Favero - 2007 Classroom Discussion

Learning and Instruction 17 (2007) 635e657
www.elsevier.com/locate/learninstruc
Classroom discussion and individual problem-solving

in the teaching of history: Do different instructional
approaches affect interest in different ways?
Laura Del Favero a,*, Pietro Boscolo a, Giulio Vidotto b, Marco Vicentini b
a
Department of Developmental and Socialization Psychology, University of Padova, Via Venezia 8, 35131 Padova, Italy
b
Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, Via Venezia 8, 35131 Padova, Italy
Abstract
In this study, 100 Italian eighth graders were divided into two groups to compare the effects of two instructional interventions e
the first based on problem-solving through discussion, the second on individual problem-solving e on students learning of two
historical topics (World War I and the economic boom), interest and self-perception of competence in history. The intervention
based on discussion produced greater situational interest and understanding of the historical inquiry. The topic of World War I
turned out to be an effective source of situational interest. Structural equation models showed that situational interest elicited
by the use of discussion and by World War I impacted both on students individual interest and on self-perception of competence
in history.
2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Individual interest; Topic interest; Situational interest; Self-perception of competence; Discussion; Problem-solving; History
1. Introduction
Research in the teaching of history has mainly investigated the effects of instructional approaches on students
comprehension of historical concepts, and the difficulties a young learner is faced with when trying to understand his-
torical facts, very often related to complex social, political, and economical issues (e.g. Booth, 1994; Carretero &
Voss, 1994; Spoehr & Spoehr, 1994; Wineburg, 1994), whereas the motivational aspects of learning history have
received little attention. In fact, history seems to be one of the most difficult subjects for students to understand,
due to both the nature of the discipline and the still prevailing use of traditional teaching approaches, which emphasize
the recall of facts and simple causeeeffect chains (Booth, 1994). A thorough understanding of history implies the
recognition that several possible causes and consequences may be invoked when reconstructing the past, often
with no certain or true conclusion. For students it may be very difficult to manage such complexities, especially
if they are not prompted nor prepared to do so; therefore, they may view history as terribly dull because it requires
memorizing facts in chronological order (Spoehr & Spoehr, 1994). Some authors have suggested that the use of
* Corresponding author. Fax: 39 049 827 6511.

