taiwanese University Students’ Physics

Learning Profiles and Their Role in Physics
Learning Self-Efficacy

Tzung-Jin Lin & Jyh-Chong Liang & Chin-Chung Tsai

# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract The main purposes of this study were to identify Taiwanese university students’
physics learning profiles in terms of their critical conceptions of learning physics and to
compare their physics learning self-efficacy with the different learning profiles. A total of 250
Taiwanese undergraduates who were majoring in physics participated in this study and were
invited to complete two instruments, physics learning profile and physics learning self-efficacy
(PLSE). The main results indicated that, first, the two instruments developed in this study had
satisfactory validity and reliability. Second, three fundamental physics learning profiles, the
reproductive, transitional, and constructive profiles, were characterized based on the cluster
analysis. It is also evident that the three learning profiles demonstrated different levels of self-
efficacy for the five PLSE dimensions. The students with a reproductive profile tended to
possess the lowest PLSE across the five dimensions. The students with a transitional profile
may possess higher confidence in higher-order cognitive skills and laboratory activities than
those with a reproductive profile. However, only those with a constructive profile, highlighting
a comprehensive understanding of physics knowledge/concepts as well as de-emphasizing
physics learning as preparing for tests and calculating and practising tutorial problems,
possessed stronger PLSE in applying what they learned to real-world contexts as well as in
scientifically communicating with others.

Keywords Conceptions of learning . Self-efficacy . Physics . Higher education

T.<J. Lin (*) : J.<C. Liang (*)

Graduate Institute of Applied Science and Technology, National Taiwan University of Science and
Technology, #43, Sec.4, Keelung Rd., Taipei 106, Taiwan
e-mail: tzungjin@gmail.com
e-mail: aljc@mail.ntust.edu.tw

C.<C. Tsai
Graduate Institute of Digital Learning and Education, National Taiwan University of Science and
Technology, #43, Sec.4, Keelung Rd., Taipei 106, Taiwan
e-mail: cctsai@mail.ntust.edu.tw
 Res Sci Educ

Introduction

Promoting high-quality learning has long been a crucial issue for researchers and practitioners
in education (e.g., Hazel et al. 2002; Tuminaro and Redish 2007). To this end, researchers have
attempted to investigate the various learner characteristics that could affect learning outcomes
(e.g., Prosser et al. 1996). Among them, one of the critical issues is to understand learners’
evoked prior experiences such as conceptions of learning or academic self-efficacy (e.g.,
Ashwin and Trigwell 2012; Trigwell et al. 2013). Individuals’ conceptions of learning are
built upon their past learning experiences (Entwistle and Peterson 2004), and their academic
self-efficacy may be shaped through a variety of intra- and inter-personal learning experiences
(Bandura 1997). It has been claimed that students’ conceptions of learning may contribute to
forming their own learning profiles (e.g., Vermunt and Vermetten 2004) and correlate to their
self-efficacy (e.g., Ferla et al. 2008, 2009; Lin and Tsai 2013a, b; Vermunt 2005).
In the field of science education, a handful of studies have explored the significant influence
of students’ conceptions of learning science on their science learning self-efficacy (Chiou and
Liang 2012; Lin and Tsai 2013a, b; Tsai et al. 2011). In those studies, researchers have also
contended that students’ conceptions of learning are one of the essential influences on their
academic self-efficacy, suggesting that students’ interpretations of their own learning experi-
ences may make profound contributions to strengthening, maintaining, or weakening their
science learning self-efficacy. Yet, most of the studies in this line of research have treated
science as a whole without further investigating the subordinate domains such as physics. In the
present study, the role of university students’ various conceptions of learning in their academic
self-efficacy in the domain of physics was initially explored. To be more specific, the purposes
of this study were to identify university students’ physics learning profiles that were generated
by means of cluster analysis and to understand how these distinct profiles relate to physics
learning self-efficacy. Knowing more about these differences may be informative in terms of
how physics educators improve learning and teaching in the context of higher education.

Literature Review

Conceptions of Learning

Conceptions of learning represent the variations in individuals’ learning experiences, which are
theoretically rooted in the line of phenomenographic research (Marton et al. 1997). In other
words, conceptions of learning refer to what learners perceive or interpret regarding learning
(Richardson 1999). Some of the pioneering studies found various categories of conceptions (e.g.,
Saljo 1979; Marton et al. 1993). For example, Säljö categorized five conceptions of learning,
including learning as “increase of knowledge,” “memorizing,” “acquisition of facts, procedures
that can be retained and/or utilized in practice,” “abstraction of meaning,” and “an interpretative
process aimed at the understanding of reality.” In general, these five conceptions have served as
the groundwork to revise or extend a set of conceptions for the conceptions of learning research.
Recently, researchers have acknowledged the domain-specific attribute of learning concep-
tions. Empirical studies have been extended to a variety of domains, of which studies exploring
students’ conceptions of learning science have gained much attention (e.g., Marton et al. 1997;
Tsai 2004; Virtanen and Lindblom-Ylanne 2010). For example, Virtanen and Lindblom-Ylanne
(2010) explored university students’ conceptions of learning in bioscience. By gathering and
analyzing the data from open-ended questionnaires, the lower level conceptions such as “in-
crease in knowledge,” “memorization,” and “applying knowledge” and the higher level
Res Sci Educ

conceptions including “understanding” and “conceptual change” were found. Tsai (2004) also
employed a phenomenographic method to initially explore Taiwanese high schools students’
conceptions of learning science and categorized seven conceptions, namely “memorizing,”
“preparing for tests,” “calculating and practicing tutorial problems,” “increase of knowledge,”
“applying,” “understanding,” and “seeing in a new way.” It should be noted that these concep-
tions of learning science are distinct categories in a hierarchical sense rather than a continuum of
learning phases. Further, a handful of researchers have attempted to develop and validate
questionnaires inspired by the findings and methodology of Tsai (2004) to quantitatively
measure Taiwanese students’ conceptions of learning in the domain of science or in other
domains such as physics, biology, or mathematics and to explore the considerable effects to
other learning variables (e.g., Chiou et al. 2013; Chiou et al. 2012; Chiu 2010; Lee et al. 2008).

The Classification of Conceptions of Learning

Studies generally characterized the identified conceptions of learning into two broad orientations
including reproductive and constructive orientations (e.g., Cano 2005; Ferla et al. 2008; Lindblom-
Ylanne and Lonka 2000; Purdie and Hattie 2002). Students with a reproductive learning conception
usually equate learning with memorizing knowledge while students with a constructive learning
conception tend to connect learning with seeking comprehensive understanding. In addition, a
number of researchers (e.g., Brownlee et al. 2009; Entwistle and Peterson 2004; Kember 1997;
Samuelowicz and Bain 2001) also raised the issue about whether there exists a transitional/
intermediate orientation that act as a bridge between the two main orientations. Samuelowicz and
Bain (2001) attempted to explore this issue and qualitatively analyse thirty-nine academics’
conceptions about teaching and learning. Yet, the findings did not support the previously mentioned
argument. In contrast, in the study by Brownlee et al. (2009), thirty-five university students’
epistemic beliefs and conceptions of learning were revealed through semi-structured interviews.
One of the findings is that a third category (i.e., transitional) of conceptions of learning was found.
In terms of the conceptions of learning science identified by Tsai (2004), Lin et al. (2012) indicated
that the first three are classified as reproductive orientations while the last four are designated as
constructive orientations. Although this broad classification into two groups has been examined by
applying a second-order confirmatory factor analysis (Lin et al. 2012), it is possible to argue that
other orientations exist, as aforementioned. To summarise, the classification of conceptions of
learning still remains unclear and may be worth investigating further.

