HOME HELP FEEDBACK ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit Reader Comments Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Reader Comments are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Keiler, L. Articles by Woolnough, B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Keiler, L. Articles by Woolnough, B.

Students' Motivations for Data Handling Choices and Behaviors: Their Explanations of Performance

Leslie Keiler^*,, and Brian Woolnough

^* Department of Education, 300 North Court Building, University of Richmond, Richmond, Virginia 23173, and Department of Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, England

Corresponding author. E-mail address: lkeiler{at}richmond.edu.

Cries for increased accountability through additional assessment are heard throughout the educational arena. However, as demonstrated in this study, to make a valid assessment of teaching and learning effectiveness, educators must determine not only what students do, but also why they do it, as the latter significantly affects the former. This study describes and analyzes 14- to 16-year-old students' explanations for their choices and performances during science data handling tasks. The study draws heavily on case-study methods for the purpose of seeking an in-depth understanding of classroom processes in an English comprehensive school. During semistructured scheduled and impromptu interviews, students were asked to describe, explain, and justify the work they did with data during their science classes. These student explanations fall within six categories, labeled 1) implementing correct procedures, 2) following instructions, 3) earning marks, 4) doing what is easy, 5) acting automatically, and 6) working within limits. Each category is associated with distinct outcomes for learning and assessment, with some motivations resulting in inflated performances while others mean that learning was underrepresented. These findings illuminate the complexity of student academic choices and behaviors as mediated by an array of motivations, casting doubt on the current understanding of student performance.

Key Words: secondary • motivation • laboratory • performance • assessment