Predicting Students’ Genuine Learning Interest in Socio-Scientific Issues within an Engaged Learning Context

Abstract

This study investigated the predictive effect of 11th grade Taiwanese students’ (N = 878) self-assessed critical thinking, group participation self-efficacy, and active learning on their genuine learning interest (GLI) in socio-scientific issues (SSI). Results showed that active learning had a direct effect on GLI, while critical thinking and group participation self-efficacy had indirect effects on GLI as mediated by active learning. Critical thinking showed a significant direct effect on active learning, and a significant indirect effect on active learning that was mediated by group participation self-efficacy.

Keywords

critical thinking engaged learning genuine learning interest group participation self-efficacy socio-scientific issues

The disruptive transformations shaking international economic certitude, governmental coherence, technological competency, and global climate stability, along with the convulsive and near virulent release of free-ranging artificial intelligence agents into the digital wilds, demonstrate Sardar’s (2010) characterization of a “postnormal” period. Sardar describes such a period as one “[of] uncertainty, rapid change, realignment of power, upheaval and chaotic behavior […] where old orthodoxies are dying, new ones have yet to be born, and very few things seem to make sense.” (p. 435). These systemic uncertainties necessarily confront educators with the challenge of how to prepare their students to learn, adapt, and work cooperatively with diverse others for workable solutions to difficult and mutually shared concerns.

One way in which educators have sought to enhance the preparation of students for these new challenges is through the use of engaged learning contexts. Engaged learning is based on the ideas of active learning, whereby learners take ownership of their own learning by actively cultivate learning/thinking strategies, and advancing and refining new ideas though discourse with other learners (Hung et al., 2006). Moreover, it is this language/discourse occurring in a participatory context involving the diverse perspectives of participants that mediates learning (Bakhtin, 1984; Lave & Wenger, 1991). In these environments, learning takes place in authentic environments that closely resemble the environment of the particular discipline (Hung et al., 2006), and using authentic activities that facilitate purposeful and meaningful behavior from learners (Brown et al., 1989). Often, this involves creating environments that introduce problem-based learning (PBL; see Hung, 2002), where the point of departure for students is an ill-defined problem, puzzle, or question that they seek to solve.

Other approaches can be used to facilitate engage learning. Khoiriyah et al. (2015) suggest that self-assessment of students can be an important component of an engaged learning environment, and they created a set of scales that measure students’ self-assessed critical thinking and active learning skills. They, together with Moust et al. (2005), recommend that this self-assessment itself can serve to enhance student learning, thereby “giving more support to students to become self-directed learners” (Khoiriyah et al., 2015, p. 2). This self-directed, engaged, autonomous, and holistic learning approach involving self-assessment, moreover, can be a key component in what is referred to as andragogical learning, in which a teacher can work as a guide to collaboratively explore and learn along with students on how they can (1) evaluate for themselves the skills, abilities, and goals to successfully solve real-world issues; (2) effectively manage time and resources to accomplish such goals; (3) work with others to accomplish such goals in community; and (4) reflect back upon what has been learned throughout this exploratory experience (Bergamin et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2022). Similary, Copeland, in his 2005 book outlining a “Socratic learning circles” approach to learning that emphasizes the role of small group participation, maintains that when students are provided with the opportunity to control their own learning and actions, they “learn to become the self directed, holistic learners the public seeks to create” (p. 78).

The extent to which students possess these characteristics reflects the extent to which they are ready to become engaged, autonomous learners within the company of other learners to address real-world issues outside the classroom context. However, empirical investigations currently are lacking that examine the extent to which students’ critical thinking, group participation self-efficacy, and active learning predict their genuine learning interest (GLI) in addressing possible real-world socio-scientific issues (SSI).

Examining students’ self-assessed critical thinking, active learning, and group participation self-efficacy, may be helpful in identifying classroom instructional approaches that are best able to facilitate engaged, holistic, and autonomous learning in students. To this end, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the role of these three constructs in predicting genuine learning interest in SSI among Taiwanese high school students.