E-mail address: laura.delfavero@unipd.it (L. Del Favero).
0959-4752/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.012
636 L. Del Favero et al. / Learning and Instruction 17 (2007) 635e657
multiple sources, when paired with tasks that encourage argumentation, may help students self-generate connections
and causal relations among facts, that is the kind of knowledge transformation which is implied by historical under-
standing (Spoehr & Spoehr, 1994; Wiley & Voss, 1996).
The present study focused on the relationship between interest and various cognitive and motivational variables
in eighth graders learning of history. We wanted to explore whether an instructional approach based on the use of
classroom discussion could impact not only on students learning of historical concepts, but also on their interest
and self-perception of competence in history. We also wanted to compare these effects with those of a second
teaching approach, based on individual solution of historical problems. In the following pages we will review
recent literature on the two motivational variables involved in the study, i.e. interest and self-perception of com-
petence and their relationships, as well as the potential benefits of classroom discussion.
2. Interest research: an overview
Over the past two decades, several studies have been conducted on the relationship between cognitive and moti-
vational variables in specific school domains. Interest, among other motivational constructs, has proved to be a crucial
factor in knowledge acquisition. Many studies have shown the energizing function of interest in fostering remember-
ing and understanding learning material, and stimulating students positive attitude towards a topic (e.g., Boscolo &
Mason, 2003; Hidi, 1990; Mason & Boscolo, 2004; Schiefele, 1991, 1998). The role of interest in the acquisition of
expertise has recently been conceptualized in Alexanders (1997, 2000) Model of Domain Learning, in which the re-
lationships between knowledge, learning strategies and interest are represented in a developmental perspective.
Knowledge includes stored general concepts and epistemological procedures typical of a discipline, and knowledge
of specific topics, ideas and events. When interested in a topic or domain, students are more likely to use higher-order
learning strategies (such as deep-level comprehension strategies), thus improving their knowledge (Murphy & Alex-
ander, 2002).
Most studies on interest have adopted the distinction between situational and individual interest (Hidi, 1990), which
has proved to be particularly useful in analysing learning environments and outcomes. Situational interest is usually
considered an affective state, triggered by the attractive, novel, and stimulating aspects of an object or environment
(Krapp, Hidi, & Renninger, 1992). Situational interest influences learning by inducing stronger attention to learning
materials (Hidi, 1995), and by increasing persistence in the task (Ainley, Hidi, & Berndorff, 2002; Chen & Darst,
2002). In the classroom, situational interest may be activated by the teacher, who manipulates some features of the in-
structional setting leading to students positive response to learning (Bergin, 1999). Generally speaking, a temporary
state of interest may be stimulated by three aspects of the learning environment: learning activities, interpersonal re-
lationships, and specific topics (Baumert & Koller, 1998). Regarding the first aspect, games, puzzles, and hands-on ac-
tivities, for example, have been found to stimulate interest, when used to highlight discrepancies and conflicts between
old and new knowledge (Goldman, Mayfield-Stewart, Bateman, & Pellegrino, 1998; Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Mitchell,
1993). The creation of imaginative contexts and the use of stories and narratives can produce a novelty effect that can
elicit situational interest (Bergin, 1999; Cordova & Lepper, 1996). Regarding interpersonal relationships, social inter-
action with adults and peers may also stimulate situational interest (Deci, 1992, 1998; Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Isaac,
Sansone, & Smith, 1999). Lastly, specific topics may represent a source of situational interest, if they can be easily
linked with everyday experience (Brophy, 1999), or if they recall life themes, such as death, violence or sex (Schank,
1979). However, the importance of topics as sources of interest has been mainly investigated in reading research, where
it was shown that features such as novelty, intensity, concreteness, visual imagery, importance, and ease of comprehen-
sion can be related to different levels of topic interest (Hidi, 2001; Schraw, Bruning, & Svoboda, 1995).
Although the features of an instructional environment that can stimulate situational interest have been analysed in
several studies, the concept of source of situational interest, is a somewhat generic one. A distinction should be
drawn between sources and supporting conditions, that is between factors that trigger situational interest
(e.g., novelty or cognitive stimulation), on the one hand, and conditions of the instructional environment that prepare
the ground for interest, on the other. Hidi and Renninger (2006) have suggested several forms of social interaction
may support the development of interest at various stages. For instance, group works may be helpful to both trigger
and maintain situational interest, peer tutoring seem to maintain situational interest, and the interaction with expert
models (peers and adults) should support the transition to an emerging and, later, a well-developed individual interest
(Hidi & Renninger, 2006). As a whole, social interaction seems therefore to be a supporting condition, rather than
L. Del Favero et al. / Learning and Instruction 17 (2007) 635e657 637
a source of situational interest. In this study, triggers of interest, such as presenting a historical question as a problem
and stimulating cognitive engagement in its solution, and using historical documents to create a novelty effect, were
included in our instructional interventions. Moreover, one of the interventions also included features of the learning
environment that prepare the ground for interest, that is interaction with classmates and adults.
Individual interest is an individuals relatively stable attitude towards a domain of knowledge, or activity. Individ-
ual interest involves knowledge, positive affect and value, and develops slowly over time, affected by repeated expe-
riences of situational interest (Hidi, 2000; Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000; Silvia, 2001), and supportive conditions in the
environment that can impact on individual attitudes, such as personal values and competence beliefs (Wigfield &
Eccles, 2002). Individual interest may emerge as a consequence of repeated engagement over time (Renninger,
2000), that leads a person to increasingly understand and value the object of interest, and to regulate actions and moods
related to it. An interested person can therefore formulate curiosity questions, and attenuate negative feelings, such as
frustration and anxiety (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). Individual interest influences learning behavior and outcomes be-
cause it usually implies highly developed domain-specific knowledge. Thus, learners engaged with domain-specific
activities related to their individual interest can rely on their knowledge to self-motivate and self-regulate learning
(Chen & Darst, 2002; Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Renninger, 2000).
Some authors assume that the transition from situational to individual interest in a domain calls for an intermediate
step, topic interest, i.e. the development of a positive disposition towards increasing contents (Alexander, 1997, 2000;
Murphy & Alexander, 2002). The expression topic interest is somewhat ambiguous (Hidi, 2000), in that it may refer
to both the situational interest elicited by a topic, and to individual interest in specific contents e e.g., ideas, concepts
or events e of a domain. In the first case, which we analysed before, a specific topic may represent a source of situ-
ational interest. In the second case, topic interest is a relatively well-established interest in a topic related to a specific
school subject. For example, project-based approaches, where students are allowed to choose the topics to focus on,
exploit students individual interest in a topic as a context to support both learning and motivation (e.g. Hidi & Ren-
ninger, 2006; Renninger, 2000). However, very few intervention studies have analysed the effects of different topics
included in a mandatory curriculum on the stimulation of interest in a discipline (e.g., Hoffmann, 2002).
In this study we wanted to investigate how two different instructional approaches interact with two different his-
torical topics in stimulating situational interest: the first approach was based on individual problem-solving, the sec-
ond involved solving problems through group and whole-class discussion. The effects of the two approaches were
compared in order to untangle the specific contribution of discussion in supporting learning and interest in history.
We also wanted to explore the extent to which the instructional intervention based on problem-solving through dis-
cussion could lead to positive motivational and learning outcomes irrespectively of the specific topics to be taught.
3. The role of discussion and problem-solving in stimulating situational interest
Both problem-solving activities and discussion may stimulate situational interest. Problem-solving may make stu-
dents aware of inadequacies or inconsistencies of their previous knowledge of a topic, thus increasing covert or overt
activity aimed at exploring concepts and ideas further (Bergin, 1999; Hatano & Inagaki, 1991; Mitchell, 1993). Two
features may stimulate situational interest in discussion. Firstly, when discussing, students are engaged in a task which
allows them to express their ideas and reflections freely. This is a situation relatively new to them, and this novelty may
have a motivating aspect. Students in this situation may also feel empowered to build their own knowledge, and their
need for autonomy and competence may be fulfilled (Deci, 1992, 1998), thus leading to value positively a domain (Bro-
phy, 1999; Engle & Conant, 2002). Secondly, working with peers leads students to experience positive relationships,
which has an intrinsic motivation component (Deci, 1992, 1998; Jetton & Alexander, 2001), and can also be a support-
ive condition for interest development (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). Since discussion often implies the collective solution
of a problem (Pontecorvo & Girardet, 1993), an instructional approach including problem-solving activities through
discussion should be more effective than those based only on individual problem-solving, since a larger number of trig-
gers of situational interest are involved, as well as the supportive role of peer interaction through group and whole-class
discussion. To our knowledge, no empirical study has been conducted where the effects of classroom discussion
have been differentiated from those of problem-solving, and where these instructional approaches have been consid-
ered as possible sources of situational interest, or supports for the development of individual interest in a discipline.
In recent years, the social dimension of classroom learning has been greatly emphasized in educational research,
thanks to the influence of Vygotskijs (1978) view of higher mental functions as rooted in interpersonal processes.
Peer interaction is considered a basic component of an effective learning environment, through which students can
improve their learning and problem-solving skills in collaborative tasks (e.g., Cowie & van der Aalsvoort, 2000;
Crook, 1994; Kumpulainen, 1996; ODonnell & King, 1999). Among the various types of interaction, small group
and class discussion have been investigated in the learning of various disciplines. Students thinking activities at dif-
ferent school levels seem to be facilitated both by classroom discussions guided by an expert teacher, and by group
discussions that do not require teacher intervention, as studies conducted in the teaching of various disciplines show:
e.g., history (Pontecorvo, 1993; Pontecorvo & Girardet, 1993), science (Palincsar & Herrenkohl, 1999), and literature
(Miller, 2003). These and other studies suggested that when teachers show respect for students emerging abilities of
posing and pursuing questions, students become more able to solve problems of meaning, and acquire a critical aware-
ness they can apply to other domains (see also Engle & Conant, 2002). Moreover, students learn to consider their class
as a group working together on problematic issues, thus developing a sense of relatedness.
Most studies on the role of discussion have focused on the cognitive effects of discussion, whereas the motivational
aspects have not been investigated in depth. Hatano and Inagaki (1991) showed the motivational effects of a science
education method called Hypothesis-Experiment-Instruction, applied to fourth graders. The method consisted of giv-
ing children a multiple-choice problem on the conservation of weight with conflicting solutions, and inviting them to
discuss their choices. Following discussion, students were allowed to change their previous choices. Lastly, they were
confronted with an experiment or a reading relevant to the problem. The authors found that cognitive motivation, the
desire to know and understand, as well as self-perception of competence in scientific domains was amplified through
the discussion. Several interventions involving peer interaction and discussion, which were aimed at raising students
positive attitude towards a discipline, or modifying self-efficacy in a task, or self-perception of competence in a do-
main have been evaluated (Ferretti, MacArthur, & Okolo, 2001; Goldman et al., 1998; Guthrie & Alao, 1997; Guthrie
& Cox, 2001; Paris, Yambor, & Packard, 1998; Wigfield, Guthrie, Tonks, & Perencevich, 2004). Wigfield et al. (2004)
recently hypothesised that intrinsic motivation and competence-related beliefs can both be supported by instructional
interventions based on peer interaction. This idea, which, to our knowledge, has not yet been investigated in depth,
will be elaborated further in the following section.
4. Relation between interest and competence-related beliefs
Several studies have found significant correlations between individual interest and competence-related beliefs,
such as expectancy (Diegelman & Mezydlo Subich, 2001; Wigfield & Eccles, 2002), self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982;
Rottinghaus, Larson, & Borgen, 2003; Silvia, 2003), and self-perception of competence, or self-concept in a domain
(Betsworth & Fouad, 1997).1 In this study we will focus on the relationships between situational and individual
interest and self-perception of competence, that is an individuals overall evaluation of his or her competence in a do-
main (Bong & Skaalvik, 2003). Researchers take two main positions about the relationship between self-efficacy or
self-perception of competence and individual interest. Significant correlations have been viewed by some authors as
sustaining the interpretation that a long-lasting interest may develop only when a person perceives him/herself as com-
petent in specific domains or tasks (e.g., Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994). In fact, it is hard to believe that interest could
develop in fields which offer little opportunity of experiencing success, and can produce negative feelings associated
with failure. However, almost all the studies on this topic are correlational, and do not lead to the conclusion that
individual interest develops as a consequence of high self-perception of competence or self-efficacy, nor can they
shed light on the nature of these relations (Hidi & Boscolo, 2006).
Other scholars argued that self-efficacy and individual interest may influence each other reciprocally (Boscolo &
Hidi, 2007; Hidi, Berndorff, & Ainley, 2002; Rottinghaus et al., 2003). In fact, interest e both situational and indi-
vidual e exerts positive effects on cognitive processes and supports persistence in a task. Thus, an interested individ-
ual is more likely to develop high competence and to receive positive feedback from others (Hidi et al., 2002). Being
1
Constructs such as expectancies and self-efficacy should be kept separate, since expectancies refer to anticipations of specific action results,
while self-efficacy refers to a persons evaluation of his or her own ability to perform specific tasks at a given level (Bandura, 1982). Although the
expressions self-efficacy and self-perception of competence (or self-concept) are sometimes used as synonyms, and measures of the two
constructs often overlap, their meanings are different, as recent and well-informed reviews have demonstrated (Bong & Skaalvik, 2003; Pajares,
1996). As Bong and Skaalvik (2003) argued, while self-concept represents ones general perceptions of the self in given domains of functioning,
self-efficacy represents individual expectations and convictions of what one can accomplish in given situations. (p. 5). In this study we adopted
the expression self-perception of competence to indicate students perceptions of their competence in history.
interested may also serve as protection against the negative effects of failure (Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Renninger,
2000). Therefore, the peculiar roles of situational and individual interest in the development of expertise in a domain
may lead to increased self-efficacy for specific tasks, or self-perception of competence in the overall domain.
Some sources of situational interest also seem to impact on self-efficacy or self-perception of competence. In par-
ticular, self-perception of competence and self-efficacy can increase when instructional interventions based on peer
interaction and discussion are carried out (Courtney, Courtney, & Nicholson, 1992; Wigfield et al., 2004). Two expla-
nations have been advanced for this effect. Firstly, when working with peers, students can communicate their under-
standing of concepts using relatively simple and clear language; they therefore achieve a better understanding and
performance (Wigfield et al., 2004). Secondly, peer interaction may lower anxiety, because students know they can
rely on each others abilities to perform a task; therefore they may feel empowered and perform better (Courtney
et al., 1992). However, the relationship between situational interest and competence-related beliefs is still far from
being completely understood. In this study, we explored the possible positive gains of a teaching approach based
on problem-solving through discussion on students self-perception of competence in history.
5. The present investigation
This study aimed at comparing the effects of two teaching methods on middle-school students learning and com-
prehension of historical issues, as well as on their self-perception of competence and situational and individual interest
in history. The first teaching approach was based on individual problem-solving, the second involved problem-solving
through discussion. Students in the discussion condition were prompted to discuss the value of studying history with
the entire class, and were required to solve historical problems in groups. Classroom discussion had two functions:
whole-class discussions were aimed at helping students understand the reasons why history is taught in school,
that is the value of the discipline (Brophy, 1999). Small group discussions, where participants had to solve historical
problems with classmates, were intended to help students understand specific historical contents and epistemological
procedures (Engle & Conant, 2002). Students in the individual problem-solving condition had to solve the same his-
torical problems by themselves, without discussion. The same historical documents were available to students in both
conditions. The learning activities and measures devised for this study will be described later in the paper.
On the basis of recent research findings on interest and motivation we formulated three hypotheses. The first
hypothesis was that a teaching approach based on the use of discussion should lead to a significant improvement
in several cognitive and motivational variables. Knowledge of specific topics and understanding of historical inquiry
were considered as cognitive variables. Regarding motivational variables, situational interest was distinguished from
topic and individual interest (Hidi, 2000). It was hypothesised that situational interest would derive from some fea-
tures of the learning environment, such as the activities to be performed, and supported by other features, such as
peer relations. Topic interest was considered to be the result of the relevance, complexity, vividness, and ease of com-
prehension of the topics (Bergin, 1999; Hidi, 2001), as well as of the situational interest stimulated by the learning
context. Individual interest was regarded as a relatively stable disposition towards history, due to repeated experiences
of situational interest.
Secondly, we hypothesised different relations between situational and individual interest and self-perception of
competence in history in the two instructional approaches. On the one hand, self-perception of competence was re-
garded as an outcome of situational interest for two reasons. Firstly, situational interest should support the use of
higher-order learning strategies, thus increasing students chances of experiencing success (e.g. Alexander, 1997,
2000; Schiefele & Rheinberg, 1997). Secondly, some features of the learning environment that may support situational
interest, such as peer relations, may also influence self-perception of competence, as previously argued (Courtney
et al., 1992; Dorman, 2001; Ferretti et al., 2001; Wigfield et al., 2004). We therefore expected self-perception of
competence to increase after the intervention based on problem-solving through discussion. On the other hand, we
expected a different trend in the individual problem-solving condition. In this case, we expected that self-perception
of competence would influence situational interest and, through it, individual interest in history.
The third hypothesis regarded the relationship between situational interest stimulated by discussion, students in-
terest in a specific topic, and the effect of this relation on students interest in history. To our knowledge, this problem
has not yet been investigated, although at school students have to learn both interesting and boring contents related to
a domain. We considered it worth studying whether interest in history would gradually increase as a result of the dis-
cussion approach applied to two historical topics with different potentials for eliciting interest: World War I, which is
a highly relevant, vivid and concrete topic, though probably not very new, and the Italian economic boom of the 1950s
and 1960s, which is a rather difficult to understand but possibly new and concrete topic (Hidi, 2001). We expected that
individual interest in history would increase after each intervention, as a result of the situational interest stimulated by
the use of discussion regardless of the degree of interest stimulated by the two topics.
6. Method
6.1. Participants
One hundred eighth graders attending four classes of a public middle school in a town in the north-east of Italy
participated in the study. The four classes were divided into a discussion (two classes, M 30, F 22) and an
individual problem-solving groups (two classes, M 29, F 19). Participants average age at the beginning of
the intervention was 13 years and 6 months (ranging from 12 years and 10 months to 15 years and 2 months).
All participants were native speakers of Italian, and shared a homogeneous middle-class social background. Class
teachers were asked to provide general evaluations of their classes engagement and achievement in history. No
relevant differences emerged between the four classes: according to the teachers the classes shared similar achieve-
ment levels and attitudes towards history. Due to Italian law regarding the right to privacy, we were not able to
collect previous individual achievement scores.
6.2. Procedure
The procedure is summarized briefly in Table 1. A detailed description of each phase of the study and the measures
will be provided in the following sections of the paper.
6.2.1. Preliminary phase: interview with the history teachers

