Acquiring scientific knowledge about physical activity is necessary for students to become physically literate for life, and cognitive engagement and cognitive levels of tasks are two components that often determine the effectiveness of knowledge acquisition. This study sought to determine the extent to which students’ cognitive engagement in descriptive, relational and reasoning learning tasks contributed to their acquisition of knowledge and the extent to which cognitive engagement on lower-level tasks contributed to higher-level tasks (e.g. descriptive to relational to reasoning). The performance of students in descriptive, relational and reasoning tasks and knowledge acquisition was measured in 992 middle school students in active physical education lessons. The results revealed that students’ performance in relational (regression coefficient = 0.09, p < 0.01) and reasoning (regression coefficient = 0.06, p < 0.01) tasks directly contributed to their acquisition of knowledge (R2 = 0.14). The performance of students in descriptive tasks indirectly contributed to knowledge acquisition through influencing their performance in relational and reasoning tasks (indirect effect = 0.09, p < 0.01).
AndersonLWKrathwohlDR (2001) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (complete edition). New York: Longman.
2.
BarakMShakhmanL (2008) Fostering higher-order thinking in science class: teachers’ reflections. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice14(3): 191–208.
3.
BarnettJEFrancisAL (2012) Using higher order thinking questions to foster critical thinking: A classroom study. Educational Psychology32(2): 201–211.
4.
BloomBS (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook I – Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay.
5.
BookerMJ (2007) A roof without walls: Benjamin Bloom’s taxonomy and the misdirection of American education. Academic Questions20(4): 347–355.
6.
BulgrenJAMarquisJGLenzBKDeshlerDDSchumakerJB (2011) The effectiveness of a question–exploration routine for enhancing the content learning of secondary students. Journal of Educational Psychology103(3): 578–593.
7.
BybeeRWBuchwaldCECrissmanSHeilDRKuerbisPJMatsumotoCMcInerneyJD (1989) Science and Technology Education for the Elementary Years: Frameworks for Curriculum and Instruction. Washington, DC: National Center for Improving Science Education.
8.
ChapmanE (2003) Alternative approaches to assessing student engagement rates. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation8(13). Available at: http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=13 (accessed 30 July 2017).
9.
CityEAElmoreRFFiarmanSETeitelL (2009) Instructional Rounds in Education: A Network Approach to Improving Teaching and Learning. Boston, MA: Harvard Education Press.
10.
CornoLMandinachEB (1983) The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist18(2): 88–108.
DoyleW (1983) Academic work. Review of Educational Research53(2): 159–199.
13.
EnnisCD (1992) Reconceptualizing learning as a dynamical system. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision7(2): 115–130.
14.
EnnisCD (2007) The 2006 CH McCloy research lecture: Defining learning as conceptual change in physical education and physical activity settings. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport78(3): 138–150.
15.
EnnisCD (2008) Examining curricular coherence in an exemplary elementary school program. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport79(1): 71–84.
16.
EnnisCD (2013) Reimagining professional competence in physical education. Motriz: Revista de Educação Física19(4): 662–672.
17.
EnnisCD (2015) Knowledge, transfer, and innovation in physical literacy curricula. Journal of Sport and Health Science4(2): 119–124.
FurstEJ (1981) Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives for the cognitive domain: Philosophical and educational issues. Review of Educational Research51(4): 441–453.
20.
GraesserACMcNamaraDSVanLehnK (2005) Scaffolding deep comprehension strategies through point&query, autotutor, and iSTART. Educational Psychologist40(4): 225–234.
21.
HayesAF (2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. A Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford.
22.
HiebertJWearneD (1993) Instructional tasks, classroom discourse, and students’ learning in second-grade arithmetic. American Educational Research Journal30(2): 393–425.
23.
HungDTanSCKohTS (2006) From traditional to constructivist epistemologies: A proposed theoretical framework based on activity theory for learning communities. Journal of Interactive Learning Research17(1): 37–55.
24.
KisaMTSteinMK (2015) Learning to see teaching in new ways: A foundation for maintaining cognitive demand. American Educational Research Journal52(1): 105–136.
25.
KoBWallheadTWardP (2006) Professional development workshops: What do teachers learn and use?Journal of Teaching in Physical Education25(4): 397–412.
26.
MorrowJRJacksonAWDischJGMoodDP (2005) Measurement and Evaluation in Human Performance (3rd edition). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
27.
MuhlenbruckLCooperHNyeBLindsayJJ (1999) Homework and achievement: Explaining the different strength of relation at the elementary and secondary school levels. Social Psychology of Education3(4): 295–317.
28.
NewellKM (1986) Constraints on the development of coordination. In: WadeMGWhitingHTA (eds) Motor Development in Children: Aspects of Coordination and Control. Boston, MA: Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 341–360.
PaulRW (1993) Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs to Survive in A Rapidly Changing World. Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.
31.
PenneyDChandlerT (2000) Physical education: What future (s)?Sport, Education and Society5(1): 71–87.
32.
PlassJLMorenoRBrünkenR (2010) Cognitive Load Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33.
RovegnoIDollyJP (2006) Constructivist perspectives on learning. In: KirkDMacDonaldDO’SullivanM (ed.) Handbook of Physical Education. London: Sage, pp. 242–261.
34.
SeddonGM (1978) The properties of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives for the cognitive domain. Review of Educational Research48(2): 303–323.
35.
SHAPE (Society of Health and Physical Educators in America) (2014) National Standards & Grade-level Outcomes for K–12 Physical Education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
36.
SockettH (1971) Bloom’s Taxonomy: A philosophical critique (1). Cambridge Journal of Education1(1): 16–25.
37.
SteinMKGroverBWHenningsenM (1996) Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal33(2): 455–488.
SunHChenAZhuXEnnisCD (2012) Curriculum matters: Learning science-based fitness knowledge in constructivist physical education. The Elementary School Journal113(2): 215–229.
40.
TaboadaAGuthrieJT (2006) Contributions of student questioning and prior knowledge to construction of knowledge from reading information text. Journal of Literacy Research38(1): 1–35.
41.
TracyRJRankinEF (1967) Methods of computing and evaluating residual gain scores in the reading program. Journal of Reading10(6): 363–371.
42.
WardP (2013) The role of content knowledge in conceptions of teaching effectiveness in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport84(4): 431–440.
43.
WardPDoutisP (1999) Toward a consolidation of the knowledge base for reform in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education18(4): 382–402.
44.
WilsonCDTaylorJAKowalskiSMCarlsonJ (2010) The relative effects and equity of inquiry-based and commonplace science teaching on students’ knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching47(3): 276–301.
45.
ZhangTChenAChenSHongDLoflinJEnnisCD (2014) Constructing cardiovascular fitness knowledge in physical education. European Physical Education Review20(4): 1–19.
46.
ZhuXChenAEnnisCDSunHHoppleCBonelloMBaeMKimS (2009) Situational interest, cognitive engagement, and achievement in physical education. Contemporary Educational Psychology34(3): 221–229.
