127

A Comparison of Student Perceptions of Science ActivitiesWithin Three Instructional Approaches

Daniel P. Shepardson

Edward L. Pizzini

School Mathematics and Science CenterPurdue UniversityWest Lafayette, Indiana 47907

Science Education CenterUniversity of IowaIowa City, Iowa 52242

Introduction

Many assessments have been conducted over the years onstudent attitude towards science and science class (Harms,Bybee, & Yager, 1979; Hofstein, Scherz. & Yager. 1986;Hofstein & Welch, 1984; Talton & Simpson, 1985; Weiss.Nelson, Boyd, & Hudson, 1989; Yager & Bonnstetter. 1984;Yager & Penick. 1983,1986; Yager & Yager. 1985). Thesestudies have concluded that: (a) the more students are exposedto science the less they like science, (b) that attitude towardsscience at the junior and senior high school is low, (c) thatscience class is boring, and (d) that as the school yearprogressesstudent attitudes towards science become similar.

Student attitude toward science class develops from anaccumulation of a variety of perceptions and beliefs about thescience class (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Koballa & Crawley,1985). For example, student attitude towards science class isinfluencd by the interactions and actions of teachers, parents,and peers (Koballa & Crawley, 1985); the perceived difficultyof the subject, the instructional approach, and the curricularmaterials (Schibeci, 1983); and the emotional climate andphysical environment of the science classroom and the natureof the activities conducted (Talton & Simpson, 1987). Thus,student attitude towards science class is influenced, in part, bythe students* perception of the specific actions or activitiesconducted in the science class.

Because of poor student attitude towards science class andscience. Yager and Penick (1986) have argued that scienceneeds to be taught differently. When science is taughtdynamically, not as a static subject in textbooks, studentperceptions of science may improve (Yager & Penick, 1986).Ourknowledge ofstudent perceptions ofscience activities, themanner in which science is taught, is limited.

Purpose

While the instructional approach (Schibeci, 1983) and thenature of the science activities (Talton & Simpson, 1987) havebeen identified as variables influencing student attitude towardscienceclass, few studieshaveinvestigatedthe specific attributesof these variables. That is, student perception of scienceactivities are influenced by the attributes ofstudent ownership,

enjoyment, and learning. The emphasis of this study was toassess student perceptions ofscience activities within differentinstructional approaches. The specific question of this studywas: Is there a difference in student perceptions of the scienceactivities among three instructional approaches: (a) lecture-worksheet, (b) traditional laboratory, and (c) problem solving?

Method

The study involved a posttest-only, control-group design.The design is appropriate because the research question isinterested in student perceptions following exposure to aninstructional treatment and because perceptions are related toimmediate past actions or activities. The perceptionsquestionnaire was administered following completion of theinstructional treatments. Each treatment consisted of a 10-dayunit on simple plants (bacteria, fungi, algae, and yeasts) whichwas similar in content and designed around a dominate middleschool life science textbook.

Instructional Treatments

Three instructional approaches were used: (a) lecture-worksheet, (b) traditional laboratory, and (c) Search SolveCreate Share (SSCS) problem solving. The three instructionaltreatments werc selected as they provide a varying degree ofscience instruction, ranging from traditional, paper-and-pencilscience activities to hands-on, prescribed science activities, tostudent-directed science activities. Thus, the instructionaltreatments represented existing practices and a proposedreformed approach to science instruction.

The lecture-worksheet instructional approach introducedstudents to the sciencecontent through acombination oflectureand textbook readings. The students completed all textbookquestions and publisher-prepared worksheets, which weredesigned to re-enforce the content discussed during lecture andtextbook readings. Answers to the textbook questions andworksheets were discussed in large group situations to ensurethat all students received the correct answer.

The traditional laboratory approach utilized students’investigations based on publisher-prepared materials. Thelaboratory investigations required students to follow a

Volume 93(3), March 1993

128Student Perceptions

predetermined procedure, collect and analyze data, and drawconclusions. Students worked together to implement thelaboratory investigations. Following the small groupinvestigations, students discussed their results and conclusionsin a large group setting to ensure that all students had obtaineda similar conclusion. The investigations weredesigned to verifyscience content previously taught via lecture or reading.

The SSCS problem-solving instructional model involvedstudents in identifying problems or researchable questions inlarge group settings based on the content of the unit. Studentswere introduced to the science content, to provide backgroundknowledge, through a lecture and textbookreading. Students, incooperative groups, then selected and refined a researchablequestion or problem and prepared and implemented their ownresearch plan. Following the implementation of their plan,students prepared a means to communicate their question orproblem, methodology, results, and conclusions and thenpresented their information to the class. Based on studentjournals, the investigations were similarin nature to theactivitiesconductedby students in thelaboratory treatment. [Foradditionalinformation on SSCS problem solving, see Pizzini, Abell, andShepardson (1988) and Pizzini. Shepardson, and Abell (1989).]