Literature Review

Hung et al. (2006) outline the notion of engaged learning, and how it encourages self-regulated and metacognitive behavior. To create engaged learning environments, educators can facilitate heutagogical learning in students. Unlike andragogical learning, where students self-direct their learning under guidance of the teacher, heutagogical learning is understood as a learner proactively and independently deciding what they want to learn and how they will approach the details of that learning (Hase & Kenyon, 2000). Based on Hase and Kenyon’s work as well as other prior research (e.g., Moore, 2020), the characteristics of self-directed (andragogical) and self-determined (heutagogical) learning approaches involve the same internal processes students exercise to successfully solve any task; that is, (1) evaluating required relevant skills, abilities, and goals, (2) effectively managing time and available resources, (3) cooperating in community with other stakeholders, and (4) evaluating after the task/exploratory experience is accomplished what has been learned. Hase and Kenyon (2007) additionally suggest the main difference between self-directed (andragogical) and self-determined (heutagogical) approaches to learning is the degree of individual autonomy (i.e., personal freedom) experienced during the learning process. They state:

[...] we have been able to document how doctoral students undertaking action research theses have progressed from pedagogical, then andragogical to heutagogical learning in the course of their research. (p. 113)

The point here is that—as a student transitions from pedagogical learning (where the teacher directs student learning) to andragogical learning (where the teacher and the student share control over learning) and then to heutagogical learning (where the student determines their own learning objectives and direction)—the maturation of the student’s learning progresses from being externally dependent on the teacher (external locus of control) to being internally driven by the student (internal locus of control).

Extensive research among secondary school students shows that engaged learning occurs consistently in informal learning settings (e.g., science museums, national parks, and botanical gardens). Studies also report such informal learning opportunities provide students with greater personal options to self-control both what they learn and how they wish to learn, and positively impact both their interest and enjoyment in learning science (e.g., Duan et al., 2021). In context of formal classroom settings, studies show that students’ interest and enjoyment in learning are related to critical thinking (Choy & Cheah, 2009; Kabeel & Eisa, 2016), as well as small group learning and active learning (Mohammad-Davoudi & Parpouchi, 2016).

Based on the work of Khoiriyah et al. (2015), we posit that two key student characteristics—critical thinking and active learning—can serve as potential predictors of genuine learning interest in SSI. We additionally posit that a third student characteristic—group participation self-efficacy—might mediate the relationship among these two contructs to facilitate genuine learning interest in SSI, in accordance with the notions of Bakhtin (1984) and Lave and Wenger (1991). The extent to which these holistic characteristics predict students’ genuine learning interest in SSI can provide evidence of the extent to which students also possess a quality of personal preparedness conducive to active cooperative engagement in addressing SSI with other interested citizens.

Critical Thinking

Facione and Gittens (2013) assert that students’ critical thinking aptitude consists of six skills: interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation, and self-regulation. Braund (2021) explains that the aim of critical thinking is “to carefully evaluate and judge statements, ideas, and theories relative to alternative explanations or solutions so as to reach a competent, independent position – possibly for action” (p. 352). These perspectives on critical thinking (as well as the perspectives described below regarding active learning) are reflected both in Taiwan’s Curriculum Guidelines of 12-year Basic Education (Taiwan Ministry of Education, 2014) and Curriculum Guidelines of 12-year Basic Education for Elementary School, Junior High and General Senior High Schools: The Domain of Natural Science (Taiwan Ministry of Education, 2018).

Several studies have examined the impact of critical thinking on secondary school students’ learning of SSI. Marthaliakirana et al. (2022) conducted a quasi-experimental study involving 11th grade students in Indonesia (N = 121) majoring in science/biology and compared their use of rational problem-based learning with metacognitive prompts, high-intensity problem-based learning, and low-intensity problem-based learning. They found that students who engaged in problem-based learning with metacognitive prompts exhibited superior argumentation and critical thinking skills. Similarly, using a module focused on biology topics, Ping et al. (2019) observed improved motivation and scientific argumentation abilities among 10th grade students in a rural Malaysian school. Kwan (2021) found a constructivist learning environment significantly predicted critical thinking ability among 9th grade students in Hong Kong. Overall, these studies provide evidence that engaging secondary students in both the use and active practice of critical thinking skills within classroom environments that promote engaged learning positively impacts their learning of SSI.

Group Participation Self-efficacy

Group participation self-efficacy refers to ability to interact effectively with others in a small group. Drawing from Copeland (2005), and as applied within context of the Taiwanese high school classroom, we posit that group participation self-efficacy more specifically refers to a student’s self-perceived ability to encourage the thinking of other group members, display respect for their peers, and engage in focused discussion. Such an interactive approach results in developing—within both individual students and the group as a dynamic whole—deeper and fuller examination and understanding of an issue of concern. Items measuring group participation self-efficacy in the constructed survey for this study are presented in Table 1 and were created based on items from Copeland’s (2005) Socratic Circle Rubric (2005). These items were used by the classroom teacher with a formal assessment tool for evaluating small group student interactions when using the Socratic Circles method.

Table 1.

Observed Variables in Study as Measured by Survey.

