THE EFFECTS OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE EDUCATION
STANDARDS ON THE ATTITUDES TOWARD SCIENCE IN MIDDLE SCHOOL GIRLS
Carolyn A.
Hayes,
Abstract
Providing an equitable classroom environment has been the focus of studies to improve females’ perception of science and the viability of science as a career. Equity programs demonstrating the principles of constructivism that are found within the National Science Education Standards (NSES) have resulted in positive changes in females. This study examined the relationship between classroom practice that adheres to the NSES and the development of positive attitudes toward science in seventh grade girls. Utilizing interviews, the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol and the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey, the implementation of the NSES in middle school science classrooms of teachers who had experienced the NSES in their science methods class and of teachers who did not have NSES presented in their science methods class was measured. Results from the Attitude Toward Science survey, the Draw-A-Scientist Test and interviews completed by the middle school students were compared to the implementation of the NSES. There were no significant differences in attitude toward science in females enrolled in the NSES methods classroom and the no NSES methods classroom. Qualitative data revealed factors in the science classroom environment that appear to influence positive female attitudes toward science. When females are given opportunities to try different methodologies in solving problems, opportunities to share and test ideas, and opportunities to voice their opinions about their learning positive attitudes toward science are formed. These factors are found embedded in teaching standards A, B and E of the NSES. Knowledge about the impact of these standards on female attitudes can be utilized not only in the science classroom but also in professional development and pre-service opportunities for educators.
Introduction
Reports such as Shortchanging Girls: Shortchanging
Association of University Women (AAUW), 1994) and
Educational Equity for Girls
& Women (Bae, Choy, Geddes, Sable, and Snyder, 2000;
Freeman, 2004) indicated gender differences in science attitudes still occur
and these differences determined whether a student elects to pursue science and
engineering as a career. Data collected from fourth, eighth, and twelfth
graders not only illustrated an overall trend of declining attitudes toward
science and perceptions of being able to do science but also an increase in the
differences between male and females as a student gets older (National Science
Foundation (NSF), 2000; Bae, et al., 2000). In addition, the data revealed a
connection of positive attitudes and aspirations of science careers in females.
The identification of a teacher’s behavior in the classroom toward her students
and the structure of the curriculum are seen as the means to promote gender
equity.
The idea of providing a more gender equitable classroom is not a new concept, but the difficulty lies in trying to determine the pedagogy that will connect with girls and prove to bring about positive attitudes toward science. Mason & Kahle (1988) revealed that intervention strategies focusing on gender equity brought about change in girls’ attitude, participation, and interest in science. Even with the knowledge that societal attitudes toward science and appropriate gender roles have a great influence on students, they recognized that a change in the classroom environment could be effective in eliminating gender differences as a result of their research.
The awareness of boys’ and girls’ attitude toward
science and their active participation in the science classroom has caused
teachers and researchers to acquire more information about this relationship of
gender and science. A conceptual framework describing this relationship and the
factors involved was proposed by Kahle, Parker, Rennie and Riley (1993). This
gender and science model provided sources of influence that affect gender
differences in science. This model
included the influences that occur before the student arrives in the classroom
as well as what occurs in the classroom. Studies by Jarvis & Pell (2002),
Joyce & Farenga (1999), and Kahle & Lakes (1983) demonstrated that
socio-cultural backgrounds form ideas about gender in science. Views of science
being masculine (Barman, 1999b; Kahle & Meece, 1994; and Fung (2002)) are
found within the images students bring to the classroom. Thus, the previous
experiences of both the teacher and the student are important concepts for the
gender and science model. A student’s degree of previous experiences will vary
due to sex of the student, family life, community location and local educational
system (Kahle & Lakes, 1983). “Rural Girls In Science” is an example of a
program where the researchers understood the importance of including the whole
school, family, and community in changing the cultural aspect of science
attitudes and included that aspect in the design of the program (Ginorio,
Huston, Frevert, & Seibel, 2002).
Central to the gender and science model is the
teacher and her behavior.
Teacher behavior is not limited to how she directly
interacts with girls within the classroom but how the development of activities
and the choice of pedagogy utilized will involve girls in the learning process.
Based on research that focused on gender-equitable teaching strategies, Kahle,
et al. (1993) and Phillips, Barrow and Chandrasekhar (2002) revealed that
gender differences in attitudes toward science disappeared when active
participation in small learning groups was employed. This illustrated that the
student beliefs/attitudes component has a direct relationship to teacher
behavior. In addition, when girls are given the opportunity to participate and
be heard, as seen in small groups, they carry over these positive behaviors in
other classroom activities (Greenfield, 1997; Pell & Jarvis, 2001). This
observation reinforces the connection between females’ attitudes and their
behavior by being more confident as a participant in the science classroom.
The stereotyping of science, a part of student
attitudes, results in students less likely to value science and to identify it
with future goals (Debacher & Nelson, 2000; Jarvis & Pell, 2002). In
addition, female students reported lower perceived abilities when
there is gender stereotyping. As noted on the model, these
behaviors exhibited by females can be used as reinforcement to a teacher’s
usage of activities and in shaping the teacher’s attitude. Teacher attitudes
and beliefs are an important component to consider when educating teachers to
be more gender equitable. Intervention programs that included equity education
for teachers as well as information about activity-based lessons proved
successful in improving attitudes toward science in females (Echevarria, 2003,
Rennie, Parker, & Kahle, 1996).