In Italian middle school, 2 h a week are devoted to teaching history, and each class has a different teacher. The four
history teachers involved in the study were interviewed about their teaching methods, beliefs on history, and students
engagement and achievement. We wanted to ensure that participants had been exposed to similar learning environ-
ments and our interventions were actually different from more traditional teaching approaches.
The teachers said they considered history useful to help students understand present events, and the cultural context
in which they have lived. Studying history was also regarded as useful for developing study skills and understanding
other subjects. The teachers thought that students motivation to study history was mostly affected by the developmen-
tal problems of preadolescence, and the degree of support provided by families. Two other aspects were mentioned,
namely the difficulty of relating present and past events, and teaching strategies such as the use of historical sources.
Although thinking of student motivation as partially related to the use of specific instructional approaches, teachers
seemed to think that engagement and achievement were mostly affected by factors that they could not control, such as
students volition and study abilities, and the attitude of their families towards school achievement. They tried to mo-
tivate students by relating past events to the present or to other disciplines, and by explaining in detail causes of past
events in their lessons. Films and documentaries, literary texts, exercises (provided by the school text), and group work
were rarely used. The teachers teaching methods and beliefs about motivation and achievement were very similar.
Two classes were assigned to the discussion group and two classes to the individual problem-solving group.
6.2.2. Learning activities

Teachers were asked to identify two historical topics which they considered to be different from the point of view of
their importance in the curriculum, students interest and prior knowledge. World War I and the economic boom in
Italy in the 1950s and 1960s were chosen. World War I is a topic that teachers and students usually consider interesting
because of its relation with life themes (in this case death and danger: see Schank, 1979), vividness, and the implica-
tions on the development of local history. Documents and remains of World War I can be found in the region where the
study was conducted. This topic is usually taught at the beginning of grade 8. The rapid economic development of Italy
in the 1950s and early 1960s (known as the economic boom) is not usually covered in depth, because it implies
understanding social and economic concepts that may be difficult for eighth graders. However, some aspects of Italian
life in that period could be described through real objects (e.g., cars, clothing, and buildings) as well as photographs.
Table 1
Overview of the procedure
Discussion Individual problem-solving
Preliminary phase a) Teachers were interviewed about their teaching strategies,
their interest in history, students motivation and
achievement in history.
b) Choice of two historical topics.
Development of the activities.
c) Development of the measures.
First pre-test Measures: a) Prior knowledge of World War I.
b) Individual interest in history.
c) Self-perception of competence in studying history.
First discussion Discussion about the importance of studying history.
First intervention: Discussions on four historical problems dealing with the topic. Individual work on four historical
World War I problems dealing with the topic.
First post-test Measures: a) Knowledge of World War I (post-test version).
b) Understanding of historical inquiry.
c) Situational interest.
d) Interest in World War I.
e) Individual interest in history.
f) Self-perception of competence in studying history.
Second pre-test Measures: a) Prior knowledge of the economic boom.
b) Individual interest in history.
c) Self-perception of competence in studying history.
Second discussion Discussion about the meaning of history.
Second intervention: Discussions on three historical problems dealing with the topic. Individual work on three historical
Economic boom problems dealing with the topic.
Second post-test Measures: a) Knowledge of the economic boom (post-test version).
b) Understanding of historical inquiry.
c) Situational interest.
d) Interest in the economic boom.
e) Individual interest in history.
f) Self-perception of competence in studying history.
This topic is usually taught at the end of the school year. The interventions on the two topics took place 4 months apart.
Four learning activities were devised for World War I, and three activities for the economic boom.
Each learning activity included the following features:
Students were asked to analyse various historical documents, such as photographs, pictures, maps, reports,
newspaper articles, letters, and diaries.
The activities could be performed either in groups or individually.
The activities simulated aspects of historical research, aimed at familiarising students with problems typical of
historical inquiry (e.g. to evaluating the adequacy and reliability of a source to answer questions about the past).
Students were prompted to answer questions regarding aspects of the past on the basis of the evidence provided
by the sources. In this sense, the activities involved problem-solving (Engle & Conant, 2002).
The activities could be performed in various ways, since they regarded questions that had no clear solution. This
is a typical feature of historical inquiry, where conflicting views on past events can often be drawn from the
sources (Spoehr & Spoehr, 1994). Students in the discussion condition had to reach an agreement with group
members about the solution of the problems. In both conditions they were asked to justify their interpretation
and decisions (Engle & Conant, 2002).
The activities were developed by the first author after careful analysis of the information provided by the history
texts regarding the two topics. As several studies in the field of social science education have shown, the history books
adopted in school often lack conceptual coherence and sacrifice depth for breadth of coverage (Ferretti et al., 2001).
With the teachers help, several questions regarding aspects of World War I and the economic boom that were only
superficially considered or ignored in the history texts were identified (e.g., why do we refer to World War I as a war of
attrition? How did soldiers live in the trenches? What kind of strategy was used in the fighting?). Next, sources that
could help clarify these aspects were researched and selected according to their relevance (Engle & Conant, 2002).
Lastly, an activity that could prompt students to reflect on each problem and involving analysis of the sources was
prepared. Although we took into account some instructional interventions described by the existing literature (e.g.,
Ferretti et al., 2001; Goldman et al., 1998; Hatano & Inagaki, 1991; Pontecorvo & Girardet, 1993; Spoehr & Spoehr,
1994), our interventions resulted in a new set of activities.
The in-depth study activities for World War I were as follows:
a) Students were given copies of three texts (a political discourse and two newspaper articles dated 1914) regarding
the debate about interventionism and neutrality in Italy before World War I. Students had to read and assign each
text to the interventionist or the neutralist position. This activity aimed at making students understand the rea-
sons for Italys shift from the neutral position to the declaration of war, which institutions were responsible for
the declaration of war, and the arguments which were used to justify this decision.
b) Students were given photocopies of nine propaganda posters from Italy, UK, USA, Austro-Hungarian Empire,
and Germany, and had to explain the posters messages and guess the states to which the posters belonged. This
activity was aimed at understanding the reasons why propaganda messages were released, and the way they were
conceived. On the basis of this analysis, students were asked to draw a new propaganda poster.
c) Students had to draw a diagram of a battle-field, or to make a cardboard reconstruction, based on information
drawn from sources such as: plans of fortifications, a military report of a battle, photographs depicting trenches
and fortifications, and life scenes in the trenches. This activity was aimed at understanding the reasons why
World War I is referred to as a war of attrition, and to understand the conditions of soldiers in the trenches.
d) Students were asked to choose from the objects they could see in the pictures, or had read in the diaries of
refugees, three important items that people were most likely to take with them when escaping after the defeat
of Caporetto. This activity was aimed at understanding the consequences of the enemy invasion of the north-east
of Italy for the local population, and at empathising with people living during World War I.
These activities were carried out over 8 h in the discussion, and 5 h in the individual problem-solving classes. The
time required to perform the activities was different in the two conditions because students in the discussion condition
needed extra time to organize the group work, and a lot of time was devoted to activities aimed at creating and main-
taining a positive group climate.
The in-depth study activities for the economic boom were as follows:
a) Students were given an excerpt of the 1953 annual report of the National Bank on the economical situation of
Italy, an extract of an essay regarding the situation in the south of Italy in the early 1960s, an excerpt of an in-
terview with the owner of a factory who made fortune in the 1950s and 1960s, and a series of pictures depicting
life scenes of the period. Students were asked to analyse the sources to find relevant information to make a list
and to relate causes and consequences of the economic boom. This activity was aimed at understanding the
reasons and consequences of the economic boom.
b) Students were asked to list commonly used objects made of plastic or synthetic material, and to plan an inter-
view with parents, relatives and acquaintances about the use and the features of these objects in the past. They
were asked to try and guess the answers with the help of classmates, by analysing pictures of plastic consumer
goods that became widespread in that period. Students were also asked to report their interviews in the next his-
tory class. This activity was aimed at understanding why the economic boom brought a great change in peoples
life-styles.
c) Students were given two series of advertising messages from different periods regarding two products (yoghurt
and cars). They had to note the most important changes in the production of advertising messages from the
1950s to the present. This activity was aimed at understanding the link between the diffusion of consumer goods
and the need to plan advertising campaigns, and also identifying the type of information a historian could gain
from advertising.
These activities were carried out over 6 h in the discussion, and 4 h in the individual problem-solving classes.
The in-depth study activities were carried out in each class separately. Each activity was preceded by the class
teachers explanation of the topic, based on the information provided by the school text. Next, the activity was briefly
introduced by the first author. Some questions were written on the board to guide individual or group analysis of the
sources. For example, when the activity regarding the debate about interventionism and neutrality before World War I
was carried out, participants were asked the following questions: a) What kind of document is this? b) Who might be
the authors of the sources? c) What is the main idea provided by each text? d) Which words and expressions make you
think the authors are in favour or against the war? List them separately. e) Which documents represent an interven-
tionist position, and which a neutralist position? How can you support your view?
In the discussion condition, activities were carried out in groups of three to five students, whose composition was
different for each activity, as decided by the class teacher. In the individual problem-solving condition the same
activities were carried out individually. The class teacher and the first author helped students during the activities
by explaining difficult words or concepts, integrating information in the history book, giving instructions on work or-
ganization, and helping students concentrate on the task.
At the end of each activity, a member of each group in the discussion condition, and some volunteers in the indi-
vidual problem-solving condition, were asked to give a short oral report of the work they had just finished. This report
was aimed at identifying students difficulties and repairing misconceptions. Additional information was provided by
the class teacher and the first author when needed. Lastly, a synthesis of the contents addressed in the class was
provided by the class teacher.
The first author regularly met the teachers before and after the interventions to be sure that they did not use this
instructional approach for other topics.
6.2.3. Discussion of history as a domain and school subject