Critical Conceptions of Learning Physics Among Taiwanese Students

Among those conceptions of learning science proposed by Tsai (2004), it is contended here
that several conceptions are worth paying attention to when exploring Taiwanese students’
conceptions of learning physics. The first is the learning conception of “testing.” This
conception explains that learners perceive learning science as a means of gaining good test
results (Tsai 2004). The empirical evidence has suggested that the testing conception is the
most influential factor having a negative effect on various aspects of students’ learning such as
intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy (e.g., Lee et al. 2008; Liang and Tsai 2010). Researchers
(Tsai 2004; Liang and Tsai 2010) have also claimed that the testing conception, which seems to
be deeply rooted in Taiwanese learners, is strongly related to the highly competitive exami-
nation system in Taiwan, implying that sociocultural and educational contexts may have
impacts on Taiwanese students’ conceptions of learning science.
Another important conception highlighted here is the “calculating and practicing” conception.
Tsai (2004) contended that this conception may closely relate to the nature of school science and
 Res Sci Educ

assessment practices. That is, science texts as well as instructional activities often present scientific
knowledge in terms of formulae, equations, and calculations, and the test formats involve the
process of calculation and tutorial problem solving. This particular phenomenon is greatly
emphasized in physics education (Kim and Pak 2002; Pepper et al. 2012; Redish et al. 1998;
Sherin 2001; Thomas 2013). Pepper et al. (2012) indicated that university-level physics courses put
great emphasis on the necessity of calculation and the numerical results of physics tutorial problems
to understand physics concepts. Redish et al. (1998) also found that many university students still
recognize the mathematical formulae as a viable way of representing physics phenomena and view
equations as a way to solve problems and to manipulate numbers, suggesting that this learning
conception plays a crucial role when it comes to the domain of physics.
In addition, in order to promote meaningful learning in physics, the conception of under-
standing should not be neglected. Earlier research (e.g., Dart et al. 2000; Purdie et al. 1996) has
documented the importance of fostering students’ conception of understanding. In general, the
process of understanding represents an active learning style and often leads to high-quality
outcomes (Tran 2013). For instance, Dart et al. (2000) indicated that students with a concep-
tion of learning as understanding tend to make better use of learning strategies. They also tend
to have better ability to construct integrated and theoretically consistent knowledge structures
(Tsai 2004). It is worth noting that in the study of Chiou et al. (2013), they found that the
physics learning conception of understanding is a distinct conception through the validation of
exploratory factor analysis, a finding which was not seen in the previous studies.
As previously mentioned, the three conceptions of testing, calculating and practicing, and
understanding can potentially be regarded as the key conceptions to consider when exploring
students learning in physics. We believe that investigating these three fundamental conceptions
may lead to different learning pattern structures (i.e., physics learning profiles). Therefore, one
of the main aims of the current study was to scrutinize the role of these three conceptions in
order to identify Taiwanese university students’ learning profiles specific to physics.

Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy, one of the imperative notions derived from Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive
theory, refers to how confident an individual feels about handling particular tasks, challenges,
and contexts (Bandura 1997). Academic self-efficacy can be defined as peoples’ judgments of
their own capabilities to undertake certain learning tasks or actions required to achieve
designated types of performance (Bandura 1994). Self-efficacy is presumed to explain and
predict individuals’ cognitive processes such as thoughts, emotions, and actions (Bong and
Skaalvik 2003). In the field of education, learners with high self-efficacy tend to set higher
goals, exert greater effort to complete academic tasks, and adopt flexible and various learning
strategies, which all have a positive effect on their successive learning performance and
academic achievement (Schunk 1996; Usher and Pajares 2006).
Furthermore, as suggested by Bandura (1997, 1977), self-efficacy is not fixed and should
not be measured in a general sense. Rather, it is more like a domain-specific or task-dependent
construct (Pajares and Schunk 2001). The level of self-efficacy possessed by a learner may
vary on the basis of the domain of functioning, implying that domain-specific self-efficacy
assessment is needed (Klassen and Usher 2010; Zimmerman 2000). Recently, the domain-
specific feature of self-efficacy has gained attention from researchers. In science education,
although numerous studies have explored learners’ science learning self-efficacy, most con-
ceptualized science learning self-efficacy as one omnibus disposition. It has been claimed that
the measurement of self-efficacy could be more explanatory and predictive from a multi-
dimensional perspective (Bandura 2006; Lin and Tsai 2013a).
Res Sci Educ

More recently, Lin and Tsai (2013a) tailored an instrument that conforms to the various
features of contemporary science literacy and could be used to assess Taiwanese high school
students’ science learning self-efficacy. This instrument, “science learning self-efficacy,”
embraces five distinct dimensions including “conceptual understanding,” “higher-order cog-
nitive skills,” “practical work,” “everyday application,” and “science communication.”
Although this instrument has been endorsed for its suitability to adequately measure learners’
general science learning self-efficacy, in several follow-up works (e.g., Lin and Tsai 2013b;
Lin et al. 2013), the appropriateness of using it to measure university students’ physics
learning self-efficacy has still not been proven and may be worth exploring. In addition, to
the best of our knowledge, very few empirical studies have attempted to address or understand
learners’ multi-dimensional self-efficacy in physics learning. In the current study, we have
attempted to advance the research in this area further by modifying the “science learning self-
efficacy” instrument to more thoroughly understand Taiwanese university students’ physics
learning self-efficacy in a multi-dimensional sense.