Scale	Item label	Reliability	Item statement
CT	CT01	.79	I analyze information in a learning unit using relevant theory and concepts.
CT	CT02		I make links between my newly acquired knowledge and my previous knowledge.
CT	CT03		I can generate a hypothesis to explain the problem under discussion.
AL	AL01	.84	I apply various learning strategies during independent study.
AL	AL02		I can summarize the key points of the outcomes of a discussion.
AL	AL03		I manage my independent study effectively.
AL	AL04		I reflect on my learning in each unit based on the objectives that I set myself.
GPS	GPS01	.79	I can engage in discussion and stay on-task during group discussion.
GPS	GPS02		I encourage thinking and participation of others during group discussion.
GPS	GPS03		I present myself and my ideas in a courteous and polite manner.
ENJ	ENJ01	.91	I am happy when I learn how the technology can be applied to construction of nuclear power plants.
ENJ	ENJ02		I enjoy reading about the problems that arise from the use of emerging technologies in the construction of nuclear power plants.
ENJ	ENJ03		I love learning new things about the challenges of applying new technologies to the construction of nuclear power plants.
INT	INT01	.90	I am interested in the public safety concerns raised by the issues of the construction of nuclear power plants.
INT	INT02		I am interested in the ethical controversies arising from the issue of the construction of nuclear power plants.
INT	INT03		I am interested in the environmental impact of the issue of the construction of nuclear power plants.

Note. CT = critical thinking, AL = active learning, GPS = group participation self-efficacy, ENJ = learning enjoyment, INT = learning interest.

Studies have examined the impact of cooperative small group learning in classroom environments that involve self-directed learning about socio-scientific issues (SSI). For example, Mun et al. (2015) and Chung et al. (2016) found small group learning in self-directed learning classroom environments positively affected secondary school students’ learning of SSI. Mun et al. surveyed 3202 students in grades 7–12 to investigate global scientific literacy across various dimensions, including such habits of mind as communication and collaboration, and systematic thinking/information management. They found students exhibited higher scores in the “habits of mind” dimension, highlighting that collaborative learning showed positive impact on participants overall, though without specifying the exact nature of that positive impact. Similarly, Chung et al. found communications skills during debates among students within a traditional science classroom setting were positively affected by incorporating small group discussion and role play. These investigators showed students engaged in small group discussions experience more sophisticated understandings of the ideas of others, willingness to hear and value diverse perspectives, and actively asserted their own ideas into group conversations. Chung et al. found small group learning fostered engagement and meaningful interaction among students, which contributed to their learning of SSI.

Active Learning

Active learning is a student-centered-learning approach that cultivates students’ personal capacity to set goals, reflect, and act responsibly to effect positive change in their own learning process. This intrinsically motivated capacity to action toward learning is extraneous of any forcing inducements such as grade enticements or other potentially counter-productive learning coercions as might be determined or directed by others. Training students to become active learners is broadly supported and promoted as essential in reaching Taiwan’s education goals (Taiwan Ministry of Education, 2014, 2018), and among science educators laboring specifically to improve student participation and retention in STEM fields of study (Arruda & Silva, 2021; Hernández-de-Menéndez et al., 2019).

A number of studies have examined the impact of active learning on secondary school students’ learning of socio-scientific issues (SSI) in autonomous, engaged learning environments. In a study among 121 eighth grade students, Huang et al. (2022) applied the EDIPT strategy model to evaluate whether active learning impacts interest in SSI. Through understanding needs (Empathize), defining felt challenges (Define), engagement in brainstorming solutions (Ideate), choosing a proposed solution to develop (Prototype), and evaluating implementation of that solution (Test), students’ enjoyment of SSI could be positively impacted. They also found such engaged active learning improved students’ learning interest and subject competency in science generally. Cha et al. (2021) implemented a comic drawing activity among 41 undergraduate university students learning about real-world SSI associated with organic chemistry. Research has found that this active learning approach fostered critical thinking, research skills, and peer engagement, while also stimulating increased awareness of broader environmental issues among these students. The effectiveness of innovative instructional approaches for promoting active learning engagement in real-world SSI is exemplified in these studies. Such active learning engagement positively predicts students’ genuine interest in SSI.

Items measuring students’ critical thinking (competence) in the constructed survey for this present study (Table 1) drawn from a survey designed by Khoiriyah et al. (2015).