In the discussion group, in-depth study activities were preceded by a discussion about the meaning and value of
studying history (Brophy, 1999). Some students comments were used as discussion material in subsequent activities.
The two discussions lasted about 40 min each, and were led by the first author who tried to convey the idea that
discussions were not aimed at evaluating students or at checking the right answer, but at solving meaningful problems
in the study of history.
The first discussion was conducted before studying World War I. After rating their interest in history on a four-point
scale, students were divided into four small groups (four to six students). Two groups were made up of very interested
students and two of scarcely interested students. Interested students were asked to explain the reasons why they found
history interesting, whereas the uninterested students were asked to justify their lack of interest. The different views
and arguments were discussed by students in a whole-class discussion.
The second discussion was conducted before studying the economic boom. Students, divided into small groups,
had to choose from three texts the one they agreed with and the one they disagreed with most. The three texts pre-
sented different perspectives on the meaning of history. The first text was a song claiming that every human being
helps develop history. The second text was a passage from a famous historian about the value of dedicating oneself
to the study of history. The third text was a poem outlining the contrast between the material progress of mankind,
and lack of moral progress. The aim of this discussion was to help students reflect on different views about history
(result of human actions, object of study, progress or lack of progress), and on its value as a subject. The groups
arguments were finally elaborated in a whole-class discussion.
6.3. Measures
Several measures were developed as part of the study. Details about each measure will be provided in the following
sections and tables.
6.3.1. Knowledge of the topics

Four open-ended questionnaires were administered to measure students knowledge of the two historical topics
selected for the study (World War I and the economic boom). For each topic, we arranged a pre-test and a post-test
version of the questionnaire, and the scoring rules were established before students answered the questions. About
30% of questionnaires were scored independently by two judges (the first author and a graduate student) and scores
were correlated to check reliability, using Pearsons product-moment correlation. The pre-test versions of the ques-
tionnaires asked general questions about the topics. The post-test versions were made up of questions aimed at
checking students knowledge of the specific contents of the in-depth activities. Details on the four questionnaires
are reported in Table 2.
6.3.2. Understanding of historical inquiry

For each intervention, participants were asked to choose one of the aspects they had studied (e.g. causes of the eco-
nomic boom, new objects and materials, advertising in the 1950s and 1960s) and to answer four open-ended questions.
These questions were aimed at checking students ability to deal with historical problems, and asked them to indicate
which kind of documents are most appropriate to reconstruct specific past events, which procedure should be followed
to evaluate the reliability of the sources, which errors could be made when dealing with historical problems, and which
procedure could be useful to control errors. Scoring rules were adjusted before students completed the task. Students
answers were then scored independently by two judges (the first author and a graduate student) and a Pearson corre-
lation was computed to check reliability. Inter-rater agreement was 0.78 for World War I and 0.77 for economic boom.
6.3.3. Situational interest

Students were given a 19-item questionnaire. They were asked to rate each statement on a four-point scale (from
1 not at all to 4 very much). Following Baumert and Koller (1998), the questionnaire was divided into three sec-
tions addressing situational interest stimulated by the learning activities, peer relations, and the topics. We expected
these three dimensions to account for the variance of the data set. Principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax
rotation and Rasch models were used to assess the dimensionality of the questionnaire. PCA can be used to analyse
dimensionality in a data set while retaining the characteristics that contribute most to its variance. The idea is to iden-
tify the most important aspects of the data (Jolliffe, 2002). The PCA showed that the items could in fact be grouped
into three factors, accounting for 49.62% of variance. The first factor included statements about interest elicited by
active participation in history classes and relations with peers. The second factor grouped statements about interest
due to understanding the topic. The third factor grouped statements about interest stimulated by the activities per-
formed in the interventions.
Rasch models are used to obtain objective, fundamental, linear measures from stochastic observations of ordered
category responses. This analysis is very appropriate for detecting items that do not fit the expectations of the model:
the item-trait test of fit, based on the c2 statistic, examines the extent to which a set of items conforms to a single trait
(Rasch, 1992). In this case, Rasch models were used to validate further the composition of each factor, and sometimes
showed that an item had to be deleted. Logit scores for each factor were used in the following data-analyses. Details
about each factor are shown in Table 3. The items included in the three factors participation, understanding and
activities are reported in Appendix A.
6.3.4. Topic interest

Participants answered seven open-ended questions. Following a content analysis, responses to the questions were
grouped into categories that were different for each question. The answer categories are presented in Table 4 together
with the question. Two independent judges attributed answers to the different categories. Reliability indexes for each
question (Cohens kappa) are reported in the table.
Table 2
Knowledge of the topics: overview of the measures
Topic Time Number of items and example Inter-rater agreement
on scores (r)
World War I Pre-test Eight items; example: Date the following events: the beginning and end of 0.99
World War I, the Italian declaration of belligerency (etc.).
World War I Post-test Nine items; example: In Italy there were two leading opinion groups with 0.96
opposing positions regarding the idea of joining the war.
Can you remember their names?
Economic boom Pre-test Six items; example: When did economic boom take place? 0.98
Economic boom Post-test Nine items; example: Write three important causes of the economic boom, 0.84
and briefly explain their effects.
Table 3
Composition and metrical features of the situational interest questionnaire
Factor Number of items Cronbachs a Sample item
(PCA and Rasch models)
Participation 6 0.76 I felt I was active in the learning activities on World War I.
Understanding 4 0.74 I felt I was understanding the topic well, during the learning
activities on World War I.
Activities 6 0.73 I think we were able to perform the learning activities on World War I.
6.3.5. Individual interest in history

Students were administered a 21-item questionnaire, and had to rate each statement on a four-point scale (from
1 completely false to 4 completely true). In designing the questionnaire we followed Schiefeles (1991, 1998)
definition of individual interest as comprising positive emotional and value valences. Thus, the items detected enjoy-
ment of history-related activities, and perceived usefulness of history for understanding the present situation and de-
veloping personal abilities. Validity of the questionnaire was tested through Rasch models, the results of which are
shown in Table 5. Logit scores were used in the following data-analyses. The items included in the questionnaire
are reported in Appendix A.
6.3.6. Self-perception of competence in studying history