Sample

The middle school (grades 7 and 8) students were taught intwo different school districts by two different science teachers.Each teacher taught two classes within each instructionaltreatment The intact classrooms were randomly assigned to aninstructional treatment. To ensure continuity between teachers,each teacher maintained a teaching log, which was analyzed forreliability in the implementation ofthetreatments. Atotal of287students were surveyed; 108 students were exposed to SSCSproblems solving, 93 to the traditional laboratory, and 86 to thelecture-worksheet approach. All students had prior experiencewith the traditional laboratory andlecture-worksheetapproaches.Students had not been exposed to SSCS problem solving priorto this study.

Questionnaire

The question items were piloted with 210 seventh- andeighth-grade students during the prior academic school yearunder similar instructional conditions. The question items wererefined or deletedbased on teacher input, studentresponses, anditem analysis. The refined question items were then categorizedindependently by four science teachers, two of whom hadknowledge of student responses during the pilot, and threescience educators. The question items were categorized aseitherpertaining to student ownership, enjoyment, learning, andother. Question items that were similarly categorized by allvalidaters comprised the questionnaire item pool. Thequestionnaire was constructed by randomly selecting itemsfrom the questionnaire item pool. Thus, the questionnaire was

conceptually validated by four science teachers and threescience educators.

The final questionnaire was designed to be brief, concise,and straightforward to reduce resistance or rejection fromstudents which might cloud data analysis (Isaac & Michael,1987). The questionnaire was also checked for absence ofambiguity and readability. The final questionnaire wascomposed of eight Likert items with five response categories(see Figure 1). Seven items were designed to measure studentperceptions of ownership, enjoyment, and learning of thescience activities. The remaining item was designed to obtaininformation on student attitude toward science class.

As with anymethodofdatacollection, there are limitations.Potential limitations of this study include the restriction in theuse of the questionnaire to those students accessible, whichmay or may not be representative of the population; thevulnerability of over-rater or under-rater bias; the possibledifferences in interpretation of questions by respondents; andthe novelty affect of SSCS problem solving.

Figure 1. Perceptions of science activities questionnaire.

Question Item (Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree)

1. Science class is fun.2. In the science unit I just completed I helped decide whatactivities we did.3. I wish our science activities were all like the ones I justcompleted.4. The science activities I just completed were too hard.5. I did not know what I should have learned from the scienceactivities just completed.6. In the science activities just completed I learned somethinguseful.7. I like doing science activities.8. I liked the science activities I just completed.

Data Analysis

Because of the categorical nature of the data collected andthe nonrandom sampling of students (intact classrooms), thechi-square was deemed an appropriate statistical tool foranalysis. SYSTAT (Wilkinson, 1988) was used to perform theanalysis.

The questionnaire was designedandadministered to obtainindividual item responses, not a cumulative score. Therefore,a chi-square item analysis was conducted with follow-up chi-square comparisons made for each item that was statisticallysignificant (p < .05). Caution is required in the interpretationof the individual chi-square analysis because as the number ofnonindependent tests of significance increases so does theprobability of obtaining one or more significant results or aType I error.

Since the interest was in students’ positive and negative

School Science and Mathematics

Student Perceptions129

perceptions of science activities, the two positive and negativeresponse categories were combined to provide one responsefrequency for both positive and negative. The category ofindifference (middleresponse) waseliminatedfromdataanalysisas it indicated neither a negative or positive perception. Thepositive and negative frequencies were then utilized for dataanalysis. Thus, the initial item analysis involved a 2 X 3(response category X treatment) contingency table perquestionnaire item. Each of the questionnaire item follow-upcomparisons utilized a series of 2 X 2 (response category Xtreatment) contingency tables: (a) SSCS problem solving bytraditional laboratory, (b) SSCS problem solving by lecture-worksheet, and (c) traditional laboratory by lecture-worksheet.

Results

The number of positive and negative responses perquestionnaire item by treatment are presented in Table 1. Thechi-square item analysis indicates a statistically significantdifference in seven of the eight questionnaire items (see Table2). Thefollow-upchi-square comparisons (seeTable 3) suggestthat students responded more positively toward SSCS problemsolving than either thetraditional laboratory orlecture-worksheetinstructional approaches on questionnaire items 1 and 2 andwere more positive toward SSCS problem solving than thetraditional laboratory for questionnaire items 4, 6, and 7.Statistically significantdifferencesoccurredbetweentraditionallaboratory and lecture-worksheet approaches for questionnaireitems 4,5,6, and 7.