The Link Between Conceptions of Learning and Academic Self-Efficacy

Research has shown that students’ academic self-efficacy is connected to their conceptions of
learning (e.g., Ferla et al. 2008; Trigwell et al. 2013; Vermunt, 2005). For instance, Ferla et al.
(2008) investigated higher education students’ learning variables such as conceptions of
learning, self-efficacy, attributions for academic success, and learning strategies by construct-
ing a path model. It is evident that the students who view learning as seeking understanding
(i.e., constructive) tended to feel themselves more efficacious while those who equate learning
as rote memorization (i.e., reproductive) are more likely to feel less self-efficacious.
A handful of researchers (Ashwin and Trigwell 2012; Trigwell et al. 2013) have proposed
that both conceptions of learning and self-efficacy are evoked and formed based on individ-
uals’ prior learning experiences. Conceptions of learning are built upon their actual learning
experiences (Entwistle and Peterson 2004). Learners’ repeated past successful learning expe-
riences may strengthen their academic self-efficacy, while experiencing academic failures may
reduce their confidence in learning (Bong and Skaalvik 2003). Chiou and Liang (2012) also
asserted that learners’ conceptions of learning are the potential sources directing learners’
judgment of their self-efficacy beliefs. Hence, it is reasonable to presuppose that conceptions
of learning and self-efficacy are closely related and intertwined.
In order to validate the aforementioned relationship between conceptions of learning and self-
efficacy, science education researchers have shown their interest in conducting relevant research
(e.g., Chiou and Liang 2012; Lin and Tsai 2013a, b; Tsai 2004). In a study by Tsai (2004),
Taiwanese high school students’ lower-level conceptions of learning science (e.g., learning
science as memorization, preparing for tests, and calculating and practicing) were found to be
negatively related to their science learning self-efficacy. On the other hand, their higher-level
conceptions of learning science (e.g., learning science as increase of knowledge, applying,
understanding, and seeing in a new way) fostered their self-efficacy. Similar findings were made
in studies by Lin and Tsai (2013a, b). They unraveled 488 structural relations between
Taiwanese high school students’ conceptions of learning science and multi-dimensional science
learning self-efficacy. The main findings indicated that, in general, the highest level of concep-
tion, understanding and seeing in a new way, was found to be a positive predictor, while the
lower-level conception of testing was a significant negative predictor. These endeavors indicate
the underlying relationship between conceptions of learning and self-efficacy in science.
It should be noted that the findings derived from the abovementioned studies suggest the
need to investigate further. In particular, the previous studies, did not explore the two learners’
 Res Sci Educ

characteristics in various domains within science such as physics. Instead, they usually treated
conceptions of learning science or science learning self-efficacy as a whole. Further, a few
studies have attempted to explore students’ science learning self-efficacy in terms of a multi-
dimensional framework (e.g., Lin and Tsai 2013a, b). While other studies (Chiou and Liang,
2012; Tsai 2004) merely simplified conceptions of learning science as two broad categoriza-
tions (i.e., lower and higher levels) and failed to explore certain key conceptions of learning
possessed by students. Thus, our study attempts to fill the abovementioned gaps by investi-
gating Taiwanese university students’ physics learning profiles in terms of three key potential
conceptions of learning physics and compares their physics learning self-efficacy with the
different learning profiles.

Research Purpose and Questions

Based on the aforementioned theoretical foundations, the purpose of the current study is to
understand Taiwanese university students’ physics learning profiles in terms of their three
conceptions of learning physics and their physics learning self-efficacy. To this end, the aims
of this study were twofold:

1. To identify the physics learning profiles in terms of three key conceptions of learning
physics among Taiwanese university students
2. To examine Taiwanese university students’ physics learning self-efficacy with different
physics learning profiles

Method

Participants

This study involved 250 undergraduates who were majoring in physics from several univer-
sities across Taiwan. All participants were invited to complete the two main instruments
(described later) that aimed to understand their conceptions of learning physics and physics
learning self-efficacy. The two instruments were administered simultaneously to the partici-
pants. They completed the two instruments within a 30-min period. Although the two
instruments were not distributed at the same time across each university, the data collection
was completed within 2 months to ensure that the participants had similar learning experi-
ences. The participants graduated from different high schools in Taiwan and reflected a diverse
demographic and range of socioeconomic backgrounds; therefore, the sample is representative
of many undergraduate physics-major students in Taiwan. It should be noted that the phe-
nomenon of the predominance of male students majoring in physics is quite common in
Taiwan as well as in other countries. Thus, in this study, the participants consisted mostly of
males (78.8 % male and 21.2 % female).

Exploring Participants’ Critical Conceptions of Learning Physics

As previously mentioned, a handful of conceptions of learning physics may be critical and

influential in characterizing Taiwanese university students’ physics learning profiles. Hence,
the physics learning profile (PLP) instrument was developed for this study. To be more
Res Sci Educ

specific, we intentionally selected the items of three crucial conceptions of learning including
testing, calculating and practicing, and understanding from the Conceptions of Learning
Science Questionnaire created by Lee et al. (2008). It is believed that the three conceptions
of learning physics would form the foundation of their various physics learning profiles by
means of the cluster analysis. Consequently, a total of 20 items (see Appendix 1) distributed
into three scales were included in the PLP instrument to explore Taiwanese undergraduate
physics majors’ critical conceptions of learning physics. The description of each item was
tailored to the physics learning context (i.e., “science” was replaced with “physics”) to
represent the features of physics learning. The definition of each PLP scale with a sample
item is presented as follows:

1. Testing (seven items): measuring the participants’ conception that learning physics is to
achieve better performance on tests. A sample item is “Learning physics means getting
high scores on examinations.”
2. Calculating and practicing (CP, six items): assessing the participants’ conception that
learning physics is viewed as a series of calculating and practicing tutorial problems, and
manipulating formulae and numbers. An example item is “I believe that learning calcu-
lations or tutorial problem-solving will help me improve my performance in physics
courses.”
3. Understanding (UN, seven items): measuring the participants’ conception that learning
physics is to understand the comprehensive meaning of physics knowledge. A sample
item is “Learning physics means gaining an understanding of the connection between
physics concepts.”

Two experienced physics educators were invited to examine the content validity of the
revised items. Each PLP item was presented in the form of a five-point Likert scale, ranging
from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” Accordingly, the participants gaining higher
scores in a certain scale showed stronger agreement with the statements in that scale regarding
learning physics.

Assessing Participants’ Physics Learning Self-Efficacy

In order to measure the participants’ self-efficacy in learning physics, the physics learning self-
efficacy (PLSE) instrument was developed as part of this study. The 32-item PLSE instrument
(refer to Appendix 2) was adapted from the science learning self-efficacy instrument of Lin
and Tsai (2013a, b) with five distinct dimensions, including “conceptual understanding”,
“higher-order cognitive skills”, “practical work,” “everyday application,” and “science com-
munication.” The PLSE items were tailored to accommodate physics-related terms and content
in order to assess the students’ physics learning self-efficacy. The detailed descriptions and
sample items of the five dimensions are presented as follows:

1. Conceptual understanding (five items): assessing the participants’ confidence in

their ability to use fundamental cognitive skills such as physics concepts, laws, or
theories. A sample item is “I know the definitions of basic physics concepts very
well.”
2. Higher-order cognitive skills (six items): assessing the participants’ confidence in their
ability to utilize sophisticated cognitive skills including problem solving, critical thinking,
or scientific inquiry in the domain of physics. A sample item is “I am able to critically
evaluate the solutions of physics problems.”
 Res Sci Educ

3. Practical work (seven items): measuring the participants’ confidence in their related
capabilities to conduct physics experiments in laboratory activities. A sample item is “I
know how to collect data during physics laboratories.”
4. Everyday application (eight items): measuring the participants’ confidence in their capa-
bility to apply physics concepts and skills in their daily life. A sample item is “I am able to
apply what I have learned in physics to daily life.”
5. Science communication (six items): measuring the participants’ confidence in their ability
to communicate or discuss physics-related content with classroom peers or others. A
sample item is “I am able to use what I have learned in physics courses to discuss with
others.”