A 14-item questionnaire was administered. The items described the behaviors of a skilled and self-confident stu-
dent when studying history or attending history classes. Students had to rate each item on a four-point scale (from
1 completely false for me to 4 completely true for me). Validity of the questionnaire was tested through Rasch
models, and logit scores were used in the following data-analyses. Results of the analysis are reported in Table 5.
The questionnaires items are reported in Appendix A.
7. Results
Results will be described following the variables presentation order. Descriptive statistics of the measures by con-
dition are shown in Table 6, while correlations are reported in Appendix B. The interventions outcomes, which were
addressed by the first hypothesis, were tested through analyses of variance or log-linear models (only for topic interest,
where frequencies were detected). The different patterns of relationships between motivational variables outlined in
the second hypothesised were tested through structural equation models. Lastly, the third hypothesis stated that
Table 4
Response categories and reliability indexes for the topic interest questions
Question Response categories Cohens kappa
1a. Did you like the topic? Yes/no 1.00
1b. Why? Activity features/topic features/interest in the topic/liking history 0.94
2. Which aspects of the topic did you like most? Contents students dealt with in the activities/contents 0.91
students did not deal with in the activities
3a. Were there any aspects of the topic you did not like? Contents students dealt with in the activities/contents 0.92
3b. Why? Lack of motivation in the contents/difficulty of the contents 0.96
4. Which aspects of the topic were you not Contents students dealt with in the activities/contents 0.92
able to understand well? students did not deal with in the activities
5. Which aspects of the topic were easy to understand? Contents students dealt with in the activities/contents 0.91
6. Did you like this topic more than history in More interested/less interested/no difference 1.00
general or not?
7. Did you learn anything new from the intervention? Study method/aspects of the topic/increased interest in history 0.95
Table 5
Results of the Rasch models applied to the questionnaires on individual interest and self-perception of competence in history
Variable Final number of items Cronbachs a Sample item
Individual interest in history 14 0.81 I like watching documentaries regarding historical topics.
Self-perception of competence in history 11 0.78 Its easy for me to select the most important
information when I read a history text.
individual interest in history would gradually increase in the discussion condition as a result of the intervention. We
used a repeated-measure ANOVA to test this hypothesis.
7.1. Knowledge of the topics
According to the first hypothesis, we expected students in the discussion condition to reach higher levels of topic
knowledge at the end of each intervention. Two ANCOVAs were carried out on students post-intervention scores of
topic knowledge, with group as between-subject factor and prior knowledge scores as covariate. No group differences
emerged.
7.2. Understanding of historical inquiry
Following the first hypothesis, we expected students in the discussion condition to reach a better understanding of
the nature of the historical inquiry. Two ANOVAs were performed on the understanding of historical inquiry scores
collected after each of the two interventions, with group as independent variable. Analyses revealed that the dis-
cussion group students scored better than their peers in the individual problem-solving group, after both the first,
Table 6
Descriptive statistics of the variables by condition
Variable Individual problem-solving Discussion
Mean SD Mean SD
Knowledge of the topics
World War I (pre-test) 6.85 3.78 5.94 2.81
World War I (post-test) 20.70 4.09 20.78 5.89
Economic boom (pre-test) 2.72 1.47 2.54 1.55
Economic boom (post-test) 17.57 3.18 17.16 4.85
Understanding of historical inquiry
After World War I 2.10 1.18 2.68 1.35
After economic boom 2.08 1.41 2.77 1.27
Situational interest
Participation (after World War I) 1.40 1.13 2.11 1.82
Participation (after economic boom) 0.73 0.92 1.06 1.11
Understanding (after World War I) 2.64 1.91 2.00 2.11
Understanding (after economic boom) 1.18 1.57 1.44 1.75
Activities (after World War I) 1.28 1.23 2.34 1.60
Activities (after economic boom) 1.35 1.12 1.77 1.16
Individual interest in history
Before World War I 0.55 0.85 0.67 0.83
After World War I 0.88 0.88 1.10 1.14
Before economic boom 0.91 1.03 1.03 1.29
Self-perception of competence
Before World War I 0.18 0.60 0.24 1.22
After World War I 0.37 0.68 0.23 1.00
Before economic boom 0.39 0.84 0.20 1.20
F (1, 89) 4.71, p < 0.05, partial h2 0.05, and second interventions, F (1, 90) 6.01, p < 0.05, partial h2 0.06.
The discussion condition seemed to support a deeper understanding of the way historical knowledge is created.
7.3. Situational interest
As stated in the first hypothesis, we expected students in the discussion condition to report higher levels of sit-
uational interest elicited by different aspects of the learning environment. Even though we did not expect any topic
effect, we wanted to check if the two topics impacted differently on situational interest stimulated by the interven-
tions. Logit scores for each of the three factors, participation in the classes, understanding the topic, and enjoyment
and usefulness of the activities, were used in the data-analyses. A repeated-measure ANOVA was performed for
each factor, with group as between-subject factor and topic as within-subject factor.
A main effect of topic on participation emerged, F (1, 81) 35.86, p < 0.01, partial h2 0.31. A main effect of
group on participation was also found, F (1, 81) 4.21, p < 0.05, partial h2 0.05. Participants in both conditions
reported weaker perceptions of participation during the second intervention (economic boom). Participants in the dis-
cussion condition gave higher evaluations of participation after both interventions. A main effect of topic on under-
standing emerged, F (1, 82) 17.72, p < 0.01, partial h2 0.18. Participants in both conditions reported lower
understanding of the economic boom, compared with World War I. A main effect of group on activities was shown,
F (1, 81) 8.26, p < 0.01, partial h2 0.09. Participants in the discussion condition liked the activities more than
their peers in the individual problem-solving group.
7.4. Topic interest
Hypothesis one stated that students in the discussion condition should state more frequently that they were inter-
ested in the topic. Since the answers to each question regarding interest in the topics and in their specific aspects/
contents were grouped into different categories, different log-linear analyses were carried out for each question.
No significant effect emerged for questions 1e5. A significant association between answer and topic emerged for
question 6, which asked students to compare their interest in the topic they had already studied, with their general
interest in history, since many students said World War I was more interesting than history, and the economic
boom was less interesting than history, c2 (2) 41.94, p < 0.01. Question 7 asked students to jot down everything
they had learned by studying World War I and the economic boom. A significant association between answer and
group emerged, c2 (2) 17.97, p < 0.01, with students in the discussion condition saying they learned a better
way to study history, while students in the individual problem-solving condition reported about knowledge of specific
aspects of the topics. The discussion group wrote about a different approach to the discipline, while the individual
problem-solving group reported about learning specific information. This effect was not related to any topic.
7.5. Individual interest in history
In line with the first hypothesis, we expected students in the discussion condition to report higher levels of interest in
history. Moreover, hypothesis three stated that individual interest would have gradually increased in the discussion
condition from the first pre-test to the second post-test, as a result of the repetition of the intervention. A repeated-
measure ANOVA was performed on the logit scores obtained in the four administrations of the questionnaire, with
group as a between-subject factor, and time as a four-level within-subject factor. A significant effect of time was found,
F (3, 225) 10.09, p < 0.01, partial h2 0.12, while no significant effect of group emerged. Contrasts showed a sig-
nificant difference between the first pre-test and all the other times, F (1, 96) 26.73, p < 0.01, partial h2 0.22, while
no significant difference emerged between the first post-test, the second pre-test, and the second post-test. A significant
improvement in interest in history therefore emerged for all participants after the intervention on World War I.
7.6. Self-perception of competence
Following the second hypothesis, we expected students in the discussion condition to report higher levels of self-
perception of competence at the end of the interventions. A repeated-measure ANOVA was performed on the logit scores
obtained in the four administrations of the questionnaire, with group as a between-subject factor, and time as a four-level
within-subject factor. No significant effect of time emerged, and no significant differences between the two groups were
found. Self-perception of competence seemed to remain quite stable, and was not influenced by the interventions.
7.7. Structural models
Lastly, we wanted to verify the second hypothesis which stated that different instructional settings may lead to dif-
ferent patterns of relationships between motivational variables, and to check if these patterns were maintained in spite
of differences in the topics. We therefore tested causal models among variables in the discussion and individual prob-
lem-solving conditions for each topic. Each model was also tested on the whole sample, since we wanted to be sure it
fitted the data of one condition only. According to our hypotheses, in the discussion condition situational interest was
expected to foster both individual interest and self-perception of competence, and peer relationships were expected to
have a prominent role in stimulating situational interest (Wigfield et al., 2004). In the individual problem-solving con-
dition, we expected situational interest and self-perception of competence in history to determine individual interest in
history in different ways (Boscolo, Del Favero, & Borghetto, 2007; Hidi et al., 2002). The factor participation of the
situational interest questionnaire was kept separate from the others, because peer relationships were expected to have
a different impact on the other motivational variables according to the teaching approach.
This analysis involved Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) that is a procedure used to analyse models which in-
volve a system of structural equations, and is ideally suited to the task of showing the multiple factor potency. SEM
imposes some theoretically informed constraints a priori, and involves statistical tests which evaluate the goodness of
fit of a particular model to the observed data. When more than one model is evaluated, results of the analyses can be
statistically contrasted with one another to determine which model best fits the observed data (Joreskog & Sorbom,
1996). Bollen and Long (1993) recommend evaluating several indices simultaneously which represent different clas-
ses of goodness of fit criteria. To summarize the results, we report c2 and RMSEA values for each model.2 We esti-
mated the parameters of the model using the Robust Maximum Likelihood method, which is considered to be the best
method for small samples, even with a non-normal distribution of data (Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, & Muller,
2003). Like Watkins (1989), we randomly split each measure involved in this analysis into two halves, and set the
item-factor weight as equal for the two halves. The items fitting measures of self-perception of competence and in-
dividual interest were therefore divided into two halves. The same procedure was followed for the factor participation,
derived from the situational interest questionnaire. The individual mean scores obtained in the remaining two factors
of the situational interest questionnaire (understanding the topic, and liking the activities) were computed and used as
measures of situational interest. This procedure was followed in order to obtain two measures for each latent variable
that is self-perception of competence, interest in history, participation, and situational interest. The results of the anal-
yses are reported in the figures, and will be briefly explained below. Each figure shows the path diagram for the com-
pletely standardized solution of the model, with structural coefficients and measure errors (in brackets). Completely
standardized parameters are given. All paths are significant.
Fig. 1 shows the model that best fitted the discussion condition data collected after the intervention on World War I.
Participation in the activities was considered as the latent independent variable. This variable influenced situational
interest, which in turn affected both individual interest in history and self-perception of competence. The model had
strong metrical qualities, c2 (23) 22.61, p > 0.05, RMSEA < 0.001. When tested on the individual problem-solving
group, and on the whole sample, the models indices of fit were not acceptable.
Fig. 2 shows the model that best fitted the data related to the individual problem-solving condition, at the end of the
intervention on World War I. In this case, self-perception of competence was considered to be the latent independent
variable that influenced both participation and situational interest. The latter variable, in turn, affected individual interest
in history. The model fitted the data of the individual problem-solving group, c2 (17) 15.66, p > 0.05, RMSEA <
0.001, while indices of fit of the same model were not acceptable for the discussion group or for the whole sample.
The same procedure was followed for the data related to the second intervention (economic boom). Neither the first
nor the second model was found to fit the data of the related conditions either when kept separate or of the whole
2
Like Schermelleh-Engel et al. (2003), we took into account the major fit indices for all the models investigated: i.e. c2, Goodness of Fit Index,
Comparative Fit Index, Nonnormed Fit Index, Root-Mean-Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and Akaike Information Criterion. We fol-
lowed the indication that RMSEA values lower than 0.05 are to be considered as indicative of close fit; values in the range of 0.05 to 0.08 indicate
fair fit, and values above 0.10 indicate poor fit (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003).
0.73 Activities (0.47)

