This study used the two variables at the individual level of students (i.e., engagement and curiosity) and five teacher group variables at the school level (i.e., inquiry belief, non-inquiry belief, school support for the teacher community, school support for innovative teaching, and teaching experience) as independent variables to discuss how these factors influence the students’ scientific inquiry abilities. This study also examined whether school level variables affect the cross-level moderated mediation on the scientific inquiry abilities of students by mediating the student level variables and explored for the cross-level moderation in the school level variables that may occur. In this investigation, spanning 32 junior and senior high schools including 494 teachers and 1,926 students, hierarchical linear modeling was used to analyze the relationship among the variables at different levels. The findings of this study are as follows: (1) The two variables, engagement and curiosity, at the individual level of students have a direct and positive effect on scientific inquiry abilities. (2) Inquiry belief, school support for the teacher community, and school support for innovative teaching have a cross-level direct effect on the scientific inquiry abilities of students. Here, the effect of school support for innovative teaching is positive and direct, whereas the effects of inquiry belief and school support for the teacher community are negative and direct. (3) Teaching experience can influence students’ performance of scientific inquiry abilities through engagement, which demonstrates a cross-level moderated mediation. That is, teaching experience not only has an obvious and indirect effect on scientific inquiry abilities but also provides positive moderation. (4) Inquiry belief provides positive moderation on the relationship between curiosity and the performance of scientific inquiry abilities. Similarly, curiosity demonstrates positive moderation on the relationship between inquiry belief and scientific inquiry abilities. In other words, when curiosity gradually increases, inquiry belief gradually decrease a negative effect on scientific inquiry abilities. Finally, curiosity, increasing to a certain extent, moderates inquiry belief, thus having a positive effect on scientific inquiry abilities that are gradually strengthening.

» More

1. 吳百興（2018）。建構高中學生探究能力之影響模式：從學習經驗、科學好奇心以及科學投入的因素進行探討（未出版博士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學。 【Wu, P.-H. (2018). A structural models of the influence on secondary school students’ inquiry abilities: Investigating the relationships among the learning experiences, inquiry-related curiosity, engagement, and inquiry abilities of students [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. National Taiwan Normal University.】
2. 吳清山、林天祐（2014）。教育U辭書。高等教育。 【Wu, C.-S., & Lin, T.-Y. (2014). U dictionary of education. Higher Education.】
3. 李宜玫、孫頌賢（2010）。大學生選課自主性動機與學習投入之關係。教育科學研究期刊，55（1），155-182。https://doi.org/10.3966/2073753X2010035501006  【Lee, Y.-M., & Sun, S.-H. (2010). The relationship between autonomous motivation of course-taking and learning engagement on college students. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 55(1), 155-182. https://doi.org/10.3966/2073753X2010035501006】
4. 林小慧、吳心楷（2019）。科學探究能力評量之標準設定與其效度檢核。教育心理學報，50（3），473-502。https://doi.org/10.6251/BEP.201903_50(3).0005  【Lin, H.-H., & Wu, H.-K. (2019). Validating the standard setting on multimedia-based assessment of scientific inquiry abilities. Bulletin of Educational Psychology, 50(3), 473-502. https://doi.org/10.6251/BEP.201903_50(3).0005】
5. 林小慧、林世華、吳心楷（2018）。科學能力的建構反應評量之發展與信效度分析：以自然科光學為例。教育科學研究期刊，63（1），173-205。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.2018.63(1).06  【Lin, H.-H., Lin, S.-H., & Wu, H.-K. (2018). Developing and validating a constructed-response assessment of scientific abilities: A case of the optics unit. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 63(1), 173-205. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.2018.63(1).06】
6. 林蓓伶、潘昌志、蘇少祖、陳柏熹（2018）。十二年國教國中階段自然科學領域素養導向評量試題之開發與初探。教育科學研究期刊，63（4），295-337。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.201812_63(4).0010  【Lin, P.-L., Pan, C.-C., Su, S.-Z., & Chen, P.-H. (2018). Development of assessments for scientific literacy based on curriculum guidelines for 12-year basic education in science domains. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 63(4), 295-337. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.201812_63(4).0010】
7. 張景媛（1997）。國中生之正負向情緒與其後設認知、學習動機關係之研究。教育心理學報，29，51-76。https://doi.org/10.6251/BEP.19970901.3 【Chang, C.-Y. (1997). A study of the relationship between junior high school students’ positive/negative emotion, metacognition, and learning motivation. Bulletin of Educational Psychology, 29, 51-76. https://doi.org/10.6251/BEP.19970901.3】
8. 陳玉玲（2003）。國小學生內、外在動機在數學學業表現中的角色。教育學刊，21，173-193。 【Chen, Y.-L. (2003). The role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in predicting mathematical performance for primary school students. Educational Review, 21, 173-193.】
9. 溫福星、邱皓政（2009）。組織研究中的多層次調節式中介效果：以組織創新氣氛、組織承諾與工作滿意的實證研究為例。管理學報，26（2），189-211。https://doi.org/10.6504/JOM.2009.26.02.05 【Wen, F.-H., & Chiou, H.-J. (2009). Multilevel moderated mediation of organizational study: An empirical analysis of organizational innovation climate, organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of Management, 26(2), 189-211. https://doi.org/10.6504/JOM.2009.26.02.05】
10. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Oxford University Press.
11. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall.
12. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
13. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
14. Barab, S. A., & Luehmann, A. L. (2003). Building sustainable science curriculum: Acknowledging and accommodating local adaptation. Science Education, 87(4), 454-467. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10083
15. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
16. Beaubien, J. M., Hamman, W. R., Holt, R. W., & Boehm-Davis, D. A. (2001). The application of hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) techniques to commercial aviation research. The Ohio State University Press.
17. Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137-164). Sage.
18. Bybee, R. W., & Landes, N. M. (1988). The biological sciences curriculum study (BSCS). Science and Children, 25(8), 36-37.
19. Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students’ questions: A potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260701828101
20. Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement. Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7
21. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
22. Cohn, E., & Geske, T. G. (1990). The economics of education. Pergamon.
23. Collins, L. M., Graham, J. J., & Flaherty, B. P. (1998). An alternative framework for defining mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33(2), 295-312. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3302_5
24. Connell, J. P., Spencer, M. B., & Aber, J. L. (1994). Educational risk and resilience in African- American youth: Context, self, action, and outcomes in school. Child Development, 65(2), 493-506. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131398
25. Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613-642. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20157
26. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching. National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.
27. Day, H. I. (1982). Curiosity and the interested explorer. Performance & Instruction, 21(4), 19-22. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4170210410
28. Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737024002081
29. Dolezal, S. E., Welsh, L. M., Pressley, M., & Vincent, M. M. (2003). How nine third-grade teachers motivate student academic engagement. The Elementary School Journal, 103(3), 239-267. https://doi.org/10.1086/499725
30. Engel, S. (2011). Children’s need to know: Curiosity in schools. Harvard Educational Review, 81(4), 625-645. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.81.4.h054131316473115
31. 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(4), 399-483. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_1
32. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
33. Gill, J. (2003). Hierarchical linear models. In K. Kempf-Leonard (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social measurement (pp. 209-214). Elsevier.
34. Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479-507. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163531
35. Greene, B. A., Miller, R. B., Crowson, H. M., Duke, B. L., & Akey, K. L. (2004). Predicting high school students’ cognitive engagement and achievement: Contributions of classroom perceptions and motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(4), 462-482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.006
36. Harwood, W. S., Hansen, J., & Lotter, C. (2006). Measuring teacher beliefs about inquiry: The development of a blended qualitative/quantitative instrument. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 69-79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-0357-4
37. Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111-127. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4
38. Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24(5), 623-641. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(99)80077-4
39. Jirout, J., & Klahr, D. (2012). Children’s scientific curiosity: In search of an operational definition of an elusive concept. Developmental Review, 32(2), 125-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2012.04.002
40. Johnson, C. C. (2009). An examination of effective practice: Moving toward elimination of achievement gaps in science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(3), 287-306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9134-y
41. Johnson, C. C., Kahle, J. B., & Fargo, J. D. (2007). A study of the effect of sustained, whole-school professional development on student achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 775-786. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20149
42. Kahraman, N. (2014). Cross-grade comparison of relationship between students’ engagement and TIMSS 2011 science achievement. Education and Science, 39(172), 95-107.
43. Kelly, S. (2008). Race, social class, and student engagement in middle school English classrooms. Social Science Research, 37(2), 434-448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2007.08.003
44. Kenny, D. A., Korchmaros, J. D., & Bolger, N. (2003). Lower level mediation in multilevel models. Psychological Methods, 8(2), 115-128. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.8.2.115
45. Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). The Guilford Press.