The two physics educators were then invited to review and ensure the content validity of the
PLSE instrument. The items of the PLSE instrument were presented with bipolar strongly
agree/strongly disagree statements in a five-point Likert mode. Accordingly, the participants
attaining higher scores in a certain dimension expressed stronger agreement with the state-
ments in that dimension regarding physics learning self-efficacy.

Data Analysis Procedure

To initially validate the PLP and PLSE instruments, two separate exploratory factor analyses
were employed to attain the factor structures of the two adopted instruments based on the
participants’ responses on the two instruments. According to the validation criteria of explor-
atory factor analysis suggested by Stevens (1996), the retained items should preferably be
weighted greater than 0.4. In other words, the items with a factor loading of less than 0.4 were
deleted. Also, principal component extraction with a varimax rotation was conducted to
estimate the number of factors proposed in this study, which contributed to the construct
validity of each instrument. Furthermore, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for each scale of the
PLP instruments and each dimension of the PLSE instrument was calculated to ensure the
reliability of each factor as well as the overall alpha coefficients of the two instruments.
Moreover, since one of the main purposes of this study was to identify Taiwanese university
students’ physics learning profiles, the researchers conducted a cluster analysis for all of the
participants’ responses to the PLP instrument. Different clusters initially generated by the
Ward’s method were then examined by the k-means method. Recently, cluster analysis, which
uses the individual as the unit of analysis, has been advocated for understanding the variations
in learning patterns in education research (e.g., Hazel et al. 2002; Lee et al. 2009; Lindblom-
Ylanne and Lonka 2000). In addition, differences between clusters were also explored for their
significance using the analyses of variance (ANOVA) test in order to draw a clear line between
different physics learning profiles. After identifying the participants’ various profiles, we then
adopted ANOVA tests to examine the role of these profiles in physics learning self-efficacy.

Results

Factor Analysis of the PLP Instrument

To validate the PLP instrument, an exploratory factor analysis with a varimax rotation was
performed to clarify its structure. Based on the results, shown in Table 1, the participants’
responses were grouped into the following three proposed factors—(1) testing, (2) calculating
and practicing, and (3) understanding—and a total of 19 items were retained in the PLP
Res Sci Educ

Table 1 Rotated factor loadings and Cronbach’s alpha values for the scales of the PLP instrument

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Factor 1: testing, α=0.93, mean=2.10, SD=0.96

Testing 1 0.80
Testing 2 0.80
Testing 3 0.73
Testing 4 0.79
Testing 5 0.82
Testing 6 0.85
Testing 7 0.70
Factor 2: calculating and practicing, α=0.87, mean=2.76, SD=0.91
Calculating and practicing 1 0.64
Calculating and practicing 2 0.69
Calculating and practicing 3 0.62
Calculating and practicing 4 0.63
Calculating and practicing 5 0.80
Calculating and practicing 6 0.79
Factor 3: understanding, α=0.87, mean=4.15, SD=0.54
Understanding 1 0.72
Understanding 2 0.83
Understanding 3 0.79
Understanding 5 0.68
Understanding 6 0.81
Understanding 7 0.77

Overall alpha 0.87, total variance explained 65.74 %

instrument. The eigenvalues of the three proposed factors from the principal component
analysis were all larger than one, and the total variance explained was 65.74 %, which was
validated to clarify the structure of the instrument. In addition, the reliability in terms of
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for these factors were 0.93, 0.87, and 0.87, respectively, and the
overall alpha value was 0.87, suggesting that these factors had high internal consistency for
assessing the participants’ three critical conceptions of learning physics, and were suitable for
further exploration of the participants’ physics learning profiles.
Table 1 also shows the 250 students’ factor means and the standard deviations of the PLP
instrument. That is, the students scored highest on the understanding factor (an average of 4.15
per item). Their scores on the testing factor (an average of 2.10 per item) and the calculating
and practicing factor (an average of 2.76) were relatively lower on the PLP instrument.

Factor Analysis of the PLSE Instrument

Similarly, an exploratory factor analysis with a varimax rotation was performed to validate the
PLSE instrument and to clarify its structure. As indicated in Table 2, the participants’
responses were grouped into the five proposed factors: (1) conceptual understanding, (2)
higher-order cognitive skills, (3) practical work, (4) everyday application, and (5) science
communication. The eigenvalues of the five factors from the principal component analysis
 Res Sci Educ

were all larger than one. A total of 26 items were retained in the PLSE instrument, and the total
variance explained was 65.60 %. Moreover, the reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) coefficients for
the five factors were 0.80, 0.80, 0.90, 0.86, and 0.90, respectively, and the overall alpha was
0.95, indicating that these factors had high internal consistency for measuring the participants’
five dimensions of physics learning self-efficacy.
Table 2 also shows the average item scores and the standard deviations of the five factors of
the PLSE. As presented in Table 2, among the five factors in the PLSE, the students expressed
greater agreement with the factor of higher-order cognitive skills (mean (M)=3.78, SD=0.67),
while obtaining the lowest scores on the conceptual understanding factor (M=3.62, SD=0.60).

Table 2 Rotated factor loadings and Cronbach’s alpha values for the dimensions of the PLSE instrument

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

Factor 1: conceptual understanding (CU), α=0.80, mean=3.62, SD=0.60

CU 1 0.60
CU 2 0.53
CU 3 0.56
CU 4 0.77
CU 5 0.51
Factor 2: higher-order cognitive skills (HCS), α=0.80, mean=3.78, SD=0.67
HCS 3 0.49
HCS 4 0.68
HCS 6 0.63
Factor 3: practical work (PW), α=0.90, mean=3.69, SD=0.66
PW 1 0.76
PW 2 0.78
PW 3 0.76
PW 4 0.81
PW 5 0.73
PW 6 0.61
PW 7 0.61
Factor 4: everyday application (EA), α=0.86, mean=3.66, SD=0.66
EA 1 0.75
EA 2 0.70
EA 3 0.68
EA 4 0.55
EA 5 0.72
EA 6 0.77
Factor 5: science communication (SC), α=0.90, mean=3.72, SD=0.75
SC 2 0.53
SC 3 0.64
SC 4 0.74
SC 5 0.83
SC 6 0.78