0.79
(0.37) Particip1 Situational
0.56
interest Under-
standing (0.40)
0.77
Participation
0.86
0.90 Interest in (0.19)
(0.37) Particip2 history 1
0.79 Interest in
history
Interest in
(0.19)
0.90 history 2
0.82
Path diagram for the completely Self-perc. (0.25)
standardized solution of the model, 0.87
compet. 1
with structural coefficients and
Self-perception
measure errors (in brackets).
of competence Self-perc.
Completely standardized parameters (0.25)
are given. All paths are significant. 0.87 compet. 2
Fig. 1. Relationships between motivational variables after the intervention on World War I (discussion condition).
sample. We therefore decided to test a model with both participation and self-perception of competence as latent in-
dependent variables. This model fitted the data of the whole sample, c2 (19) 21.13, p > 0.05, RMSEA 0.037, but
did not fit the data of the two conditions. Fig. 3 shows the path diagram of the model. Self-perception of competence
directly affected individual interest in history, while participation affected situational interest, which in turn influenced
individual interest. This pattern of relations seemed to work irrespective of the different teaching conditions.
Our hypothesis that a teaching approach based on discussion could support situational and individual interest, and
self-perception of competence, and that an intervention based on individual problem-solving could underline self-
perception of competence, which should impact on situational and individual interest, is partially confirmed, since
this was true for the first intervention only. We are not therefore able to conclude that the effect of different instruc-
tional settings is independent of the topic to be taught. Specific features of the topic seemed to interact with different
teaching approaches in giving prominence to different motivational constructs.
0.77 Particip1 (0.40)

Self-perc. 0.62
(0.57)
compet. 1 0.82 Participation
Particip2 (0.46)
Self-perception 0.73
of competence
0.96 0.68 Activities (0.54)

Self-perc. 0.77
(0.39)
compet. 2
Situational
interest
Under- (0.73)
0.52
standing
0.94
Path diagram for the completely
Interest in
standardized solution of the model, 0.85 (0.25)
history 1
with structural coefficients and measure
errors (in brackets). Completely Interest in
standardized parameters are given. history
Interest in (0.35)
All paths are significant. 0.81 history 2
Fig. 2. Relationships between motivational variables after the intervention on World War I (individual problem-solving condition).
Self-perc. Interest in
(0.22) 0.88 (0.25)
compet. 1 0.87 history 1
Self-perception 0.55 Interest in
0.88 history
of competence
Self-perc. Interest in
(0.22) 0.87 (0.25)
compet. 2 history 2
0.40 0.46
(0.43) Particip1 Activities (0.53)

0.68
0.98 Situational
0.75 Participation
interest
0.71 Under-
(0.43) Particip2 0.75 (0.50)
standing
Path diagram for the completely standardized solution of the model, with structural
coefficients and measure errors (in brackets). Completely standardized parameters are given.
All paths are significant.
Fig. 3. Relationships between motivational variables after the intervention on the economic boom (all participants).
8. Discussion
In this study, two different instructional approaches aimed at stimulating situational interest were set up, the first
based on individual problem-solving, the second involving problem-solving through discussion. Four eighth grade
classes were involved in the study, and each intervention involved two classes. We hypothesised that stimulating
students active participation in learning, by having them argue and share the solution of historical problems, would
have positive effects on both cognitive (learning the topics and understanding epistemological procedures) and mo-
tivational aspects of learning (situational interest, topic interest, individual interest, self-perception of competence in
history).
Since several recent studies have shown the usefulness of discussion in supporting students reasoning strategies,
intrinsic motivation, and self-perception of competence in various disciplines (e.g., Ferretti et al., 2001; Hatano &
Inagaki, 1991; Pontecorvo & Girardet, 1993; Wigfield et al., 2004), we hypothesised that the use of discussion to solve
historical problems would support participants learning of specific historical topics and understanding of historical
inquiry. We also wanted to explore the motivational implications of a discussion-based teaching approach on students
situational, topic and individual interest, as well as on self-perception of competence in history. Results of this study
partially confirmed our first hypothesis. While no significant differences between discussion and individual problem-
solving conditions were found in learning scores of World War I and the economic boom, discussion group students
seemed to understand better the nature of historical inquiry, which we considered to be a form of general procedural
knowledge of history. Students are not usually taught this aspect explicitly, although procedural knowledge seems to
be a crucial factor in the development of expertise in a domain (Alexander, 1997, 2000; Murphy & Alexander, 2002).
These results echo those of other studies on discussion, where the effectiveness of this instructional approach in sup-
porting students use of domain-specific thinking strategies has been shown (e.g., Hatano & Inagaki, 1991; Miller,
2003; Pontecorvo & Girardet, 1993). However, our results seem to suggest that collaboration and discussion are par-
ticularly useful in increasing general domain-specific abilities, while individual problem-solving seems to support the
acquisition of specific contents as effectively as discussion. This conclusion is further supported by the participants
answers when asked to indicate anything new they had learned from the interventions. Students in the discussion con-
dition focused more on the effectiveness of studying with peers, and pointed out that this was a new way to study
history. The individual problem-solving students focused more on learning and understanding specific contents
that were neglected in their history books. Both teaching approaches therefore seem to offer potential benefits for
learning. Further research is needed to understand the specific contribution of instructional strategies based on indi-
vidual problem-solving and on problem-solving through discussion. For example, it would be worth understanding
whether comprehension of domain-specific epistemological procedures improves more through autonomous small
group discussions on a problem, or whole-class discussions guided by the teacher, where students questions and con-
cerns regarding a domain are allowed to emerge. Our intervention based on discussion included both elements.
Both teaching methods and topics seem to affect situational interest. Results show that students in the discussion
condition liked the activities on both topics more than students in the individual problem-solving condition. More-
over, students in the discussion condition reported higher evaluations of participation in the activities than those in
the individual problem-solving condition. No differences emerged regarding understanding of the topics. We can
therefore conclude that classroom discussion affects situational interest, since participants in the discussion condi-
tion gave better evaluations of some aspects of the learning environment. These results are similar to those of other
studies, where positive affective reactions have been observed when peer interaction was emphasized in the learn-
ing environment (e.g., Hidi, Weiss, Berndorff, & Nolan, 1998). On the other hand, a general decrease in measures
of situational interest, such as understanding the topic and participation in the activities, was found when dealing
with the economic boom, a topic that students reported to be less interesting than other historical contents. No
significant interaction between teaching methods and topics was found. These results can be usefully matched
with those derived from the open-ended questions addressing topic interest: participants said that World War I
was a particularly interesting topic, while the economic boom was not. Unlike the economic boom, World War
I seemed to work as a source of situational interest. Since no significant differences regarding topic interest
emerged between the two conditions, this variable did not seem to be influenced by the instructional approaches,
but rather by features of the contents, such as their complexity or perceived relevance (Hidi, 2001; Schraw et al.,
1995).
No differences emerged between the two teaching approaches regarding individual interest: a significant gain in
individual interest was observed in both groups, from the beginning to the end of the intervention on World War I.
This gain may be due to the effectiveness of both teaching methods, or to the effect of the topic and the attractiveness
of the history curriculum that followed. A third condition, where students were taught by a traditional method, would
have been useful to understand which of the two interpretations is correct.
As far as the second hypothesis is concerned, self-perception of competence seemed to remain quite stable in both
conditions. The absence of changes in self-perception of competence may be attributed to the fact that the interven-
tions were not long or powerful enough to impact on variables that tend to develop slowly, or to the kind of measures
used in the study. Since self-perception of competence was measured through items mainly dealing with students
study skills, it is possible that we did not find any change because our interventions did not include a specific training
in the ability to study history. Measures regarding specific aspects of the instructional interventions might have been
more sensitive to changes in self-perception of competence occurring in those settings. Further research studies, where
discussion and peer interaction are used for longer periods of time, are needed to understand whether self-perception
of competence, and situational and individual interest can be supported by the same features of the learning environ-
ment (Wigfield et al., 2004). However, our structural equation models partially support this view. In the intervention
on World War I, two different models explained relationships between motivational variables in the two conditions. In
the discussion condition, where relationships between peers and with adults were emphasized, participation in the
classes affected sources of situational interest such as enjoyment of the activities and understanding the topic. These
sources of situational interest impacted on both individual interest in history, as other scholars have shown (e.g., Hidi,
2000; Krapp et al., 1992; Silvia, 2001), and on self-perception of competence. Therefore, although comparisons
between the two conditions cannot support the view that teaching methods based on collaboration lead to greater un-
derstanding of the topics and self-perception of competence, structural equation models seem to suggest that these
relationships may need more time to emerge clearly. The individual problem-solving condition seemed to underline
the display of personal abilities and self-perception of competence. This variable affected participation in the classes
(and peer relationships) on the one hand, and enjoyment of the activities and understanding of the topic on the other.
Peer relationships, as measured by the factor participation, however, did not impact on the other sources of situational
interest, since in this case students worked alone, but enjoyment of the activities and understanding of the topic
seemed to impact on individual interest in history to some extent. This model suggests that self-perception of com-
petence may affect individual interest in a domain, as many scholars have previously argued (e.g., Betsworth & Fouad,
1997; Lent et al., 1994), and that this relation could be mediated by a third variable, namely situational interest. The
relation between self-perception of competence and individual interest might therefore change according to the sour-
ces of situational interest emphasized by different instructional interventions. Indeed, relationships between
motivational variables were different when the instructional intervention dealt with a less interesting topic, namely the
economic boom. While the activities designed for World War I produced different patterns of relationships between
the variables in the two conditions, this did not occur for the economic boom activities, where only one pattern
emerged. In this case, peer relationships worked as a support for interest affecting sources of situational interest,
such as enjoyment of the activities and understanding of the topic, which in turn impacted on individual interest in
history. Self-perception of competence, on the other hand, affected individual interest directly, that is without inter-
action with situational interest, since in this case situational interest might have been lowered by the less interesting
topic. This model seems to support the idea that both self-perception of competence and situational interest affect in-
dividual interest in different ways (Boscolo et al., 2007; Hidi et al., 2002).
Lastly, in the third hypothesis we assumed that individual interest in history would gradually increase after the in-
terventions on the two historical topics, as a consequence of the situational interest elicited by the instructional ap-
proach based on discussion. No significant gains in individual interest were observed after the intervention on the
economic boom, since possibly this intervention was not as interesting. A potentially interesting approach based
on discussion does not seem to be powerful enough to overcome the effect of a scarcely interesting topic. This prob-
ably leads to the conclusion that topics are crucial variables in intervention studies aimed at increasing students in-
dividual interest in a discipline (e.g., Baumert & Koller, 1998; Bergin, 1999).
This study examined the role of discussion in stimulating students interest in historical topics, thus contributing to
expanding the literature regarding both interest and discussion. Teaching approaches based on discussion seem to be
especially effective in supporting students understanding of basic principles and epistemological procedures of a dis-
cipline. Moreover, discussion seems to stimulate situational interest, especially when relevant topics are addressed.
With reference to interest, this study showed very complex relations between interest stimulated by the instructional
setting and by specific topics, and individual interest as well as self-perception of competence in a domain. Of course,
our study has several limitations and further research is needed to support our conclusions, since our analyses are
based on a limited number of subjects. As a whole, relationships between different motivational variables appear quite
complex, and deserve closer consideration in future research. The motivational aspects of a learning environment are
complex and difficult to distinguish and several other motivational variables should be taken into account. Further
intervention studies in carefully controlled learning environments are needed to confirm our results, and to shed
more light on the complex relation between teaching methods, topic features, and motivational variables. Moreover,
the use of self-reports has limitations, and this is especially true for interest, although our instruments had fair psy-
chometric characteristics. Changes in the emotional aspects of interest are difficult to detect by questionnaires, which
are a better measure of cognitive aspects such as evaluations. This consideration leads to a call for measures that are
more sensitive to transient aspects of experience, and that can be used in classroom settings. Lastly, in this study the
topic to be learned was regarded as a source of situational interest. Since gender-related differences in topic interest
have been observed in domains like language arts and physics (e.g., Ainley, Hillman, & Hidi, 2002; Hoffmann, 2002),
future studies could usefully examine if this is also true for history. Lastly, it may be worth the trouble to analyse fur-
ther how different instructional interventions and different topics interact in stimulating situational interest, since this
issue may be relevant for both theory and practice.
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank the principal of the school and the teachers who participated in the study for their help. We also
thank Patricia Alexander and three anonymous referees for their helpful comments on an earlier version of the paper.
Appendix A
Items included in the three measures of situational interest participation, understanding and activities
Participation:
In my view, World War I is an important topic.
I felt I was active in the learning activities on World War I.
I think the learning activities on World War I were nice.