Table

Studen

Item

12345678

i

t Respori

ssc(n=

AG*

5078371010517663

ises by ’.

:S T108)

DG"

2619467060351324

Treatm

In:

raditiol(n=9

AG

2323161328344732

ent

structional

lalLab3)

DG

3555585834351833

1 Treatment

Lecture-Wo(n=86)

AG

25179616465242

rksheet

DG

2840486752195

21

Table 2

Chi Square Values and Level of Significance for EachQuestionnaire Item

Itemdf X2 P

12345678

22222222

9.8258.2416.583.27

16.536.428.348.98

.007

.001

.001

.195

.001

.04

.015

.011

Table 3

Follow-up Chi Square Comparisons Per Questionnaire Item

Item Comparisonsdf X21

2

3

5

6

7

8

SSCS by TLSSCS by LWTLbyLWSSCS by TLSSCS by LWTLbyLWSSCS by TLSSCS by LWTLbyLWSSCS by TLSSCS by LWTLbyLWSSCS by TLSSCS by LWTLbyLWSSCS by TLSSCS by LWTLbyLWSSCS by TLSSCS by LWTLbyLW

111111111111111111111

9.064.450.64

45.9438.880.009.2212.700.7115.291.936.781.552.126.434.001.097.118.530.583.99

.003

.035

.425

.001

.001

.966

.002

.001

.400

.001

.165

.009

.213

.145

.011

.045

.295

.00

.003

.448

.046

SSCS = Search. Solve, Create, ShareTL = Traditional LaboratoryLW = Lecture-worksheet

a = number agreeing; b = number disagreeing

Volume 93(3), March 1993

130Student Perceptions

Discussion

More students found SSCS problem solving-based scienceclass fun compared to the traditional laboratory or lecture-worksheet approaches. This outcome may be the result ofstudents having amore positive perception ofactivities in SSCSproblem solving than in either a traditional laboratory or lecture-worksheetapproach. Thegreaterpositiveperception ofstudentsof SSCS problem solving activities may be related to the natureof the activities.

It is not surprising that students have a greater perception ofownership in SSCS problem solving than either the traditionallaboratory or the lecture-worksheet approaches. SSCS problemsolving requires students to identify and refine their ownproblems, as well as prepare and implement their plan to solvetheproblem. Thus, students are actively involved in establishingtheir own learning activities. The lack of perception of studentownership in the traditional laboratory and lecture-worksheetapproaches results from the teacher centrality ofthe approaches.The learning activities are established by the teacher andpublisher-prepared materials.

The lackofdifference in the view ofscience activities amongstudents in the traditional laboratory and lecture-worksheetapproaches is surprising. Itmay suggestthatnotevery laboratoryapproach has a positive effect on students’ perceptions but thatlaboratory approaches that emphasize open inquiry, such asSSCS problem solving, positively influence studentperceptionsof science activities.

Itis interesting thatinpublisher-preparedlaboratory activities,which are designed to verify andconfirm science concepts, morestudents indicated that they did notknow whatthey were to leamfrom the laboratory activities when compared to SSCS problemsolving and lecture-worksheet approaches. From a SSCSproblem-solving perspective, it may be the result of ;studentownership in theactivity. Students, through identifyingproblemsof interest and then solving those problems, have a greaterunderstandingofthe learning task, hencewhatshouldbe learned.

Thedifferencebetweenthe traditional laboratory and lecture-worksheet is somewhat surprising in that both approachesrequire the teacher to expound information which is reinforcedthrough either laboratory or worksheet activities. It wouldappear that students fail to see the connection between thepublisher-prepared laboratory activities and the content to belearned. This may be a factor of the laboratory design andprocedures, the pre- andpost-laboratory instructional strategies,or perhaps there is little connection between the laboratoryactivities and the content to be learned.

While there was no difference in student perception aboutlearning something useful between SSCS problem solving andthe traditional laboratoryorlecture-worksheetapproaches, therewas a difference between the traditional laboratory and lecture-worksheet approaches. Student perceptions of learningsomething useful from science activities may be associated totheir perception of knowing what they were to leam from the

activities. It would be expected that if students did not knowwhat they should leam from a science activity that they did notleam something useful. Perhaps students in the lecture-worksheet felt that the content learned was more explicit to theactivities�completing the worksheets, thus more useful.

More students in the SSCS problem solving and lecture-worksheet classes liked completing science activities than inthe traditional laboratory class. This positive perception ofstudents in SSCS problem solving may stem from theirownership in and knowing what they are to learn from theactivities. The interest in completing activities from studentsin the lecture-worksheet class may be the result oftheir dislikeof the activities they were exposed to-activities that they maynot view as science activities.