The gender and science model is not a one-way
relationship but involves feedback systems that are circular in nature. Kahle,
et al. (1993) believed the content knowledge and skills of the teacher and the
personal experiences of the student are instrumental in influencing the
teacher’s and student’s beliefs and attitudes respectfully. As the teacher
constructs her classroom activities, strategies, and assessments she involves
her beliefs/attitudes and her previous experiences (Hammrich, 2000). It was
shown that instruction might be influenced not only by her students’ observable
outcomes, but also by the students’ behavior toward the classroom activities.
Piburn and Baker (1993) and Osborne, Simon, & Collins (2003) determined
that attitudes toward science originated from classroom instruction and the
relationships among the individuals in the classroom. This perception on the
origin of attitude reinforced the idea that teachers’ behavior and their
classroom environment have a great influence on attitudes and performance of
female students.
The importance of a teacher’s behavior was
highlighted in a study that involved women who pursued science as a career.
These women remembered their teachers as using activity-based instruction,
encouraging their students to express their diverse
opinions, and providing for student collaboration (Taylor
& Swelnam, 1999). This study sought a plausible answer to the question,
“What pedagogical approaches used in the science classroom are the most
conducive for producing positive attitudes toward science in females?” Lynch
(2000) suggested equity pedagogy doesn’t mean using a uniform approach. A
teacher needs to create conditions in the classroom and through the curriculum
that enable students to catch up with those who may have more prior knowledge.
The Sisters in Science program (Hammrich, 1997), a
longitudinal study on reform in mathematics and science, demonstrated the
effectiveness of providing an environment that included hands-on exploratory
activities and cooperative learning that resulted in positive changes in
attitudes in girls. Other programs, Tech Trek and Family Tools and Technology
also incorporated hands-on strategies along with problem-solving collaborative
activities to improve attitudes toward science and reduce gender stereotyping
found in the sciences. (NSF, 2003a) All of these approaches, problem-solving,
hands-on, inquiry-based, are found within the constructivist learning theory.
In constructivist learning, students actively participate in their own thinking
through class activities, discussions and past experiences (Driver, 1982).
According to Aldridge, Fraser, Taylor, and Chen (2000), scientific uncertainty,
student negotiation, shared control, critical voice, and personal relevance are
considered important elements of an effective constructivist classroom. These
principles of constructivist teaching are also found within the science
teaching standards of the National Science Education Standards (NSES) written
by the National Research Council (1996). (See Table 1)
Table 1: Science Teaching Standards, National Science
Education Standards (1996) A: Teachers of science plan an inquiry-based
science program for their students. B: Teachers of science guide and facilitate
learning. C: Teachers of science engage in ongoing
assessment of their teaching and of student learning. D: Teachers of science design and manage
learning environments that provide students with the time, space, and resources needed
for learning science. E: Teachers of science develop communities
of science learners that reflect the intellectual rigor of scientific rigor inquiry and the
attitudes and social values conducive to science learning. F: Teachers of science actively participate
in the ongoing planning and development of the school science program.
In particular, Standard A focuses on providing
inquiry-based instruction by using hands-on and open-ended activities, Standard
B focuses on the teacher providing an environment for learners to engage in the
learning process, while Standard E focuses on developing communities of
learners while utilizing cooperative learning and class discussions. Equity
programs funded by the National Science Foundation (2003a) have recognized the
value of the NSES (National Research Council, 1996) and promoted them to
facilitate constructivist learning environments.
The purpose of the NSES (National Research Council,
1996) was not limited to providing standards in K-12 science content but also
provided standards for the teacher and the science teaching as part of the reform.
This emphasis coincides with the gender and science model that illustrated
teacher behavior as a central component to influencing not only student
beliefs/attitude and behavior but also eventually student observable outcomes,
as seen in choice of a career. The science teaching standards emphasized the
use of an inquiry-based science program and the development of communities of
science learners. Lee and Burkam (1996) found the combination of hands-on
science activities and girls working in pairs or small groups to be effective
in reducing gender equity in eighth grade science classes. In addition,
teachers educated in the Sisters in Science program (Hammrich, Richardson,
& Livingston, 2000) indicated that girls blossomed when working on
open-ended projects and in small groups. This illustrates support of Standard
A, Standard B, and Standard E of the science teaching standards and lends
credence to the idea that improving the attitudes of girls in science can be
accomplished by incorporating these standards in lesson planning and classroom
activities.
Positive attitudes toward science in girls who are
taught using the NSES can be demonstrated by their increased interest in class
activities and in selecting more science classes. As a former secondary science
teacher, it was always interesting why girls shied away from the advanced
science courses in my high school. In the advanced biology and genetics classes
girls many times outnumbered the boys. But when looking at the gender ratios in
upper level chemistry and physics classes, the boys were more frequent. This
observation coincides with studies (AAUW, 1998; Joyce & Farengo, 1999;
National Science Foundation, 2003; Sadker, 1999) that illustrated that girls
tend to only select advanced courses in the biological sciences instead of
advanced courses in the physical sciences. Evidence has shown that decisions
for selecting these courses reflect back to their middle school level science
class and teacher (Hill & Atwater, 1995).