I felt my views were considered important by the members of my group, during the learning activities on World
War I.
My classmates allowed me to pay attention to the lessons on World War I.
I felt my classmates were interested and involved in the leaning activities on World War I.
Understanding:
In my view, World War I is an interesting topic.
I think World War I is easy to understand.
I felt I was getting to the bottom of the topic during the learning activities on World War I.
I felt I was understanding the topic well, during the learning activities on World War I.
Activities:
I felt I paid attention to the learning activities on World War I.
I found the learning activities on World War I fun.
I think we were provided with all the tools and materials we needed to perform the learning activities on World
War I.
I think we were able to perform the learning activities on World War I.
I think we were given clear rules to carry out the activities on World War I.
I think we had a clear idea of what we were asked to do, in the learning activities on World War I.
Items included in the questionnaire on individual interest in history:
I think that studying history helps to develop my memory.

I believe past events are completely unrelated to recent ones.
I think some historical concepts are useful to understand recent events.
I seldom feel I would like to know something more about the historical topic Im studying.
I think that understanding the causes of past events is useful to understand what happens nowadays.
I feel I should reason when I study history.
I believe knowing and understanding history helps me to understand other disciplines too.
I think that studying history is useful to realize changes through time.
I feel I should state my ideas more clearly when I study history.
I like watching documentaries about historical topics.
I dont think studying history develops any particular capacity.
I think you can understand and appreciate several kinds of remains, if you know history well.
I appreciate people who know history well.
When I study history, I try to understand the causes of past events.
Items included in the questionnaire on self-perception of competence in history:
Its easy for me to keep pace with my teachers history classes.

Its easy for me to concentrate well when I study history.
Its easy for me to imagine past people and events described in my history book.
Its easy for me to pay attention during the history classes.
Its easy for me to learn by heart definitions, events, and dates related to history.
Its easy for me to select the most important information when I read a history text.
Its easy for me to connect the historical information I have already learnt with what I learned some time
ago.
Its easy for me to summarize and schematize the historical contents I have already learnt.
Its easy for me to grasp the meaning of graphs, schemas, or pictures in the history book.
Its easy for me to restate in my own words a new historical topic.
Its easy for me to look for the meaning of unknown words of the history book.
654
Appendix B. Correlation matrix among the variables included in the study
K of T: EB EB U of HI: After SI: P P after U after U after A after A after I in H: After Before After SP of C: After Before After
WW I (pre) (post) after EB after EB WW I EB WW I EB before WW I EB EB before WW I EB EB
(post) WW I WW I WW I WW I
L. Del Favero et al. / Learning and Instruction 17 (2007) 635e657