Genuine Learning Interest (GLI)

Genuine learning interest plays an essential role in personal evaluations of the kinds of information a person chooses to learn and how well information is learned (Jack et al., 2020; Jack & Lin, 2018). This interest manifests through self-determined participation, subject focus, and a strong desire to improve and deepen knowledge and understanding of subject topic content beyond what would otherwise be possible with externally applied rewards or punishments (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). Interest investigators conceptualize genuine learning interest as composed of two constituent elements: value-related interest and feeling-related interest. Schiefele (1992) posits pleasurable feeling-related interest and positive learning engagement is conceptually connected with enjoyment in learning. According to Ryan and Deci (2017), enjoyment is closely associated with interest and is crucial to a student’s intrinsic learning motivation. According to Schiefele (1992), value-related interest involves viewing a topic as of intrinsic personal importance. Such value-related appraisal occurs as the student understands how the topic is meaningfully relevant in light of their current knowledge and life experiences (Jack et al., 2022). Informed by Dewey (1903), genuine learning interest essentially arises out of an innate convergence of cognitive interest and emotional enjoyment. All the above suggests measuring value-related cognitive interest with feeling-related learning enjoyment provides adequate basis upon which to accurately determine which formal instructional strategies constructively impact students’ long-term genuine learning interest in SSI.

Conceptual Model

This study formulates a conceptual model in which students’ critical thinking, group participation self-efficacy, and active learning predict their genuine learning interest (GLI) in socio-scientific issues (SSIs). Specifically, we posit that critical thinking can facilitate active learning, thus leading to genuine learning interest in SSI. Further, consistent with the notions of situated cognition advanced by Bakhtin (1984) and Lave and Wenger (1991) and further forwarded by Hung et al. (2006), we posit that group participation self-efficacy would mediate this relationship between critical thinking and active learning. That is, students with increased critical thinking might correspondingly develop increased self-efficacy in small group participation, thus leading to greater active learning (and thereby greater genuine learning interest in SSI) (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Conceptual model predicting genuine learning interest (GLI) in SSI from critical thinking, group participation self-efficacy, and active learning.

Genuine learning interest in this study consists of two latent sub-constructs: learning interest (value-related) and learning enjoyment (feeling-related), each of which finds empirical support in Jack et al.’s (2020) study establishing John Dewey’s genuine interest in learning perspective. No known research to date has investigated how senior high school students’ genuine learning interest in SSI might be predicted by these constructs. The current study in part strives to bridge this gap and, to this end, the following are the research questions investigated:

RQ1

Does critical thinking directly predict active learning?

RQ2

Does critical thinking indirectly predict active learning, as mediated by group participation self-efficacy?

RQ3

Does critical thinking predict genuine learning interest (GLI)?

Methods

Participants

Grade-11 high school students from 22 classes within three metropolitan university-preparatory high schools located in southern Taiwan participated in this investigation. Once permissions to conduct the study were obtained from school authorities, surveys were distributed to the participating schools, with 899 surveys returned. After data screening, cases corresponding to 21 students were excluded from further analysis due to either missing data or overly uniform response patterns. Thus, N = 878 valid cases were retained for the analytic sample. From this sample, 556 (63.33%) students identified themselves as male; 322 (36.67%) students identified themselves as female; no other self-identified sex- or gender-related types were reported.

Instrumentation

The survey designed for this study was composed of five scales, outlined in Table 1. Items used in the critical thinking scale and active learning scale were drawn from a survey by Khoiriyah et al. (2015) used in the context of problem-based learning. Khoiriyah et al. also provide evidence for the construct validity of these two constructs, using expert review and confirmatory factor analysis. Items measuring group participation self-efficacy were modified from Copeland’s (2005) rubric assessing appropriate behavior of students in small group Socratic learning circles. The English versions of the survey items were translated into Chinese using the dual-panel (DP) approach, which is reported to produce more reliable results than the back-translation method (Hagell et al., 2010). Within each scale, each item statement was paired with seven ordinal response options ranging from 1 = Totally does not fit my situation to 7 = Totally fits my situation. Internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α) estimates computed from the resulting data showed acceptable reliability, with all values of alpha at or above 0.70 (see Table 1).

Genuine interest was measured by two subscales: a learning enjoyment scale and a learning interest scale, first proposed by Jack et al. (2020). Within each scale, each item statement was paired with six ordinal response options ranging from 1 = Totally Disagree to 6 = Totally Agree. Internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α) estimates computed from the resulting data showed acceptable reliability, with all values of alpha at or above 0.70 (see Table 1).