Middle school is a time when students’ identities are
being shaped.
Although a variety of school and non-school influences
play an important role on students’ perceptions, teachers’ behaviors do make a
difference (Osbourne, et. al., 2003). If middle school girls have successful
and interesting experiences with science, then these girls may take more
science classes in high school and possibly pursue a career in science. Even if
these girls do not pursue science, it is likely they will recognize the
relevance and importance of science in their everyday lives. Several studies
(AAUW, 1992; Catsambis, 1995; Jarvis & Pell, 2002; Pell & Jarvis, 2001;
Simpson & Oliver, 1990) have observed that middle school girls have a less
positive attitude toward science and participate less in classroom activities.
Because students bring their preconceived ideas and backgrounds concerning
gender into the classroom we must address these ideas as we plan our curriculum.
As indicated in a study by Jones, Howe, and Rua (2000), sixth grade boys and
girls perceive science as being masculine with boys and girls having gender
distinctive interests in the physical and biological sciences, respectfully.
Because we want schools to be gender neutral in
facilitating student choices and learning, schools must provide an environment
to change the gendered nature of values regarding, and attitudes about,
science. Teachers must provide appropriate opportunities so that boys and girls
can equally engage in science activities (Lynch, 2000, Hammrich, et. al., 2000,
Rop, 1998). Implementation of the science teaching standards may provide the
effective intervention needed to influence middle school science attitudes
(Hurd, 2000).
Building upon the gender and science model, I
incorporated inquiry and constructivism into a model (Figure 1.2) to establish
the connection between the science teaching standards and attitude toward science
in girls. In my model teacher behavior that is student-centered now includes
classroom experiences that are based in inquiry and constructivism. While
teachers actively involve students in the learning process females become more
interested in science and view science as a relevant part of their
out-of-school experiences. One also observes active participation of females in
classroom interactions, whether it is student to student or student to teacher
and these females can see science as a viable career choice. Using this
framework provided me guidance in understanding the development of attitudes
toward science utilizing the NSES and in ascertaining a plausible answer to the
question, “What pedagogical approaches used in the science classroom are the most
conducive in producing positive attitudes toward science in females?”
My research goal regarding the science teaching
standards was to show a relationship between classroom practice that adheres to
the NSES and the development of positive attitudes toward science in female
middle school students. A teacher who adheres to these standards shall be
responsive to individual student’s interests, strengths, experiences and needs
and thus, should promote positive student beliefs and attitudes about science. To
determine whether this is the case, my research focused on the following
questions:
1. Will the incorporation of the NSES teaching
standards provide a classroom environment that is conducive to positive
attitudes toward science in girls?
2. Will girls in such environments view science as a
subject that is relevant and attainable as a possible career for them?
Methodology
Using a causal comparative design, I looked at
possible cause and effect relationships between the implementation of NSES in a
science classroom and attitude toward science of girls in middle school. In
order to identify the current state of the middle school classroom, I employed
the Reform Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) (Sawada, Piburn and Judson,
2002). The RTOP utilized a checklist to identify if reform pedagogy based on
the NSES was being demonstrated.
A second instrument, Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) (Taylor,
Fraser & Fisher, 1997), was used to determine if the characteristics of a
constructivist environment were present in the middle school science classroom.
Both instruments are rooted in constructivism and the NSES.
The scales of both the CLES and RTOP are associated
with the science teaching standards of the NSES. The
results of these instruments were compared to the results of the Attitude
Toward Science survey (Simpson & Oliver, 1985) to explore the relationship
between learning environments and attitude toward science, particularly in
girls.
The qualitative data included interviews of both
students and teachers and classroom observations (Huberman & Miles, 1994).
Teachers were asked about their methodology used in the science classroom while
students elaborated on their responses to the CLES. Female students completed
the Draw-A-Scientist Test (Chambers, 1983). These pictures provided information
about their perceptions on science and how science fits into their lives. Data about
student to student and student to teacher interactions were obtained from classroom
observations. Personal journal entries also helped me record my reflections of
the classroom environment. In addition,
information about female attitudes is obtained from student drawings, interviews,
surveys, and classroom observations.
Participants
Four middle schools (grades 6-8) were selected from
schools in central
A female seventh grade science teacher from each of
the four schools was selected based on her years of teaching experience and
exposure to NSES in her college education. Two of the teachers had less than
five years of teaching experience and had been educated in their science
methods course about utilizing the NSES. The other two teachers had more than
twenty years of science teaching experience and had only been exposed to the
NSES by means of the state science content standards, not through their college
experience. The study took place in the fall semester. All middle school
classrooms selected were not provided with any prescribed lessons to teach, to
ensure that each classroom environment was representative of its daily
practice.
Quantitative Data Collection
The Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES)
instrument was used to identify the science teaching standards of the NSES in
each classroom environment from the perspective of the student. This instrument
is divided into five scales: Personal Relevance, Uncertainty, Critical Voice,
Shared Control and Student Negotiation. (Taylor, Fraser & Fisher, 1997) The
CLES contains 30 items, 6 per scale, and is designed to obtain students’
perceptions about the occurrence of the five key dimensions in a constructivist-learning
environment. (Taylor, Fraser, & Fisher, 1997).