Overall alpha 0.95, total variance explained 65.60 %

Res Sci Educ

Clustering Physics Learning Profiles

The method of cluster analysis was conducted to generate distinct physics learning profiles in
terms of the three critical physics learning conceptions. As suggested by researchers
(Aldenderfer and Blashfield 1984), the interpretability and capability of differentiating the
outcome measures could be used as the criteria to determine the number of clusters. Solutions
with two to four clusters were initially employed to classify the participants’ physics learning
profiles. Finally, the three cluster solution was adopted in this study because it yielded the
clearest distinctions among different physics learning conceptions and thus maximized our
ability to characterize physics learning profiles for each cluster.
Table 3 depicts the numbers of participants, mean values, and standard deviations of the
physics learning profiles in each cluster and the comparisons of the post hoc tests. The results
of the ANOVA analyses indicated that there were significant differences among clusters for the
testing conception (F=272.44, p<0.001), the calculating and practicing conception (F=
273.10, p<0.001), and understanding (F=24.03, p<0.001). Followed by a series of post hoc
tests (Scheffé tests), it is evident that the three clusters could be employed to interpret the
differences among the three physics learning profiles in terms of the three critical physics
learning conceptions. Based on the cluster analysis of the learning conceptions, the participants
were classified into three major groups which demonstrated distinctive characteristics in the
composition of the physics learning profiles.
First, as shown in Table 3, cluster 1 with 66 participants (54 male and 12 female) accounts
for 26.4 % of the study sample. The participants in this cluster reflect significantly higher
scores on the conceptions of testing (M=3.40) and calculating and practicing (M=3.60) than
those in the other two clusters. However, as compared to either cluster 2 or cluster 3, this
cluster shows significantly lower scores on the conception of understanding (M=3.87). The
participants classified into this cluster tend to view learning physics as preparing for physics
tests and involving manipulations of physics formulae and equations. Therefore, for this
reason, the participants in cluster 1 were defined as fitting a reproductive physics learning
profile, highlighting their emphasis on the reproductive conceptions such as testing and
calculating and practicing.
The second cluster consisted of 87 participants (64 male and 23 female, 34.8 %) who scored
significantly higher on the conception of calculating and practicing (M=3.16) as well as the
conception of understanding (M=4.39) than those in cluster 1. Yet, they had significantly lower
scores on the conception of testing (M=1.85) compared to the participants in cluster 1. The
students in cluster 2 are prone to regard learning physics not only as calculations of physics
problems or manipulation of numbers but also as attaining the meaning of physics concepts and
knowledge. Since this cluster expresses both reproductive and constructive conceptions, it
could be defined as the transitional physics learning profile, suggesting that the participants in

Table 3 The clusters of the participants’ critical conceptions of learning physics

Testing Calculating and practicing Understanding

(1) Reproductive (N=66) mean/SD 3.40 (0.66) 3.60 (0.58) 3.87 (0.59)
(2) Transitional (N=87) mean/SD 1.85 (0.50) 3.16 (0.54) 4.39 (0.43)
(3) Constructive (N=97) mean/SD 1.44 (0.48) 1.84 (0.43) 4.36 (0.51)
F (ANOVA) 272.44*** 273.10*** 24.03***
Post hoc test (Scheffé tests) 1>2>3 1>2>3 2>1, 3>1

***p<0.001
 Res Sci Educ

this cluster may be in a transitional orientation between the reproductive to constructive physics
learning conceptions due to their co-existing and mixed conceptions.
Finally, 97 participants (79 male and 18 female, 38.8 %) were grouped into the third cluster
because their scores on the conceptions of testing and of calculating and practicing were
significantly lower than the scores of the other clusters (M=1.44 and 1.84, respectively). Also,
this cluster had significantly higher scores on the understanding conception than cluster 1 (i.e.,
reproductive). However, there is no significant difference between cluster 3 and cluster 2 (i.e.,
transitional) on the understanding conception. The participants in this cluster, defined as the
constructive physics learning profile, emphasised physics learning as understanding the in-
depth meaning of physics knowledge as well as de-emphasising preparing for tests and
calculating and practicing physics problems.

The Comparisons of Physics Learning Self-Efficacy Among Different Physics Learning

Profiles

The means and standard deviations of the participants’ five PLSE dimensions are presented for
each cluster in Table 4. A series of post hoc tests (Scheffé tests) were then carried out to make
comparisons among the different clusters. First, for the PLSE dimension of conceptual
understanding, the students in cluster 3 (constructive) have statistically higher scores than
those in cluster 1 (reproductive), while there were no statistically significant differences
between cluster 1 and cluster 2 (transitional) or between cluster 2 and cluster 3. Further, the
participants of cluster 2 and cluster 3 scored significantly higher than those of cluster 1 on the
higher-order cognitive skills and practical work dimensions. However, in these two dimen-
sions, the students of cluster 2 show no significant difference when compared with those in
cluster 3. Moreover, the participants in cluster 3 have statistically higher scores than those in
cluster 1 and cluster 2 for the PLSE dimensions of everyday application and science commu-
nication. Yet, the students in cluster 1 and cluster 2 had no significant difference in these two
dimensions.

Discussion and Implications

This study validated two instruments for the measurement of physics learning profiles in terms
of three critical conceptions of learning physics and physics learning self-efficacy. Data
analysis indicated that the physics learning profile (PLP) instrument and physics learning
self-efficacy (PLSE) instrument developed in this study had satisfactory validity and reliability.

Table 4 The comparisons of physics learning self-efficacy among different clusters

Conceptual Higher-order Practical Everyday Science

understanding cognitive skills work application communication

(1) Reproductive (N=66) 3.41 (0.70) 3.39 (0.73) 3.44 (0.82) 3.44 (0.71) 3.40 (0.78)
(2) Transitional (N=87) 3.60 (0.56) 3.83 (0.63) 3.74 (0.52) 3.61 (0.66) 3.68 (0.71)
(3) Constructive (N=97) 3.79 (0.49) 4.02 (0.54) 3.82 (0.62) 3.85 (0.57) 3.98 (0.68)
F (ANOVA) 8.96*** 20.16*** 6.98** 8.39*** 13.20***
Post hoc test (3)>(1) (2)>(1), (2)>(1), (3)>(1), (3)>(1),
(Scheffé tests) (3)>(1) (3)>(1) (3)>(2) (3)>(2)