Analyses

Three research questions were investigated through a series of analyses under the structural equation modeling (SEM) framework. We followed the two-step procedure advocated by Rosseel and Loh (2022). First, a measurement model (i.e., confirmatory factor analytic model) was specified and fitted to assess construct validity for the measured constructs using a developmental sample (n = 439) consisting of one-half of the cases randomly selected from the complete set of cases. Second, the measurement model was confirmed using the remaining half of the cases (the cross-validation sample, n = 439). Finally, the structural model positing the predictive relationships among the latent constructs was fitted using the cross-validation sample (n = 439). In addition to evaluating overall model fit, (a) the direct effect of critical thinking on active learning, (b) the indirect effect of critical thinking on active learning as mediated by group sociability, and (c) the indirect effect of critical thinking on genuine learning interest (GLI) was each assessed. Finally, the differences in the relationships among constructs across gender were investigated, after first assessing measurement invariance by gender using the steps outlined in Dimitrov (2010) in which a set of increasing constrained models (i.e., non-invariant parameters, invariant factor loadings, invariant loadings and intercepts) are compared, and the lack of a statistically significant difference between successively fitted models (p > .05) reflects measurement invariance among the groups being compared.

Results

Measurement Model

In accordance with the recommendations of Rosseel and Loh (2022), a measurement model was evaluated prior to examining the proposed structural model. The measurement model (i.e., confirmatory factor analytic model) consisted of five distinct yet correlated latent factors: critical thinking (CT, with three observed indicators), active learning (AL, with four indicators), group participation self-efficacy (GPS, with three indicators), enjoyment (ENJ, with three indicators), and interest (INT, with three indicators). The 5-factor measurement model that was fitted to the developmental sample showed good fit to the data, with χ² (94) = 189.03, χ²/df = 2.01, CFI = 0.97, NNFI = 0.97, RMSEA = .048, SRMR = .035. The same 5-factor measurement model fitted to the cross-validation sample also showed a good fit, with χ² (94) = 153.24, χ²/df = 1.63, CFI = 0.99, NNFI = 0.98, RMSEA = .038, SRMR = .037. The reliability coefficient (ω) for each factor ranged from 0.79 to 0.91, representing adequate levels of reliability. Average variance extracted (AVE) ranged from 0.56 to 0.76, which is greater than the square of the correlation between factors (from 0.07 to 0.56) and provided acceptable evidence for the discriminant validity of the constructs.

Structural Model

Again, following the recommendations of Rosseel and Loh (2022), the structural model next was fitted to the cross-validation sample. Results showed good model fit, with χ² (94) = 180.93, χ²/df = 1.85; CFI = 0.98, NNFI = 0.97, and RMSEA = .044. Critical thinking showed significant direct effects on both active learning (β = 0.62, p < .001) and group participation self-efficacy (β = 0.59, p < .001), and a significant indirect effect on active learning as mediated by group participation self-efficacy (β = 0.15, p < .001). Genuine interest—the second-order factor measured by enjoyment and interest—was significantly predicted by active learning (β = 0.42, p < .001). In addition, critical thinking showed significant indirect effects on genuine interest both as mediated by active learning (β = 0.26, p < .001), and as mediated by both group participation self-efficacy and active learning (β = 0.06, p < .001). The indirect effects are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Summary of the Indirect Effects.

Indirect effect (path)	β	Std. error	z	p
CT > GPS > AL	0.15	0.03	4.31	<.001
CT > AL > GLI	0.26	0.07	6.75	<.001
CT > GPS > AL > GLI	0.06	0.02	3.79	<.001

Note. CT = critical thinking, GPS = group participation self-efficacy, AL = active learning, GLI = genuine learning interest.

Measurement Invariance and Group Difference

We next assessed gender differences in the model relationships. Prior to assessing these gender differences, it is important first to assess measurement invariance to determine whether the model constructs are being measured similarly across the groups of interest (Dimitrov, 2010). Measurement invariance assessed using the cross-validation sample (Table 3) indicated both the loadings (Δχ² = 16.72, Δdf = 12, p = .160) and intercepts (Δχ² = 11.99, Δdf = 10, p = .286) were invariant across genders, reflecting strong measurement invariance, thus affirming gender differences in the model relationships could be assessed validly. The relatively small values of ΔCFI and ΔRMSEA (each p < .001) affirmed this strong invariance, based on guidelines provided by Chen (2007). Examination of the structure coefficients across gender after setting the loadings and intercepts to be equal across genders (Table 4) showed no significant differences in the relationships among the model constructs between boys and girls (Δβ values ranging from −0.03 to 0.18, and p-values ranging from .081 to .898).

Table 3.

Summary of Measurement Invariance by Gender.

Invariance type	χ²	Δχ²	df	Δdf	p	CFI	RMSEA	ΔCFI	ΔRMSEA
Configural	325.78	-	196	-	-	.968	.055	-	-
Loadings	342.50	16.72	208	12	.160	.967	.054	.001	.001
Intercepts	354.49	11.99	218	10	.286	.966	.053	.001	.001

Table 4.