To confirm the characteristics and identification of
a learning environment that is utilizing the NSES in a constructivist format,
the Reform Teaching Observation Protocol was used (Sawada, Piburn & Judson,
2002). Using this instrument enabled me to score the classroom activities in
regards to reform pedagogy. This 25-item classroom observation protocol was
designed to provide quantitative evidence that the teacher had implemented the
NSES in their instructional practice. The mathematics and science national
standards, inquiry based teaching, the principles of constructivism and the
definition of good science teaching from the National Research Council
influenced the construction of this instrument (Sawada, et al, 2002). In
particular, the use of Teaching
Standard
B of the NSES (NRC, 1996) served as a model for the development of the RTOP’s
three scales: Lesson Design and Implementation, Content, and Classroom Culture
(Sawada, et al, 2002This instrument, along with the CLES, was compared to the
“more emphasis on” statements of the science teaching standards. Since both the CLES and the RTOP are
based on the National Science Education Standards, Table 2, was constructed to
illustrate the similarities of the scales used in these two instruments.
Comparisons of the data obtained from each instrument were used to determine
correlations of the scales to the NSES “more emphasis on” ideals.
Table 2:
Commonalities of CLES and RTOP to NSES “More Emphasis On”
Ideals
CLES Scale RTOP
Scale More Emphasis On (NSES)
Personal Relevance Lesson Design Understanding and responding to
individual
&
Implementation student’s
interests, strengths, experiences, and
needs
Uncertainty Content Guiding students in active and extended
scientific inquiry
Critical
Voice Classroom Culture Sharing responsibilities for learning
with students
Shared Control Classroom Culture Sharing responsibility
for learning with students
Focusing
on student understanding and use of scientific knowledge, ideas, and inquiry
processes
Student Negotiation Classroom Culture Providing
opportunities for scientific discussion and debate among students
Supporting a classroom community with cooperation, shared responsibility, and respect
The Attitude Toward Science survey (Simpson &
Oliver, 1985), administered to all students, was used to determine the impact
of implementing the science teaching standards on girls’ attitude toward
science. Various studies (Buck & Ehlers, 2002; Cavallo & Laubach, 2001;
and Chandrasekhar & Geib, 2003) have demonstrated that various pedagogy
characteristics of the NSES have influenced female attitudes toward science.
This instrument is composed of seven items written for students in grades six
through ten. The items not only focused on how students feel about science but
if students were interested in pursuing science as a career and the value of learning
science.
Each Draw-A-Scientist Test (DAST) illustration was
rated using the Draw A Scientist Test - checklist (DAST-C) (Finson, Beaver,
& Cramond, 1995). The DAST-C is designed to rate the images of scientists
drawn by students. It uses the seven elements found in a “standard image”
reported by Chambers (1983). Examples of these elements include: lab coat,
eyeglasses, and symbols of knowledge. Also included in the DAST-C are
provisions to score alternative images, making an eighth major element with its
own eight subcategories of alternative images, such as: gender and indications
of secrecy. In this study, the DAST-C
was also used for the Draw Yourself as a Scientist Test (DYAST) to determine
how females view themselves in science.
My approach to understanding girls’ attitude toward
science was through a phenomenological study and, therefore, described the
meaning that girls experience in a middle school science classroom (Creswell,
1998; Rossman & Rallis, 2003). In this situation, the meaning that females
make of their science classroom experiences was determined using a comparative case
study of the four schools which provided information about the differences
females possess in their construction of attitude toward science (Creswell,
1998; Rossman & Rallis, 2003). By comparing and contrasting the results of
this case study, I was able to forecast implementation of a particular pedagogy
(Rossman & Rallis, 2003).
Three strategies were used to ensure credibility:
1. Triangulation – This study used interviews of teachers
and students, classroom observations of teacher pedagogy and student
participation, and student documents in the form of DAST to comprise the
triangulation.
2. Prolonged Engagement – The observation period for this
study was conducted during an eleven week period where numerous visits were made
to each school and classroom observations covered at least two to three class
periods at a time.
3. Peer review and debriefing – Sessions with university
faculty were conducted in which themes, observations, and interpretations were discussed.
Interview
At the end of the first nine-week grading period
interviews with randomly selected female students from each school were
completed. Interviews were semi-structured in nature with open-ended questions.
The questions were structured to supplement the CLES instrument. Teacher interviews were conducted during a
teacher resource period after an initial classroom observation had occurred.
The questions were based on the “less emphasis on” and “more emphasis on”
statements in science teaching standards.
Data were collected from videotapes of the science
lesson and from direct observations within the classroom. From these
observations I recorded the frequency of interactions students had with other
students, with the teacher and with the lesson pedagogy.
Selected female students were asked to complete the
Draw-A-Scientist Test (DAST)(Chambers, 1983). This picture provided more
insight into how females view science and their role within science. Upon
completion of the drawing the students were interviewed (Kvale, 1996) to obtain
clarification about their drawing. The DAST protocol was modified by Barman
(1999a) to have students not only draw a picture of a scientist doing science
but also draw a picture of themselves doing science. At the completion of the
picture, students were asked to explain the picture and to think of ways they
use what they learned in class outside of school. The analysis of these
pictures resulted in grouping the students as either passive or active
learners. Passive students were defined as those sitting at a desk and listening
to a teacher, while active students were defined as performing an experiment or
interacting with other students. Students’
perceptions of using science were placed into categories ranging from those who
think they can use science outside of the classroom and those who do not see
science used outside of class. In addition, information obtained from the DAST
interviews was used to interpret the type of learner and the needs of the student.