***p<0.001, **p<0.01
Res Sci Educ

The development of the PLP and PLSE instruments enhance existing tools for physics
educators to evaluate higher education students’ relevant ideas regarding physics learning
profiles and confidence in learning physics.
Furthermore, the cluster analysis of the three critical physics learning conceptions was able
to characterize the students by one of three cluster profiles, namely the reproductive, transi-
tional, and constructive profiles. Again, the cluster analysis results provide the evidence that
the students’ three physics learning conceptions could form different physics learning profiles.
It is interesting to point out that a distinctive physics learning profile (i.e., transitional) was
found in this study. In this profile, students seem to stress both reproductive and constructive
conceptions of learning physics. Entwistle and Peterson (2004) indicated that there exists a
threshold before reaching constructive conceptions of learning. It is possible that the students
with a transitional physics learning profile found in this study were at a transitional state
wherein they possess both reproductive and constructive conceptions of learning physics.
Moreover, the three learning profiles demonstrated different levels of self-efficacy on the
five PLSE dimensions. First, it seems that only those who strongly embraced the physics
learning conception of Understanding (i.e., constructive profile) tended to perceive themselves
as having higher confidence across the five PLSE dimensions than those who greatly stressed
the reproductive physics learning conceptions of testing and calculating and practicing (i.e., the
reproductive profile). In general, previous research (e.g., Ferla et al. 2008; Lee et al. 2008; Lin
and Tsai 2013a, b; Tsai 2004) has suggested that reproductive-oriented conceptions of learning
oftentimes negatively relate to self-efficacy, while constructive-oriented conceptions of learn-
ing science usually link with stronger self-efficacy. For example, as found in the study of Lee
et al. (2008), students who possess reproductive science learning conceptions have an orien-
tation toward adopting ineffective learning strategies that merely cope with course materials. In
such circumstances, these learners could possibly face difficulty or failure in their learning and
this would consequently reduce their learning confidence (Phan 2007; Tsai 2004). A handful
of studies (e.g., Chiou and Liang 2012; Lin and Tsai 2013) have also indicated that Taiwanese
learners’ deep strategies can be regarded as profoundly positive predictors of their science
learning self-efficacy. Taken together, it is reasonable that in the current study, those who
emphasise learning physics as gaining in-depth understanding (i.e., the constructive profile)
tended to adopt deep learning strategies that yield satisfactory learning results and, in turn,
strengthened their PLSE. Although the findings derived from this study were only correla-
tional between self-efficacy and conceptions of learning, the abovementioned interpretation
and discussion may ground future work in this regard and should be verified further.
Moreover, the findings derived from this study denote that, for the PLSE dimensions of
higher-order cognitive skills and practical work, the students with the transitional profile
scored higher than those with the reproductive profile. The students who view learning physics
as calculating physics tutorial problems and formulae as well as seeking meaning from attained
physics concepts/knowledge tended to possess higher confidence in higher-order cognitive
skills and laboratory activities than those who merely view physics learning as manipulating
numbers and equations. Contrasting with the reproductive profile, it is evident that both the
transitional and constructive profiles regard physics learning as understanding. First, as
indicated by Cano (2005), learners with constructive conceptions may center on attaining
meaning, and perform higher-order cognitive processing. In addition, fostering higher-order
thinking skills requires students’ comprehensive understanding of scientific knowledge by
using deep learning strategies (e.g., Thomas 2013; Zohar 2004). Students who view physics
learning as understanding may frequently achieve higher-order forms of learning and gain self-
efficacy in their ability to use higher-order scientific approaches. The findings may imply that
on the one hand, physics educators should promote students’ physics conception of
 Res Sci Educ

understanding, at least as the first step or a possible venue, in order to nurture their self-efficacy
in this regard. On the other hand, it may be still important for educators to de-emphasize the
conception of testing to prevent students self-efficacy from being eroded.
While practical work has played a central and distinctive role in physics education, science
education researchers (e.g., Deacon and Hajek 2011; Hofstein and Kind 2012) have been
concerned that many students focus on hands-on investigation such as manipulating experi-
mental equipment without having minds-on understanding of the relevant concepts. As
indicated by von Aufschnaiter and von Aufschnaiter (2007), students should be able to
formulate scientific concepts explicitly to achieve better performance and deep learning during
laboratory experiments, suggesting that the role of minds-on understanding is of great impor-
tance. Again, even though the students with the transitional profile still focused on the
mathematical aspects of physics learning (i.e., calculating and practicing), the significance of
the physics learning conception understanding may be essential in promoting the students’
physics learning self-efficacy of practical work.
With regard to the PLSE dimensions of everyday application and science communication,
the students with a constructive profile showed stronger self-efficacy than those with a
transitional profile. It seems that only those who have a constructive profile exhibit a
comprehensive understanding of physics knowledge/concepts combined with less emphasis
on merely preparing for tests and calculating and practicing tutorial problems. They tended to
perceive themselves as possessing stronger physics learning confidence to apply what they
have learned to various out-of-school contexts as well as being able to communicate scientif-
ically with others. One of the central goals of science education pertains to the ability to collect
information in daily life as well as to communicate with others on specific scientific issues
(Chang et al. 2011; Jenkins 1999). To reach this goal requires students to consciously identify
the potential link between learned physics concepts and ideas with what they encounter in the
real world (Thomas 2013). More importantly, this result shows that students with a transitional
profile may still conceptualize learning as requiring certain answers and being unrelated to
real-life ideas that are rooted in the testing and calculating and practicing conceptions (Tsai
2004). Therefore, to these students, possessing such conceptions may discourage them from
confidently applying physics knowledge to real-life situations.
Furthermore, the science communication dimension was originally designed to reflect the
sociocultural feature, which emphasises the role of language and interpersonal interaction (Lin
and Tsai 2013a, b). Thus, first, students should be able to flexibly use complex language skills
such as talking, listening, or interpreting to engage with the discourse of science when
communicating with others (Krajcik and Sutherland 2010; Yore et al. 2006). Second, a
comprehensive understanding of scientific knowledge may be a prerequisite for students to
accurately assess the validity of knowledge claims from others as well as inform and persuade
others of their own assertions (Chang et al. 2011). However, the comparison results also
indicate that in addition to emphasizing the understanding conception, it may be of importance
to prevent the students with a transitional profile from viewing physics learning as testing and
calculating and practicing. The examination system in Taiwan that focuses exclusively on
mastery of disciplinary knowledge may also strengthen students’ impression that learning
physics is merely for testing and for the manipulation of abstract equations and formulae, while
failing to provide opportunities to cultivate their science communication skills (Chang et al.
2011). In turn, it seems that only those who do not strongly advocate reproductive physics
learning conceptions (i.e., the constructive profile) could perceive themselves as highly
confident in the science communication dimension.
Several limitations of this study could serve as suggestions for future studies. For instance,
this study was limited to investigating Taiwanese undergraduate students’ physics learning
Res Sci Educ

profiles in terms of the three fundamental conceptions of learning physics. Future studies could
incorporate various conceptions based on Tsai’s (2004) framework to explore this issue further.
Other physics learning profiles may exist in addition to the three crucial ones found in this
preliminary study. Yet, it is argued here that the three characterized profiles could serve as
prototypes to illustrate students’ physics learning. The second limitation is that this study only
aimed to probe the relations between different physics learning profiles and physics learning
self-efficacy. We did not contend a potential cause and effect relationship between learning
conceptions and self-efficacy. Based on the findings in this study, it is possible that the two
constructs may be treated as a reciprocal correlated relationship, not a hierarchical one. This
issue definitely requires relevant follow-up research.
The three characterized learning profiles in this study were based on clustering the students’
learning conceptions. Past studies have found that conceptions of learning are in relation to the
variables such as learning strategies (e.g., Ferla et al. 2008; Vermunt and Vermetten 2004),
epistemic beliefs about knowledge and knowing (e.g., Brownlee et al. 2009), learning moti-
vation (e.g., Trigwell et al. 2013). Further investigations could consider how these profiles
influence students’ learning behaviors and characteristics such as approaches to or motivation
for learning physics.
Some methodological issues are identified as requiring refinement for future studies. First,
since the two instruments were newly developed and applied to a different learning context
(i.e., from science to physics) in this study, it would be appropriate to use exploratory factor
analysis to ensure the underlying factors and to reduce items. As Finch (2013) indicated,
exploratory factor analysis is “most often employed when a researcher does not have fully
developed and well grounded hypotheses regarding the latent structure underlying a set of
variables, or where those hypotheses have not been thoroughly examined with empirical
research” (p.167). Although an a priori assumption seems reasonable regarding the structures
of the two instruments, the exact underlying structure of each instrument was not validated
prior to this study. Future research is advised to adopt a more rigorous method such as
confirmatory factor analysis to revisit the underlying factor structures. Second, since the
original items of the two instruments were reviewed by experienced educators for conceptual
clarity, we suppose the removed items may primarily result from a sample issue. This issue
may be worth exploring further by using a different sample.