Coefficient Differences between Genders.

Structure coefficients	Difference between genders (Δβ)	Std. error	z	p
Critical Thinking to Active Learning	−0.02	0.13	−0.13	.898
Group Participation Self-efficacy to Active Learning	−0.03	0.13	−0.27	.785
Critical Thinking to Group Participation Self-efficacy	0.18	0.10	1.75	.081
Active Learning to Genuine Learning Interest	−0.03	0.08	−0.37	.711

Summary

In summary, the fit of a measurement variable model consisting of the three factors (critical thinking, group participation self-efficacy, and active learning) and the first- and second-order factors pertaining to genuine learning interest (GLI) showed good fit, evidence for reliable constructs, and gender invariance. Examination of structural coefficients for a subsequent model positing predictive relationships showed statistically significant effects, with active learning directly predicting GLI, and both critical thinking and group sociability indirectly predicting GLI as mediated by active learning. Additionally, within the context of an engaged learning environment, critical thinking had a significant direct effect on active learning, and critical thinking also had a significant indirect effect on active learning as mediated by group sociability. No statistically significant gender differences in the model relationships were observed.

Discussion

This study investigated the predictive effects of students’ self-assessed critical thinking, group participation self-efficacy, and active learning on their genuine learning interest (GLI) in socio-scientific issues (SSI).

The first research question asked whether critical thinking directly predicts active learning. Results indicate the direct effect of critical thinking on active learning was both positive and significant, suggesting the more developed students’ critical thinking, the greater their level of active learning. Previous research (Scheyvens et al., 2008) argues the aim of active learning is to develop students’ critical thinking. Results from data collected during this investigation add new findings showing how critical thinking is complimentarily predictive of active learning.

The second research question focused on the indirect effect of critical thinking on active learning as mediated by group participation self-efficacy. Results indicate this indirect effect was both positive and significant. In detail, active learning not only is directly affected by critical thinking but also indirectly affected by this construct when mediated by group participation self-efficacy. Compared with whole-class discussions, students participating in small groups are more willing to volunteer their own opinions and ideas. In addition, students working in groups have greater opportunity to communicate face-to-face with peers in more in-depth debate on issues. This, in turn, stimulates an attitude of listening and valuing different perspectives, deepens active advocacy for their own ideas during group dialogues (Chung et al., 2016), and stimulates personal active learning.

Finally, the third research question assessed whether critical thinking predicts genuine learning interest (GLI). Results indicate GLI is positively affected through two pathways, one mediated by active learning, and another mediated by both group participation self-efficacy and active learning. Genuine learning interest consists of both value-related interest and emotion-related interest, each of which are crucial to intrinsic learning motivation. Thus, students’ active learning plays an important functional role in their genuine learning interest in SSI. In addition, the constructs measured in this study were invariant by gender, and the pathways posited in the model did not differ for boys and girls.

Conclusions and Implications

This study provides new insights to supplement existing research (e.g., Duan et al., 2021) pertaining to how the factors of critical thinking, active learning, and group participation self-efficacy affect students’ genuine learning interest in socio-scientific issues. Insights gained from this study may also provide education and policy specialists in Taiwan and abroad with a way to further operationalize assessment of current educational agenda goals—in particular, developmental assessments of learning attitudes and preparation of students’ readiness to engage with other citizens in questions of applied science and associated technologies.

Results from this study further confirm how critical thinking, active learning, and group participation self-efficacy can facilitate high school students’ genuine interest in SSI. In the process of critical discussion among peers, students become situated and immersed in a dynamic environment where opportunity to recognize and evaluate differing viewpoints becomes both spontaneous and constructive. As they practice and learn to thoughtfully communicate and share their perspectives and positions with one another, not only will students’ argumentation skills and critical thinking ability become honed, but—as Dawson (2001) suggests—their lifelong scientific literacy likely will be more strongly oriented toward community engagement with SSI.

The mechanisms observed in this study also have key implications for designing classroom activities. If teachers can facilitate learning environments that first help to develop critical thinking skills, then allow students to apply these critical thinking skills in contexts involving small groups, this can facilitate engaged, active learning and potentially deepen students’ genuine interest in SSI. This deepened interest in SSI has greater-reaching cultural implications for a more engaged and proactive citizenry that is invested in the betterment of the human condition.