K of T
WW I (pre) 0.22* 0.12 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.08 0.04 0.30** 0.11 0.07 0.05 0.26* 0.26* 0.24* 0.24* 0.23* 0.17 0.11 0.08
WW I (post) 0.20 0.62** 0.48** 0.18 0.23* 0.13 0.15 0.23* 0.19 0.16 0.09 0.25* 0.26* 0.22* 0.33** 0.36** 0.43** 0.41**
EB (pre) 0.25* 0.17 0.04 0.08 0.06 0.10 0.19 0.06 0.04 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.12
EB (post) 0.39** 0.20 0.40** 0.26* 0.14 0.45** 0.21 0.22* 0.19 0.34** 0.32** 0.24* 0.34** 0.34** 0.37** 0.34**
U of HI
After WW I 0.22* 0.23* 0.17 0.08 0.26* 0.33** 0.15 0.15 0.25* 0.17 0.20 0.29** 0.28** 0.29** 0.33**
After EB 0.12 0.09 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.13 0.13 0.05 0.10 0.01 0.02 0.09 0.13 0.01
SI
P after WW I 0.63** 0.28** 0.45** 0.50** 0.51** 0.38** 0.47** 0.44** 0.46** 0.35** 0.35** 0.36** 0.36**
P after EB 0.19 0.48** 0.42** 0.57** 0.26* 0.38** 0.58** 0.57** 0.27* 0.31** 0.34** 0.30**
U after WW I 0.25* 0.45** 0.32** 0.32** 0.57** 0.45** 0.49** 0.51** 0.56** 0.50** 0.37**
U after EB 0.39** 0.56** 0.19 0.35** 0.41** 0.35** 0.41** 0.37** 0.44** 0.39**
A after WW I 0.62** 0.37** 0.59** 0.53** 0.47** 0.42** 0.41** 0.38** 0.34**
A after EB 0.38** 0.52** 0.61** 0.49** 0.42** 0.37** 0.45** 0.36**
I in H
Before WW I 0.66** 0.69** 0.65** 0.56** 0.51** 0.52** 0.46**
After WW I 0.77** 0.76** 0.56** 0.65** 0.63** 0.57**
Before EB 0.84** 0.49** 0.50** 0.57** 0.50**
After EB 0.44** 0.55** 0.61** 0.62**
SP of C
Before WW I 0.79** 0.72** 0.66**
After WW I 0.82** 0.81**
Before EB 0.86**
*Level of significance <0.05; **level of significance <0.01.
References
Ainley, M., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 94, 545e561.
Ainley, M., Hillman, K., & Hidi, S. (2002). Gender and interest processes in response to literary texts: Situational and individual interest. Learning
and Instruction, 12, 411e428.
Alexander, P. A. (1997). Mapping the multidimensional nature of domain learning: the interplay of cognitive, motivational and strategic
forces. In M. L. Maehr, & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, Vol. 10 (pp. 213e250). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Alexander, P. A. (2000). Toward a model of academic development: schooling and the acquisition of knowledge. Educational Researcher, 29,
28e33.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122e147.
Baumert, J., & Koller, O. (1998). Interest research in secondary level I: an overview. In L. Hoffmann, A. Krapp, K. A. Renninger, & J. Baumert
(Eds.), Interest and learning (pp. 241e256). Kiel: IPN.
Bergin, D. A. (1999). Influences on classroom interest. Educational Psychologist, 34, 87e98.
Betsworth, D. G., & Fouad, N. A. (1997). Vocational interests: a look at the past 70 years and a glance at the future. The Career Development
Quarterly, 46, 23e47.
Bollen, K., & Long, J. S. (Eds.). (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: how different are they really? Educational Psychology Review, 15,
1e40.
Booth, M. (1994). Cognition in history: a British perspective. Educational Psychologist, 29, 61e69.
Boscolo, P., Del Favero, L., & Borghetto, M. (2007). Writing on an interesting topic: does writing foster interest? In S. Hidi, & P. Boscolo (Eds.),
Writing and motivation (pp. 73e91). Oxford: Elsevier.
Boscolo, P., & Hidi, S. (2007). The multiple meanings of motivation to write. In S. Hidi, & P. Boscolo (Eds.), Writing and motivation (pp. 1e14).
Oxford: Elsevier.
Boscolo, P., & Mason, L. (2003). Topic knowledge, text coherence and interest: how they interact in learning from instructional texts. The Journal
of Experimental Education, 71, 126e148.
Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in education: developing appreciation for particular learning domains and
activities. Educational Psychologist, 34, 75e85.
Carretero, M., & Voss, J. F. (1994). Cognitive and instructional processes in history and the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Chen, A., & Darst, P. W. (2002). Individual and situational interest: the role of gender and skill. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27,
250e269.
Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization
and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 715e730.
Courtney, D. P., Courtney, M., & Nicholson, C. (1992). The effect of cooperative learning as an instructional practice at the college level. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Knoxville, TN (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 354 808).
Cowie, H., & van der Aalsvoort, G. (2000). Social interaction in learning and instruction. Oxford: Elsevier.
Crook, C. (1994). Computers and the collaborative experience of learning. London: Routledge.
Deci, E. L. (1992). The relation of interest to the motivation of behavior: a self-determination theory perspective. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, &
A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 43e69). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Deci, E. L. (1998). The relation of interest to motivation and human needs: the self-determination theory viewpoint. In L. Hoffmann, A. Krapp,
K. A. Renninger, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Interest and learning (pp. 146e162). Kiel: IPN.
Diegelman, N. M., & Mezydlo Subich, L. (2001). Academic and vocational interests as a function of outcome expectancies in social cognitive
career theory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 394e405.
Dorman, J. P. (2001). Associations between classroom environment and academic efficacy. Learning Environment Research, 4, 243e257.
Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: explaining an emergent argument in
a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399e483.
Ferretti, R. P., MacArthur, C. D., & Okolo, C. M. (2001). Teaching for historical understanding in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 24, 59e71.
Goldman, S. R., Mayfield-Stewart, C., Bateman, H. V., & Pellegrino, J. W. the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1998). En-
vironments that support meaningful learning. In L. Hoffmann, A. Krapp, K. A. Renninger, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Interest and learning
(pp. 184e196). Kiel: IPN.
Guthrie, J. T., & Alao, S. (1997). Designing contexts to increase motivations for reading. Educational Psychologist, 32, 95e105.
Guthrie, J. T., & Cox, K. E. (2001). Classroom conditions for motivation and engagement in reading. Educational Psychology Review, 13,
283e302.
Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1991). Sharing cognition through collective comprehension activity. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley
(Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 331e348). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60, 549e571.
Hidi, S. (1995). A reexamination of the role of attention in learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 323e350.
Hidi, S. (2000). An interest researchers perspective: the effects of extrinsic and intrinsic factors on motivation. In C. Sansone, &
J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (pp. 309e339). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hidi, S. (2001). Interest, reading, and learning: theoretical and practical considerations. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 191e209.
Hidi, S., Berndorff, D., & Ainley, M. (2002). Childrens argument writing, interest and self-efficacy: an intervention study. Learning and Instruc-
tion, 12, 429e446.
Hidi, S., & Boscolo, P. (2006). Motivation and writing. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp.
144e157). New York: Guilford.
Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: a critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational
Research, 70, 151e179.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41, 111e127.
Hidi, S., Weiss, J., Berndorff, D., & Nolan, J. (1998). The role of gender, instruction and a cooperative learning technique in science education
across formal and informal settings. In L. Hoffmann, A. Krapp, K. A. Renninger, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Interest and learning (pp. 215e227).
Kiel: IPN.
Hoffmann, L. (2002). Promoting girls interest and achievement in physics classes for beginners. Learning and Instruction, 12, 447e465.
Isaac, J. D., Sansone, C., & Smith, J. L. (1999). Other people as a source of interest in an activity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35,
239e265.
Jetton, T. L., & Alexander, P. A. (2001). Interest assessment and the content area literacy environment: challenges for research and practice. Ed-
ucational Psychology Review, 13, 303e318.
Jolliffe, I. T. (2002). Principal component analysis. New York: Springer.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: Users reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Krapp, A., Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (1992). Interest, learning and development. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of
interest in learning and development (pp. 3e25). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kumpulainen, K. (1996). The nature of peer interaction in the social context created by the use of word processors. Learning and Instruction, 6,
243e261.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice and perfor-
mance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79e122.
Mason, L., & Boscolo, P. (2004). Role of epistemological understanding and interest in interpreting a controversy and in topic-specific belief
change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 103e128.
Miller, S. M. (2003). How literature discussion shapes thinking: ZPDs for teaching/learning habits of the heart and mind. In B. Gindis, &
A. Kozulin (Eds.), Vygotskys educational theory in cultural context (pp. 289e316). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics classrooms. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 85, 424e436.
Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (2002). What counts? The predictive powers of subject-matter knowledge, strategic processing, and interest in
domain-specific performance. The Journal of Experimental Education, 70, 197e214.
ODonnell, A. M., & King, A. (1999). Cognitive perspectives on peer learning. Rutgers invitational symposium on education. Mahwah, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum Associates.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543e578.
Palincsar, A. S., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (1999). Designing collaborative contexts: lessons from three research programs. In A. King, &
A. M. ODonnell (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 151e177). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Paris, S. G., Yambor, K. M., & Packard, B. W. (1998). Hands-on biology: a museum-school-university partnership for enhancing students interest
and learning in science. The Elementary School Journal, 98, 267e288.
Pontecorvo, C. (1993). Social interaction and knowledge acquisition. Educational Psychology Review, 5, 293e310.
Pontecorvo, C., & Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 365e395.
Rasch, G. (1992). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago, IL: Mesa Press.
Renninger, K. A. (2000). Individual interest and its implications for understanding intrinsic motivation. In C. Sansone, & J. M. Harackiewicz
(Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (pp. 405e439). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Rottinghaus, P. J., Larson, L. M., & Borgen, F. H. (2003). The relation of self-efficacy and interests: a meta-analysis of 60 samples. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 62, 221e236.
Schank, R. C. (1979). Interestingness: controlling inferences. Artificial Intelligence, 12, 273e297.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Muller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descrip-
tive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research e Online, 8(2), 23e74.
Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 299e323.
Schiefele, U. (1998). Individual interest and learning. What we know and what we dont know. In L. Hoffmann, A. Krapp, K. A. Renninger, &
J. Baumert (Eds.), Interest and learning (pp. 91e104). Kiel: IPN.
Schiefele, U., & Rheinberg, F. (1997). Motivation and knowledge acquisition: Searching for mediating processes. In M. L. Maehr, & P. R. Pintrich
(Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, Vol 10 (pp. 251e301). Oxford: Elsevier.
Schraw, G., Bruning, R., & Svoboda, C. (1995). Sources of situational interest. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27, 1e17.
Silvia, P. J. (2001). Interest and interests: the psychology of constructive capriciousness. Review of General Psychology, 5, 270e290.
Silvia, P. J. (2003). Self-efficacy and interest: experimental studies of optimal incompetence. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 237e249.
Spoehr, K. T., & Spoehr, L. W. (1994). Learning to think historically. Educational Psychologist, 29, 71e77.
Vygotskij, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Watkins, D. (1989). The role of confirmatory factor analysis in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychology, 24, 685e701.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). The development of competence beliefs, expectancies for success, and achievement values from childhood
through adolescence. In A. Wigfield, & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 91e120). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Tonks, S., & Perencevich, K. C. (2004). Childrens motivation for reading: domain specificity and instructional in-
fluences. Journal of Educational Research, 97, 299e309.
Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1996). The effects of playing historian on learning in history. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 63e72.
Wineburg, S. S. (1994). Out of our past and into our future e the psychological study of learning and teaching history. Educational Psychologist,
29, 57e60.

Favero - 2007 Classroom Discussion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Favero - 2007 Classroom Discussion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Learning and Instruction 17 (2007) 635e657

Classroom discussion and individual problem-solving

* Corresponding author. Fax: 39 049 827 6511.

2. Interest research: an overview

3. The role of discussion and problem-solving in stimulating situational interest

4. Relation between interest and competence-related beliefs

5. The present investigation

6.2.1. Preliminary phase: interview with the history teachers

6.2.2. Learning activities

6.2.3. Discussion of history as a domain and school subject

6.3.1. Knowledge of the topics

6.3.2. Understanding of historical inquiry

6.3.3. Situational interest

6.3.4. Topic interest

6.3.5. Individual interest in history

6.3.6. Self-perception of competence in studying history

7.1. Knowledge of the topics

7.2. Understanding of historical inquiry

7.3. Situational interest

7.4. Topic interest

7.5. Individual interest in history

7.6. Self-perception of competence

7.7. Structural models

0.73 Activities (0.47)

0.77 Particip1 (0.40)

0.96 0.68 Activities (0.54)

(0.43) Particip1 Activities (0.53)

I think the learning activities on World War I were nice.

Items included in the questionnaire on individual interest in history:

I think that studying history helps to develop my memory.

Items included in the questionnaire on self-perception of competence in history:

Its easy for me to keep pace with my teachers history classes.

L. Del Favero et al. / Learning and Instruction 17 (2007) 635e657

You might also like