Data Analysis
Teacher
Behavior
The
identification of the classroom type of the four teachers was accomplished
using the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) and personal
interviews. Initial data from teacher interviews revealed a difference between
the teachers. Two teachers with less than five years of teaching experience
were exposed to the National Science Education Standards (NSES) while in their
science methods classes, while the other two teachers with more than twenty
years of teaching experience were not exposed to the NSES in their science
methods classes and their personal experiences with the NSES were in
association with writing state science content standards. For purposes of
identification, the two teachers with NSES exposure in methods are referred to
as “NSES methods” teachers and the other two teachers will be “no NSES methods”
teachers. Each teacher within the group will be called either A or B.
Using
the three classroom observations for each teacher, a mean RTOP score was
calculated for each subscale and the total score. If a teacher was educated in
the NSES then the RTOP scores should be higher than for teachers who were not
educated. Both the NSES Methods teachers demonstrated higher scores in the
Communicative Interactions and Student/Teacher Relationship subscales. But in
the Lesson Design and Implementation, Content Propositional Knowledge, and
Content Procedural Knowledge subscales, the NSES methods – B teacher’s score
was lower than both of the no NSES methods teachers. This inconsistency was
also seen in the overall RTOP score with a no NSES methods teacher having a
slightly higher mean than a NSES methods teacher. (See Figure 2)
In addition to the RTOP, information about teacher behavior and the classroom environment was obtained from the seventh grade students in each school who completed the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) to determine the level of constructivism occurring in the science classroom. A total of 93 students completed the survey (female = 61, male = 32). A maximum score of 30 points could be obtained for each subscale. Scores closer to 30 were perceived to be constructivist while those scores closer to 6 were considered more traditional. The data found in Figure 3 revealed mixed perceptions in regard to the CLES subscales. The Shared Control was interpreted as more traditional for both groups of teachers. Student responses from the CLES indicated an environment that is more teacher-centered than student-centered and that students lacked a voice in determining the activities and assessment used in their science classrooms.
Students
ranked the Critical Voice and Student Negotiation category as “sometimes
occurring” toward constructivism.
Students viewed their classrooms as having minimal opportunities to
exchange and discuss differing views originating from either students or the
teacher. Personal Relevance ranked the
closest to constructivism for all classes with a mean of 22. This higher
ranking revealed that teachers are demonstrating to students the relevance of
science in their lives. In addition,
students scored the Uncertainty section high.
This would reveal that students learn that science does change due to
improvements in technology, new discoveries, and by the people involved in
science. The lowest perceived category
for all schools was Shared Control.
Student responses indicated that the classroom is more teacher-centered
than student-centered and that they lacked a voice in determining the
activities and assessment used in their science.
Data in Figure 3 are supported by the interviews of the twenty female students selected from the four schools. Supporting the strong perception of Personal Relevance, the majority of students interviewed provided examples of how science was used outside of the classroom. These included: cooking, preparing for storms, knowledge of diseases caused by viruses and bacteria, staying healthy and DNA. Only one student replied that science was not relevant in her life. She felt that outside of school was suppose to be fun and she didn’t use science every day. In addition, several females responded that science was relevant to them because of future science careers.
The relationship between the five subscales of RTOP and the five subscales of CLES was investigated using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (Table 3). There was a strong, positive correlation between the two variables Uncertainty and Communicative Interactions [r = .976, n = 4, p = 0.05]. Other positive correlations were found, but with no significance. These included: Personal Relevance correlated with Student/Teacher Relationships, Uncertainty correlated with Propositional and Procedural Knowledge, as well as Lesson Design and Implementation, and Critical Voice and Student Negotiation both correlated with Communicative Interactions.
Table 3:
Pearson
Product Correlation for Association Between RTOP Scales and CLES Scales
|
|
Lesson Design and Impplementation |
Content Propositional Knowledge |
Content Procedural Knowledge |
Communicative Interactions |
Student/ Teacher Relationship |
|
Personal Relevance |
-0.81 |
-0.873 |
-0.462 |
-0.402 |
|
|
Uncertainty |
0.716 |
0.472 |
0.885 |
.976* |
-0.753 |
|
Critical Voice |
0.069 |
-0.244 |
0.375 |
0.583 |
-0.231 |
|
Shared Control |
0.266 |
0.459 |
0.482 |
0.162 |
0.092 |
|
Student Negotiation |
0.461 |
0.127 |
0.559 |
0.807 |
-0.674 |
When comparing these correlations to Table 2, the correlations do not match the “More Emphasis On” ideals. For example, Personal Relevance and Lesson Design and Implementation are associated with “Understanding and responding to individual student’s interests, strengths, experiences and needs.” But looking at Table 3, there is a strong negative correlation between the two. This may be explained by having only four teachers to calculate the Lesson Design and Implementation value while having over 90 students to calculate the Personal Relevance value. More data needs to be collected in classrooms in order to determine the value of the information in Table 3.