Acknowledgements Funding of this research work is supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology,
Taiwan, under grant numbers MOST 103-2511-S-011 -004 -MY2; NSC 102-2511-S-011-002-MY3; NSC 101-
2628-S-011 -001 -MY3.

Appendix 1: the Physics Learning Profile (PLP) Instrument

Testing (T)

T1. Learning physics means getting high scores on examinations.

T2. Learning physics is to answer examination questions correctly.
T3. If there are no tests, I will not learn physics.
T4. There are no benefits to learning physics other than getting high scores on examinations.
In fact, I can get along well without knowing many physics facts.
T5. The major purpose of learning physics is to get more familiar with test materials.
T6. I learn physics so that I can do well on physics-related tests.
T7. There is a close relationship between learning physics and taking tests.
 Res Sci Educ

Calculating and Practicing (CP)

CP1. Learning physics involves a series of calculations and problem solving.

CP2. Learning physics means calculating and solving physics tutorial problems constantly.
CP3. I think that learning calculation or problem-solving will help me improve my perfor-
mance in physics courses.
CP4. Learning physics means knowing how to use the correct formulae when solving
problems.
CP5. The way to learn physics well is to constantly practice calculations and problem solving.
CP6. There is a close relationship between learning physics, being good at calculations, and
constant practice.

Understanding (U)

U1. Learning physics allows me to solve or explain unknown questions and

phenomena.
U2. Learning physics means understanding physics-related knowledge.
U3. Learning physics means understanding the connection between physics concepts.
U4. Learning physics is to realize the true meanings of physics theories and formulae.
U5. Learning physics enables me to understand physics-related questions and phenomena
that I did not know in the past.
U6. Learning physics can expand my knowledge and vision.
U7. Learning physics makes me comprehend more phenomena and knowledge related to
nature.

Appendix 2: the Physics Learning Self-Efficacy (PLSE) Instrument

Conceptual Understanding (CU)

CU1. I can explain physics laws and theories to others.

CU2. I can choose an appropriate formula to solve a physics problem.
CU3. I can link the contents among different physics concepts and establish the relationships
between them.
CU4. I know the definitions of basic physics concepts very well.
CU5. I feel confident when I interpret graphs/charts related to physics.

Higher-Order Cognitive Skills (HCS)

HCS1. I am able to critically evaluate the solutions of physics problems.

HCS2. I am able to design physics experiment to verify my hypothesis.
HCS3. I am able to propose many viable solutions to solve a physics problem.
HCS4. When I come across a physics problem, I will actively think over it first and devise a
strategy to solve it.
HCS5. I am able to make systematical observations and inquiry based on a specific physics
concept or scientific phenomenon.
Res Sci Educ

HCS6. When I am exploring a physics phenomenon, I am able to observe its changing

process and think of possible reasons behind it.

Practical Work (PW)

PW1. I know how to carry out experimental procedures in the physics laboratory.
PW2. I know how to use equipment in the physics laboratory.
PW3. I can interpret data during the laboratory sessions.
PW4. I know how to set-up equipments of laboratory experiments.
PW5. I know how to collect data during the physics laboratory.
PW6. I can write a laboratory report to summarize main findings.
PW7. I am confident that I could analyze a set of data from the physics laboratory.

Everyday Application (EA)

EA1. I am able to explain everyday life by using physics theories.

EA2. I am able to propose solutions to everyday problems by using physics.
EA3. I can understand the news/documentary I watched on television related to physics.
EA4. I can recognize the careers related to physics.
EA5. I am able to apply what I have learned in school physics to daily life.
EA6. I am able to use scientific methods to solve physics problems in everyday life.
EA7. I can understand and interpret social issues related to physics in a scientific manner.
EA8. I am able to aware that a variety of phenomena in daily life involve physics -related
concepts.

Science Communication (SC)

SC1. I am able to comment on presentations made by my classmates in physics class.

SC2. I am able to use what I have learned in physics classes to discuss with others.
SC3. I am able to clearly explain what I have learned to others.
SC4. I feel comfortable to discuss physics content with my classmates.
SC5. In physics classes, I can clearly express my own opinions.
SC6. In physics classes, I can express my ideas properly.

References

Aldenderfer, M. S., & Blashfield, R. K. (1984). Cluster analysis. Newbury Park: Sage.
Ashwin, P., & Trigwell, K. (2012). Evoked prior experiences in first-year university student learning. Higher
Education Research and Development, 31(4), 449–463.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs: NJ. Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp.
71–81). New York: Academic.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy
beliefs of adolescents (Vol. 5, pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
 Res Sci Educ

Baundra, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84,
191–215.
Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: how different are they really?
Educational Psychology Review, 15(1), 1–40.
Brownlee, J., Walker, S., Lennox, S., Exley, B., & Pearce, S. (2009). The first year university experience: using
personal epistemology to understand effective learning and teaching in higher education. Higher Education,
58, 599–618.
Cano, F. (2005). Consonance and dissonance in students’ learning experience. Learning and Instruction, 15,
201–223.
Chang, H.-P., Chen, C.-C., Guo, G.-J., Cheng, Y.-J., Lin, C.-Y., & Jen, T.-H. (2011). The development of a
competence scale for learning science: inquiry and communication. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 9, 1213–1233.
Chiou, G.-L., & Liang, J.-C. (2012). Exploring the structure of science self-efficacy: a model built on high school
students’ conceptions of learning and approaches to learning in science. The Asia-Pacific Education
Researcher, 21, 83–91.
Chiou, G.-L., Lee, M.-H., & Tsai, C.-C. (2013). High school students’ approaches to learning physics with
relationship to epistemic views on physics and conceptions of learning physics. Research in Science and
Technological Education, 31, 1–15.
Chiou, G. L., Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2012). Undergraduate students’ conceptions of and approaches to
learning in biology: a study of their structural models and gender differences. International Journal of
Science Education, 34, 167–195.
Chiu, M.-S. (2010). Identification and assessment of Taiwanese children’s conceptions of learning mathematics.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics, 10, 163–191.
Dart, B. C., Burnett, P. C., Purdie, N., Boulton-Lewis, G., Campbell, J., & Smith, D. (2000). Students’
conceptions of learning, the classroom environment, and approaches to learning. Journal of Educational
Research, 93, 262–270.
Deacon, C., & Hajek, A. (2011). Student perceptions of the value of physics laboratories. International Journal
of Science Education, 33, 943–977.
Entwistle, N., & Peterson, E. R. (2004). Conceptions of learning and knowledge in higher education: relation-
ships with study behaviour and influences of learning environments. International Journal of Educational
Research, 41, 407–428.
Ferla, J., Valcke, M., & Schuyten, G. (2008). Relationships between student cognitions and their effects on study
strategies. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 271–278.
Ferla, J., Valcke, M., & Schuyten, G. (2009). Student models of learning and their impact on study strategies.
Studies in Higher Education, 34, 185–202.
Finch, W. H. (2013). Exploratory factor analysis. In T. Teo (Ed.), Handbook of quantitative methods for
educational research (pp. 167–186). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
Hazel, E., Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (2002). Variation in learning orchestration in university biology courses.
International Journal of Science Education, 24, 737–751.
Hofstein, A., & Kind, P. M. (2012). Learning in and from science laboratories. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J.
McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 189–207). New York, NY: Springer.
Jenkins, E. W. (1999). School science, citizenship and the public understanding of science. International Journal
of Science Education, 21, 703–710.
Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics’ conceptions of teaching.
Learning and Instruction, 7, 255–275.
Kim, E., & Pak, S.-J. (2002). Students do not overcome conceptual difficulties after solving 1000 traditional
problems. American Journal of Physics, 70, 759–765.
Klassen, R. M., & Usher, E. L. (2010). Self-efficacy in educational settings: recent research and emerging
directions. In T. C. Urdan & S. A. Karabenick (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (The decade
ahead: theoretical perspectives on motivation and achievement, Vol. 16A, pp. 1–33). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Krajcik, J. S., & Sutherland, L. M. (2010). Supporting students in developing literacy in science. Science, 328,
456–459.
Lee, M.-H., Chang, C.-Y., & Tsai, C.-C. (2009). Exploring Taiwanese high school students’ perceptions of and
preferences for teacher authority in the earth science classroom with relation to their attitudes and achieve-
ment. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1811–1830.
Lee, M.-H., Johanson, R. E., & Tsai, C.-C. (2008). Exploring Taiwanese high school students’ conceptions of
and approaches to learning science through a structural equation modeling analysis. Science Education, 92,
191–220.
Liang, J.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). Relational analysis of college science-major students’ epistemological beliefs
toward science and conceptions of learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 2273–2289.
Res Sci Educ