This study has several limitations. First, we focused on predictive constructs (critical thinking, active learning, and group participation self-efficacy) that were used and discussed in Khoiriyah et al. (2015) and Copeland (2005) as reflective of holistic, autonomous student learning environments. Certainly, other student characteristics may be reflective students in engaged in such environments, and other constructs thus similarly may be predictive of genuine learning interest in SSI. Second, we posited a very specific set of directional relationships in our conceptual model. Although the data confirmed this model, alternative relationships among the constructs in the model certainly may be tenable. Third, the assessment of genuine learning interest was limited in scope, and other SSI topics may have elicited different levels of genuine learning interest. Lastly, the context and population of this study was specific to students engaged in learning within the grade 12 level of high school in Taiwan. Despite the context limitations of this study, preliminary results provide new generalizable insights and clarification of potential implications for informing and furthering education policy and practice.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to Marvin G. Connatser for his editing of the manuscript and to the anonymous reviewers who offered their valuable comments regarding its content and presentation.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Taiwan National Science & Technology Council: [NSTC 110-2511-H-110-016-2/2].

ORCID iDs

Brady Michael Jack

Chi-Chen Chen

References

Arruda

Silva

É. R.

(2021). Assessment and evaluation in active learning implementations: Introducing the engineering education active learning maturity model. Education Sciences, 11(11), 690–717. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11110690

Bakhtin

M. M.

(1984). Speech genres and other late essays. University of Texas Press.

Bergamin

P. B.

Bosch

du Toit

Goede

Golightly

Johnson

D. W.

Johnson

R. T.

Kruger

Laubscher

Lubbe

Olivier

van der Westhuizen

van Zyl

(2019). Self-directed learning for the 21st century: Implications for higher education. AOSIS. https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/37693

Braund

(2021). Critical STEM literacy and the COVID-19 pandemic. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 21(2), 339–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-021-00150-w

Brown

Collins

Duguid

(1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.2307/1176008

Cha

Kim

H. B.

Kan

S.-Y.

Foo

W. Y.

Low

X. Y.

J. Y.

Bala Chandran

P. D.

Lee

G. E.

Yong

J. W. H.

Chia

P. W.

(2021). Integrating organic chemical-based socio-scientific issues comics into chemistry classroom: Expanding chemists’ toolbox. Green Chemistry Letters and Reviews, 14(4), 689–699. https://doi.org/10.1080/17518253.2021.2005153

Chen

C.-H.

Chen

K.-Z.

Tsai

H.-F.

(2022). Did self-directed learning curriculum guidelines change Taiwanese high-school students’ self-directed learning readiness? The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 31(4), 409–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00582-w

Chen

F. F.

(2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834

Choy

S. C.

Cheah

P. K.

(2009). Teacher perceptions of critical thinking among students and its influence on higher education. International Journal of teaching and learning in Higher Education, 20(2), 198–206.

10.

Chung

Yoo

Kim

S.-W.

Lee

Zeidler

D. L.

(2016). Editor's introduction to this issue. Genomics & informatics, 14(3), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.5808/GI.2016.14.1.1

11.

Copeland

(2005). Socratic circles: Fostering critical and creative thinking in middle and high school. Stenhouse Publishers.

12.

Dawson

(2001). Addressing controversial issues in secondary school science. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 47(4), 38–44. https://doi.org/10.3316/aeipt.113884

13.

Dewey

(1903). Interest as related to will. The University of Chicago Press.

14.

Dimitrov

(2010). Testing for factorial invariance in the context of construct validation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 43(2), 121–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175610373459.

15.

Duan

R. J.

Walker

G. J.

Orthia

L. A.

(2021). Interest, emotions, relevance: Viewing science centre interactive exhibit design through the lens of situational interest. International Journal of Science Education Part B, 11(3), 191–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2021.1938740

16.

Facione

Gittens

C. A.

(2013). Think critically. Pearson.

17.

Hagell

Hedin

P.-J.

Meads

D. M.

Nyberg

McKenna

S. P.

(2010). Effects of method of translation of patient-reported health outcome questionnaires: A randomized study of the translation of the rheumatoid arthritis quality of life (RAQoL) instrument for Sweden. Value in Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 13(4), 424–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00677.x

18.

Hase

Kenyon

(2000). From andragogy to heutagogy. UltiBASE In-Site, December 2000. https://ictlogy.net/bibliography/reports/projects.php?idp=2869&lang=en

19.

Hase

Kenyon

(2007). Heutagogy: A child of complexity theory. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 4(1), 111–117. RMIT. https://doi.org/10.29173/cmplct8766

20.

Hernández-de-Menéndez

Vallejo Guevara

Tudón Martínez

J. C.

Hernández Alcántara

Morales-Menendez

(2019). Active learning in engineering education: A review of fundamentals, best practices and experiences. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing, 13(3), 909–922. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-019-00557-8

21.