Attitude Toward Science
Students (males and females) completed the Attitude Toward Science survey in each of their respective classes at the end of the first grading period (Table 4). In all classes except for the No NSES Methods B class, the female attitudes toward science mean was higher than the male attitudes toward science mean.
Table 4:
Descriptive Statistics of Attitude Toward
Science in Females and Males
|
Teacher Type |
Gender |
Mean |
N |
Std. Deviation |
|
NSES Methods – A |
Female |
4.20 |
11 |
.729 |
|
|
Male |
3.35 |
2 |
.909 |
|
NSES Methods – B |
Female |
3.57 |
20 |
.860 |
|
|
Male |
3.71 |
11 |
1.149 |
|
No NSES Methods – A |
Female |
3.57 |
19 |
.868 |
|
|
Male |
3.33 |
14 |
1.093 |
|
No NSES Methods – B |
Female |
3.88 |
11 |
.870 |
|
|
Male |
3.34 |
5 |
.950 |
|
Total |
Female |
3.74 |
64 |
.859 |
|
|
Male |
3.46 |
32 |
1.050 |
A one-way between groups analysis of
variance was conducted to explore the impact of the middle school on attitude
toward science in females. Subjects were
divided into four groups according to their school (i.e. NSES Methods – A, NSES
Methods – B, No NSES Methods - A, and No NSES Methods - B). There was no significant difference between
the groups (p = .167). An
independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the attitude scores for
females with teachers who had NSES methods exposure and with teachers who had
no NSES methods exposure. There was no
significant difference in scores for females in NSES methods classrooms (M =
26.58, SD = 6.03) and females in the No NSES methods classrooms [M = 25.80, SD
= 6.07; t(61) = .503, p = .616].
The relationship between the five subscales of CLES and female attitudes toward science was investigated using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. There was a strong, positive correlation between all five subscales of CLES and female attitudes toward science (see Table 5). The strongest correlation was Uncertainty (r = .946) followed by Student Negotiation (r = .936) and Critical Voice (r= .930).
Table 5:
Pearson Product Correlation for Association Between CLES Scales and Female Attitude Toward Science*
|
|
Attitude |
|
Personal Relevance |
.898** |
|
Uncertainty |
.946** |
|
Critical Voice |
.930** |
|
Shared Control |
.849** |
|
Student Negiotiation |
.936** |
* n = 61
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
Draw A Scientist
Twenty females were randomly selected from the four schools to complete the Draw-A-Scientist Test (DAST). Each drawing was analyzed using the Draw-A-Scientist Checklist (DAST-C) (Finson, et al. 1995). The higher the score on the DAST-C the more stereotypes are included in the student drawing, indicating a stereotypic view of scientists. Table 6 represented the mean of the DAST-C results from these females. Scores tended to be higher for those students whose teachers stressed safety and order in their classrooms. Illustrations included lab coats, goggles, and gloves. An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the DAST scores for females in the classroom of a NSES methods teacher and females in the classroom of a no NSES methods teacher. There was no significant difference in scores for the females in a classroom of a NSES methods teacher (M = 4.2, SD = 1.23), and females in a classroom of a No NSES methods teacher [M = 5.3, SD = 1.57; t (18) = .818, p = .424].
Table 6:
Descriptive
Statistics of Female DAST
|
Teacher Type |
N |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Std. Error Mean |
|
NSES Methods |
10 |
4.2 |
1.23 |
0.388 |
|
No NSES Methods |
10 |
5.3 |
1.57 |
0.495 |
The total
population of females surveyed revealed less stereotypic images than a
nationwide study that included 6th to 8th graders
conducted by Barman (1999). The females’
drawings demonstrated less stereotyping in the areas of presence of danger,
symbols of research and knowledge, and the presence of a labcoat or
eyeglasses. These females showed less
stereotypic characteristics than female students from
These same females also completed the Draw Yourself As A Scientist (DYAST) and each drawing was analyzed using the DAST-C. Total DYAST scores were lower than the DAST because the instructions asked the females to draw themselves, which eliminated gender and ethnic group from the checklist. Comparisons of the DAST-C items between the DAST and DYAST are found in Table 7. The majority of the females still perceived themselves doing science indoors and using symbols of research. None of the females drew themselves in labcoats or wearing eyeglasses. Finson (2002) noted that students who perceive themselves more positive toward science tend to draw fewer stereotypic characteristics. As seen in Table 7, these females did not draw themselves with as many stereotypic characteristics as they did with drawing a scientist doing science. This would indicate a more positive perception of themselves and science.
Table
7:
Female
Responses to Checklist Items (n = 20)
|
Common Stereotype |
DAST |
DYAST |
|
|
% |
% |
|
Male |
20 |
0 |
|
Female |
45 |
100 |
|
Indoors |
90 |
85 |
|
Happy |
60 |
45 |
|
Mythic
Stereotypes |
5 |
0 |
|
Signs
of Danger |
10 |
0 |
|
Signs
of Technology |
5 |
5 |
|
Use
of Animals |
5 |
5 |
|
Symbols
of Research |
75 |
55 |
|
Symbols
of Knowledge |
20 |
35 |
|
Labcoat |
25 |
0 |
|
Eyeglasses |
15 |
0 |
As seen in Table 8, seventy-five percent of the females drew themselves doing science as an activity, while the nationwide study participants was 88%. Of the 25% who included a book in their drawing, half were using a book to classify a plant, animal or rock while the other half were using books to get ideas and resources for a science project. While 7% of the nationwide students viewed themselves doing science by sitting at a desk and taking notes none of the females in this study drew this scenario. Adding the responses from the student interviews, 90% of the females viewed science as being a part of their out-of-school world. Fifty percent believed that science learned in class was needed to provide for a healthy and meaningful life, while 20% viewed science as needed for a job or career. Of those surveyed from all four schools, 13% “strongly agreed” with the statement, “I would enjoy being a scientist,” while an additional 20%, “agreed” with the same statement.