46. Krull, J. L., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2001). Multilevel modeling of individual and group level mediated effects. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36(2), 249-277. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3602_06
47. Kuo, C.-Y., Wu, H.-K., Jen, T.-H., & Hsu, Y.-S. (2015). Development and validation of a multimedia-based assessment of scientific inquiry abilities. International Journal of Science Education, 37(14), 2326-2357. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1078521
48. Kwan, R. (2000). How can I tap into children’s curiosity in science?. In J. Minstrell & E. H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 148-150). American Association for the Advancement of Science.
49. Lawrenz, F., Wood, N. B., Kirchhoff, A., Kim, N. K., & Eisenkraft, A. (2009). Variables affecting physics achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(9), 961-976. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20292
50. Lawson, A. E. (1978). The development and validation of a classroom test of formal reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15(1), 11-24. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660150103
51. Leibham, M. B., Alexander, J. M., & Johnson, K. E. (2013). Science interests in preschool boys and girls: Relations to later self-concept and science achievement. Science Education, 97(4), 574-593. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21066
52. Liu, O. L., Lee, H.-S., & Linn, M. C. (2010). An investigation of teacher impact on student inquiry science performance using a hierarchical linear model. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 807-819. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20372
53. Lotter, C., Harwood, W. S., & Bonner, J. (2007). The influence of core teaching conceptions on teachers’ use of inquiry teaching practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(9), 1318-1347. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20191
54. MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1, 173-181. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1026595011371
55. Maor, D., & Taylor, P. C. (1995). Teacher epistemology and scientific inquiry in computerized classroom environments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(8), 839-854. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660320807
56. Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 153-184. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163475
57. Mathieu, J. E., & Taylor, S. R. (2007). A framework for testing meso-mediational relationships in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(2), 141-172. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.436
58. McNay, M. (1985). Science: All the wonder things. Childhood Education, 61(5), 375-378. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.1985.10522361
59. McNeill, K. L., Pimentel, D. S., & Strauss, E. G. (2013). The impact of high school science teachers’ beliefs, curricular enactments and experience on student learning during an inquiry-based urban ecology curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 35(15), 2608-2644. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.618193
60. Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13(2), 125-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7757(94)90003-5
61. National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12190
62. Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25(3), 261-290. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40171413
63. Oh, D. M., Ankers, A. M., Llamas, J. M., & Tomyoy, C. (2005). Impact of pre-service student teaching experience on urban school teachers. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32(1), 82-98.
64. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Sage.
65. Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. T., Jr. (2004). HLM 6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Scientific Software International.
66. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211-246. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002211
67. Rice, J. K. (2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes. Economic Policy Institute.
68. Shernoff, D. J., Kelly, S., Tonks, S. M., Anderson, B., Cavanagh, R. F., Sinha, S., & Abdi, B. (2016). Student engagement as a function of environmental complexity in high school classrooms. Learning and Instruction, 43, 52-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.12.003
69. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422-445. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422
70. Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571-581. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571
71. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290-312. https://doi.org/10.2307/270723
72. Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 221-258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-006-0001-8
73. Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 963-980. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200011)37:9<963::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-0
74. Supovitz, J. A., Mayer, D. P., & Kahle, J. B. (2000). Promoting inquiry-based instructional practice: The longitudinal impact of professional development in the context of systemic reform. Educational Policy, 14(3), 331-356. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904800014003001
75. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Barr, M. (2004). Fostering student learning: The relationship of collective teacher efficacy and student Achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(3), 189-209. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760490503706
76. Wohlwill, J. F. (1987). Introduction. In D. Gorlitz & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Curiosity, imagination, and play: On the development of spontaneous cognitive and motivational processes (pp. 1-21). Lawrence Erlbaum.
77. Wu, H.-K., & Huang, Y.-L. (2007). Ninth-grade student engagement in teacher-centered and student- centered technology-enhanced learning environments. Science Education, 91(5), 727-749. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20216
78. Zhang, Z., Zyphur, M. J., & Preacher, K. J. (2009). Testing multilevel mediation using hierarchical linear models: Problems and solutions. Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 695-719. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428108327450

APA Format	Lin, H.-H., Kuo, C.-Y., & Wu, H.-K. (2021). Relationship among engagement and curiosity of individual level variables of students, group level variables of teachers, and scientific inquiry abilities: Conference of cross-level moderated mediation. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 66(2), 75-110. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202106_66(2).0003