Hidi

Renninger

K. A.

(2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4

22.

Huang

Jong

M. S.-Y.

Chai

C. S.

(2022). The design and implementation of a video-facilitated transdisciplinary STEM curriculum in the context of COVID-19 pandemic. Educational Technology & Society, 25(1), 108–123. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/48647034

23.

Hung

(2002). Situated cognition and problem based learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13(4), 393–414.

24.

Hung

Tan

S. C.

Koh

T. S.

(2006). Engaged learning: Making learning an authentic experience. In Hung

Khine

M. S.

(Eds.), Engaged learning with emerging technologies (pp. 29–48). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3669-8_2

25.

Jack

B. M.

Chen

C.-C.

Smith

T. J.

(2020). Validating Dewey’s notion of genuine interest. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 39(3), 301–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282920967133

26.

Jack

B. M.

Hong

Z.-R.

Lin

H.-s.

Smith

T. J.

(2022). Ecological stimuli predicting high school students’ genuine interest in SSI. Science & Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00413-4

27.

Jack

B. M.

Lin

H.-s.

(2018). Warning! Increases in interest without enjoyment may not be trend predictive of genuine interest in learning science. International Journal of Educational Development, 62, 136–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2018.03.005.

28.

Kabeel

A. R.

Eisa

S. A. E. M. M.

(2016). The correlation of critical thinking disposition and approaches to learning among baccalaureate nursing students. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(32), 91–103. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1122541.pdf

29.

Khoiriyah

Roberts

Jorm

Van der Vleuten

C. P. M.

(2015). Enhancing students’ learning in problem based learning: Validation of a self-assessment scale for active learning and critical thinking. BMC Medical Education, 15(1), 140–148. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-015-0422-2

30.

Kwan

Y. W.

(2021). Exploring the relationships between constructivist learning environment and critical thinking ability of secondary school students. In Education and New Developments 2021 (pp. 457–461). World Institute for Advanced Research and Science. https://doi.org/10.36315/2021end097

31.

Lave

Wenger

(1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

32.

Mohammad-Davoudi

A. H.

Parpouchi

(2016). Relation between team motivation, enjoyment, and cooperation and learning results in learning area based on team- based learning among students of Tehran University of Medical Science. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 230, 184–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.09.023.

33.

Moore

R. L.

(2020). Developing lifelong learning with heutagogy: Contexts, critiques, and challenges. Distance Education, 41(3), 381–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1766949

34.

Moust

J. H. C.

Berkel

H. J. M.

Schmidt

H. G.

(2005). Signs of erosion: Reflections on three decades of problem-based learning at Maastricht University. Higher Education, 50(4), 665–683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6371-z

35.

Mun

Shin

Lee

Kim

S.-W.

Choi

S.-Y.

Krajcik

J. S.

(2015). Korean secondary students’ perception of scientific literacy as global citizens: Using global scientific literacy questionnaire. International Journal of Science Education, 37(11), 1739–1766. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1045956

36.

Ping

Halim

Osman

(2019). Explicit instruction of scientific argumentation in practical work: A feasibility study. Creative Education, 10(06), 1205–1229. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2019.106091

37.

Rosseel

Loh

W. W.

(2022). A structural after measurement approach to structural equation modeling. Psychological Methods. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000503.

38.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. The Guilford Press.

39.

Sardar

(2010). Welcome to postnormal times. Futures, 42(5), 435–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2009.11.028

40.

Scheyvens

Griffin

A. L.

Jocoy

C. L.

Liu

Bradford

(2008). Experimenting with active learning in geography: Dispelling the myths that perpetuate resistance. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 32(1), 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098260701731496

41.

Schiefele

(1992). Topic interest and levels of text comprehension. In Renninger

Hidi

Kapp

(Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 151–182). Psychology Press.

42.

Suwono

Marthaliakirana

A. D.

Saefi

Gofur

(2022). Problem-based learning with metacognitive prompts for enhancing argumentation and criticalthinking of secondary school students. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(9), em2148. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12304

43.

Taiwan Ministry of Education . (2014). Curriculum guidelines of 12-year basic education. Taiwan Ministry of Education. https://www.naer.edu.tw/upload/1/16/doc/1325/十二年國教課程綱要總綱(英譯版).pdf

44.

Taiwan Ministry of Education . (2018). Curriculum guidelines of 12-year basic education for elementary school, junior high and general senior high schools: The domain of natural science. Taiwan Ministry of Education. https://etrc.ncmail.hcc.edu.tw/英語教學-english-teaching