Table 8:
Females’
Perceptions of Doing Science (n=20)
|
Activity Represented |
% |
|
|
|
|
Doing Science in a School Setting |
85 |
|
Participating in an Activity |
75 |
|
Seated at a Desk |
25 |
|
Working with Chemistry |
5 |
|
Working with Life Science |
40 |
|
Working with Earth Science |
15 |
|
Doing Library Research |
20 |
|
Collecting Data |
15 |
Conclusion
While this study did not find a relationship between NSES implementation and female attitude toward science, other conclusions with regards to the gender and science model were uncovered that can be useful to a science teacher and to educators of teachers of science. The development of female attitudes toward science is related to not only female involvement in the classroom but also teacher attitudes and beliefs and her implementation of inquiry-based instruction. When teachers allow females to try different methodologies in learning science, to exchange and test their ideas, and to voice their opinions about their learning, then females will have favorable attitudes toward science. The utilization of the science teaching standards A, B and E would provide the opportunities for inquiry, involvement in the science learning process, and learning communities.
The lack of understanding and use of current reform practices as revealed in this study points to the importance of informing teachers on how current reform practices should be incorporated into instructional planning and implementation. The use of statewide initiatives to study national reform efforts is one tool in which to inform teachers about reform practices. Presenting evidence that supports the use of reform practices to teachers will give them the foundation to build these practices into their curricula. Attention to the development of strategies in the preparation of pre-service teachers and in the professional development for in-service teachers is needed if we are to impact our classrooms using the NSES.
Finally, if we are to continue to encourage females to think positively about science and to pursue science we must realize that many factors are involved in this process. We must utilize the pedagogy that promotes their understanding, involves females in the learning process by listening to them, and provides an environment of respect and equal participation.
Bibliography
Aldridge,
J. M., Fraser, B. J., Taylor, P. C., & Chen, C. C. (2000). Constructivist
learning environments in a cross-national study in
American
Association of University Women Educational Foundation (1994).
Shortchanging girls, shortchanging America.
American
Association of University Women Educational Foundation (1998).
Gender gaps: Where
our schools fail our children.
Bae, J.,
Choy, S., Geddes, C., Sable, J., & Snyder, T. (2000). Educational equity
for girls and
women (NCES 2000-030).
Barman,
C.R. (1999a). Students’ views about scientists and school science:
Engaging K-8 teachers in a national study. Journal of Science Teacher Education 10(1),
43-54.
Barman,
C.R. (1999b). Completing the study: High school students’ views of
scientists and science. Science
and Children 37, 16-21.
Buck, G.
and Ehlers, N. (2002). Four criteria for engaging girls in the middle level
classroom. Middle School Journal , 48-53.
Catsambis,
S. (1995). Gender, race, ethnicity, and science education in the
middle grades. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching 32(3), 243-257.
Cavallo,
A. and Laubach, T.A. (2001). Students’ science perceptions and
enrollment decisions in differing learning cycle classroom.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
38(9), 1029-1062.
Chambers,
D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw-a-
scientist test. Science
Education 67(2), 255-265.
Chandrasekhar,
M. & Geib, J. (2003). Hands-on physics programs for middle
level students. Paper presented at
WEPAN 2003 Conference,
Creswell,
J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and
research design: Choosing among
five
traditions.
Debacker,
T.K. & Nelson, R. M. (2000). Motivation to learn science: Differences
related to gender, c lass type, and ability. Journal of Educational Research 93(4),
245-254.
Driver,
R. (1982). Children’s learning in science. Educational
Analysis 4 (2), 69-
79.
Echevarria,
M. (2003). Hands-on science reform, science achievement, and the
elusive goal of “Science for all” in a diverse elementary
school district. Journal of Women and
Minorities in Science and Engineering 9, 275-402.
Finson,
K. D. (2002). Drawing a scientist: What we do and do not know after fifty
years of drawings. School
Science and Mathematics 102(7), 335-345.
Finson,
K. D., Beaver, J.B., & Cramond, B. L. (1995). Development and field test
of a checklist for the draw-a-scientist test. School Science & Mathematics 95(4),
195-205.
Freeman,
C. E. (2004). Trends in educational
equity of girls and women: 2004
(NCES 2005-016).
Fung, Y.
Y. H. (2002). A comparative study of primary and secondary school
students’ images of scientists. Research in Science and Technological
Education 20(2), 199 – 213.
Ginorio,
A. B., Huston, M., Frevert, K., & Seibel, J.B. (2002). The Rural Girls in
Science Project: From pipelines to affirming science
education. Journal of Women and
Minorities in Science and Engineering 8, 305-325.