Lin, C.-L., Tsai, C.-C., & Liang, J.-C. (2012). An investigation of two profiles within conceptions of learning
science: An examination of confirmatory factor analysis. European Journal of Psychology of Education,
27(4), 499–521.
Lin, T.-J., & Tsai, C.-C. (2013a). A multi-dimensional instrument for evaluating Taiwan high school students’
learning self-efficacy in relation to their approaches to learning science. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 11, 1275–1301.
Lin, T.-J., & Tsai, C.-C. (2013b). An investigation of Taiwanese high school students’ science learning self-
efficacy in relation to their conceptions of learning science. Research in Science and Technological
Education, 31(3), 308–323.
Lin, T.-J., Tan, A. L., & Tsai, C.-C. (2013). A cross-cultural comparison of Singaporean and Taiwanese eighth
graders’ science learning self-efficacy from a multidimensional perspective. International Journal of Science
Education, 35, 1083–1109.
Lindblom-Ylanne, S., & Lonka, K. (2000). Dissonant study orchestrations of high achieving university students.
European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15, 19–32.
Marton, F., Dall’Alba, G., & Beaty, E. (1993). Conceptions of learning. International Journal of Educational
Research, 19, 277–299.
Marton, F., Watkins, D., & Tang, C. (1997). Discontinuities and continuities in the experience of learning: an
interview study of high-school students in Hong Kong. Learning and Instruction, 7, 21–48.
Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-beliefs and school success: self-efficacy, self-concept, and school
achievement. In R. Riding & S. Rayner (Eds.), Perception (pp. 239–266). London: Alex.
Pepper, R. E., Chasteen, S. V., Pollock, S. J., & Perkins, K. K. (2012). Observations on student difficulties with
mathematics in upper-division electricity and magnetism. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics
Education Research, 8 (1), 010111.
Phan, H. P. (2007). Examination of student learning approaches, reflective thinking, and self-efficacy beliefs at
the University of the South Pacific: a path analysis. Educational Psychology, 27, 789–806.
Prosser, M., Walker, P., & Millar, R. (1996). Differences in students’ perceptions of learning physics. Physics
Education, 31, 43–48.
Purdie, N., & Hattie, J. (2002). Assessing students’ conceptions of learning. Australian Journal of Educational
and Developmental Psychology, 2, 17–32.
Purdie, N., Hattie, J., & Douglas, G. (1996). Student conceptions of learning and their use of self-regulated
learning strategies: a cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 87–100.
Redish, E. F., Steinberg, R. N., & Saul, J. M. (1998). Student expectations in introductory physics. American
Journal of Physics, 66, 212–224.
Richardson, J. T. E. (1999). The conceptions and methods of phenomenographic research. Review of Educational
Research, 69, 53–82.
Saljo, R. (1979). Learning in the learner’s perspective, 1: some common sense conceptions. Gothenburg,
Sweden: Institute of Education, University of Gothenburg.
Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (2001). Revisiting academics’ beliefs about teaching and learning. Higher
Education, 41, 299–325.
Schunk, D. H. (1996). Learning theories: an educational perspective (2nd Ed.), Merrill, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Sherin, B. L. (2001). How students understand physics equations. Cognition and Instruction, 19(4), 479–541.
Thomas, G. P. (2013). Changing the metacognitive orientation of a classroom environment to stimulate
metacognitive reflection regarding the nature of physics learning. International Journal of Science
Education, 35(7), 1183–1207.
Tran, T. T. (2013). Is the learning approach of students from the Confucian heritage culture problematic?
Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 12(1), 57–65.
Trigwell, K., Ashwin, P., & Millan, E. S. (2013). Evoked prior learning experience and approach to learning as
predictors of academic achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 363–378.
Tsai, C.-C. (2004). Conceptions of learning science among high school students in Taiwan: a phenomenographic
analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1733–1750.
Tsai, C.-C., Ho, H.-N., Liang, J.-C., & Lin, H.-M. (2011). Scientific epistemic beliefs, conceptions of learning science
and self-efficacy of learning science among high school students. Learning and Instruction, 21, 757–769.
Tuminaro, J., & Redish, E. F. (2007). Elements of a cognitive model of physics problem solving: epistemic
games. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 3(2), 020101.
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of academic and self-regulatory efficacy beliefs of entering middle
school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 125–141.
Vermunt, J. D. (2005). Relations between student learning patterns and personal and contextual factors and
academic performance. Higher Education, 49(3), 205–234.
Vermunt, J. D., & Vermetten, Y. (2004). Patterns in student learning: relationships between learning strategies,
conceptions of learning, and learning orientations. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 359–384.
 Res Sci Educ

Virtanen, V., & Lindblom-Ylanne, S. (2010). University students’ and teachers’ conceptions of teaching and
learning in the biosciences. Instructional Science, 38(4), 355–370.
von Aufschnaiter, C., & von Aufschnaiter, S. (2007). University students’ activities, thinking and learning during
laboratory work. European Journal of Physics, 28, S51–S60.
Yore, L. D., Florence, M. K., Pearson, T. W., & Weaver, A. J. (2006). Written discourse in scientific
communities: a conversation with two scientists about their views of science, use of language, role of
writing in doing science, and compatibility between their epistemic views and language. International
Journal of Science Education, 28, 109–141.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: an essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25,
82–91.
Zohar, A. (2004). Higher order thinking in science classrooms. Dordrecht: The Netherlands Kluwer Academic
Publishers.