Theresultsofthis studyaddfurthersupporttotheconclusionsthat the science curriculum (Hofstein et al., 1986) and thenature of the science activities (Talton & Simpson, 1987)influence studentperceptionsofscienceactivities. It is suggestedthat the perception students have of science activities mayinfluence their attitude toward science class. While this studyinvestigated underlying attributes of student perceptions ofscience activities, to determine apotential influence on studentattitudetowards science,itisincomplete. Furtherinvestigations,which incorporate pretest-posttest designs, parallel forms, andthe effect of teachers’ perceptions on student perceptions, arenecessary to better understand the underpinnings of studentattitude toward science class.

References

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intentioin,behavior: Anintroductionto theory andresearch. Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley.

Harms, N., Bybee, R., & Yager, R. (1979). Science andsociety: A review of the NAEP data with implications forpolicies and research interpretative summary. Denver,CO: National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Hofstein, A., Scherz,Z.,& Yager, R.E. (1986). What studentssay about science teaching, science teachers and scienceclasses in Israel and the US. Science Education, 70(1), 21-30.

Hofstein. A., & Welch, W. W. (1984). The stability ofattitudes towards science between junior and senior highschool. Research in Science and Technology Education,2(2), 131-138.

Isaac, S., & Michael, W. (1987). Handbook in research andevaluation. San Diego, CA: Edits Publishers.

Koballa, T. R., & Crawley. F. E. (1985). The influence ofattitude on science teaching and learning. School Scienceand Mathematics, 85(3), 222-231.

Pizzini, E. L., Abell, S. K., & Shepardson, D. P. (1988).Rethinking thinking in the science classroom. The ScienceTeeter, 55(9), 22-25.

Pizzini, E. L., Shepardson. D. P., & Abell, S. K. (1989). A

School Science and Mathematics

Student Perceptions131

rationale for and the development of a problem solvingmodelofinstruction in scienceeducation. Science Education,73(5), 523-534.

Schibeci, R. A. (1983). Selecting appropriate attitudinalobjectives for school science. Science Education, 67(5),595-603.

Talton,E.L..&Simpson,R.D. (1985). Relationshipsbetweenpeer and individual attitudes toward science amongadolescent students. Science Education, 69(1), 19-24.

Talton, E. L., & Simpson, R. D. (1987). Relationships ofattitude toward classroom environmentwith attitude towardand achievement in science among tenth grade biologystudents. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(6),507-525.

Weiss,LR.,Nelson,B.H..Boyd,S.E.,&Hudson.S.B.(1989).

Science and mathematics education briefing book. ChapelHill,NC: Horizon Research, Inc.

Wilkinson.L. (1988). SYSTAT: The system for statistics.Evanston.DL: SYSTAT, Inc.

Yager, R.E.,&Bonstetter,R. (1984). Student perceptions ofscience teachers, classes andcoursecontent School Scienceand Mathematics, 84(5), 406-414.

Yager, R. E.. & Penick, J. E. (1983). School science in crisis.Curriculum Review, 22(1). 67-70.

Yager, R. E., & Penick, J. E. (1986). Perceptions of four agegroups toward science classes, teachers and the value ofscience. Science Educaton, 70(4), 355-363.

Yager, R.E..& Yager, S.O. (1985). Changes in perceptionsof science for third, seventh, and eleventh grade students.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(4), 347-358.

Publications Available

School Science and Mathematics Association126 Life Science Building, Bowling Green State University

Bowling Green, OH 43403-0256 - (419) 372-7393 - FAX (419) 372-2327

SSMA Classroom Activities Monograph SeriesSpreadsheets in Mathematics and Science Teaching (1992) $12.50Activities for Teaching K-6 Mathematics/Science Concepts (1989) $ 7.50Problem Solving with Number Patterns (1987) $ 9.50

SSMA Topics for Teachers Monograph SeriesScience and Mathematics: Partners Then ... Partners Now (1990)Science and Mathematics Education for the Year 2000 and Beyond (1985)Microcomputers for Teachers - with Application to Science and Mathematics (1982)Interactions of Science and Mathematics (1980)Cryptarithms and Other Arithmetical Pastimes (1979)

$12.50$ 7.50$ 7.50$ 7.50$ 2.50

Recent Back Issues of School Science and MathematicsRegular issues (October through May-June) since 1989 $ 4.00

Special Issues of School Science and MathematicsCurriculum and Evaluation Standards (October 1990)Science and Mathematics for Early Childhood Education (January 1982)Problem Solving (March 1978)Career Education (April 1976)

$5.00$4.00$4.00$4.00

Note: Postage charges are included. Prepayment required on orders. SSMA Members receive a discount of twenty percent.

Volume 93(3), March 1993