Greenfied,
T. (1997). Gender and grade-level differences in science interest and participation. Science
Education 81, 259-275.
Hammrich,
P. L. (2000). What the science standards say: Implications for teacher
education. Laboratory for Student Success – Spotlight on
Student Success,
Hammrich,
P. L., Richardson, G. M., & Livingston, B. (2000, April). The sisters in
science
program: Building girls’ interest and achievement in science and mathematics.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research
in Science Teaching,
Hollweg,
K.S. (2003). What is the Influence of the
National Science Education
Standards?:
Reviewing the Evidence, A Workshop Summary.
Howes, E.
V. (2002). Connecting girls and science:
Constructivism, feminism,
and science
education reform.
Huberman,
A.M., & Miles, M.B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods.
In N.K. Denzin and
Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research
(pp.428-444).
Hurd,
P.D. (2000). Science education for the 21st century. School Science &
Mathematics 100(6), 282-290.
Jarvis,
T. & Pell, A. (2002). Changes in primary boys’ and girls’ attitudes to
school and science during a two-year science in-service
programme. The
Curriculum Journal
13(1), 43-69.
Jones,
M.G., Howe, A., & Rua, M.J. (2000).
Gender differences in students’
experiences, interests,
and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education 84(2), 180-193.
Joyce,
B.A. & Farenga, S.J. (1999). Informal science experience, attitudes, future
interest in science, and gender of high-ability students:
An exploratory study. School Science
& Mathematics 99(8), 431-438.
Kahle, J.
B. & Lakes, M. K. (1983). The myth of equality in science classrooms.
Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 20(3),
131-140.
Kahle,
J.B., Parker, L.H., Rennie, L.J., & Riley, D. (1993). Gender differences in
science education: Building a model. Educational Psychologist 28(4), 379-404.
Kahle, J.
B. & Meece, J. (1994). Research on gender issues in the classroom in
in D. Gable (Ed.), Handbook
of research on science teaching and learning
(pp 542-557).
Lee, V.E.
and Burkam, D.T. (1996). Gender differences in middle grade science achievement: Subject,
domain, ability, and course emphasis. Science
Education 80, 613-650.
Lynch, S.
(2000). Equity and science education
reform.
Association, Inc.,
Mason,
C.L. & Kahle, J.B. (1988). Student attitudes toward science and science-
related careers: A
program designed to promote a stimulating gender-free learning environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 25 (1), 25-39.
http://www.amstat.org/publications/jsev11n3/mvududu.html.
National
Research Council (1996). National Science
Education Standards.
National
Research Council (2000). How people
learn: Brain, mind, experience,
and school.
National
Research Council (2005). How students
learn science in the classroom.
National
Science Foundation (2003). New formula’s
for
Girls in science
& engineering (NSF03-207).
National
Science Foundation/Division of Science Resources Studies. (2000).
Women, minorities,
and persons with disabilities in science & engineering: 2000 (NSF 00-327).
National
Science Foundation/Division of Science Resources Statistics (2003).
Women, minorities
and persons with disabilities in science ad engineering: 2002 (NSF 03-312).
Osborne,
J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: a review
of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education
25(9), 1049-79.
Pell, T.
& Jarvis, T. (2001). Developing attitude to science scales for use with
children of ages from five to eleven years. International Journal of Science Education
23(8), 847-862.
Phillips,
K.A., Barrow, L. H., & Chandrasekhar, M. (2002). Science career
interests among high school girls one year after
participation in a summer science program. Journal
of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 8, 235-247.
Piburn,
M.D. & Baker, D.R. (1993) If I were
a teacher .... Qualitative study of
attitude toward science. Science Education 77(4), 393-406.
Rennie,
L. J., Parker, L. H., & Kahle, J. B. (1996). Informing teaching and
research in science education through a gender equity
initiative. In L. H. Parker, L.J. Rennie, B. J. Frasier (eds). Gender, Science & Mathematics:
Shortening the Shadow (pp. 203-222).
Rop, C.
(1998). Breaking the gender barrier in the physical sciences. Educational
Leadership 55, 58-60.
Rossman,
G. & Rallis, S. (2003). Learning in
the field: An introduction to
qualitative
research.
Sadker,
D. (1999). Gender equity: Still knocking at the class. Educational
Leadership 56 (7), 22-26.
Sawada,
D., Piburn, M.D., & Judson, E. (2002). Measuring reform practices in
science and mathematics classrooms: The reformed teaching
observation protocol. School Science and
Mathematics 102(6), 245-253.
Simpson,
R.D. & Oliver, J.S. (1985). Attitude toward science and achievement
motivation profiles of male and female science students in
grades six through ten. Science Education
69(4), 511-526.
Simpson,
R.D. & Oliver, J.S. (1990). A summary of major influences on attitude
toward and achievement in science among adolescent
students. Science Education 74(1),
1-18.
Taylor,
M.J. & Sweetnam,
The teachers they remember, the insights they share. Clearing House 73(1), 33-36.
Taylor,
P.C., Fraser, B.J., and Fisher, D.L. (1997). Monitoring constructivist
classroom learning environments (Chapter 3) Advances in Research on Educational learning
Environments, Elseview Science Ltd.
Yager, R.
E. (1991). The constructivist learning model. The Science Teacher 58,
52-57.