gender, achievement, and perception toward science activities

6
Gender, Achievement, and Perception Toward Science Activities Daniel P. Shepardson Department of Curriculum & Instruction Purdue University Edward L. Pizzini Science Education Center The University of Iowa The purpose of this study was to investigate the perception toward science activities and science achievement of boys and girls in middle school life science. Student perceptions toward science activities and achievement were measured in three different instructional treatments: textbook-worksheet, traditional laboratory, and Search, Solve, Create, Share (SSCS) problem solving. The results indicate no significant difference in student achievement by gender or science activities, and no significant difference in perception by gender. However, a significant difference (p<.05) was obtained for student perception by science activities. Follow-up comparisons suggested significant differences among SSCS problem solving and traditional laboratory and textbook-worksheet activities, with no difference between traditional laboratory and textbook-worksheet activities. The underrepresentation of women in scientific professions has become a national concern. This concern has resulted in a variety of studies designed to identify gender differences that may contribute to the dirth of females in the scientific pipeline (see Oakes, 1990). It has been proposed that the attitude of girls toward science is one factor that influences the decision of girls to participate in science, as well as their achievement in science. Important attributes of attitude formation, for girls, appear to be the per- ceived usefulness of the science being learned, con- fidence in learning and doing science, interest in people, and a liking of science (Oakes, 1990). Further, the learning situation can affect the attitude students develop toward science (Hofstein, Scherz, & Yager, 1986; Kulm, 1980; Talton & Simpson, 1987). Therefore, learning situations that are perceived positively by girls may contribute to their development of a positive attitude toward sci- ence, as well as improve achievement. The learning situation also influences the opportunity girls have to engage in learning science. Although there is evidence that boys benefit more from traditional in- structional activities, whereas girls benefit more from cooperative and hands-on activities, the evidence is inconclusive (Oakes, 1990). Kahle (1990) has stated that inquiry-oriented instruction has the potential of producing equitable outcomes in attitude and achievement, and Glaton (1981) has concluded that girls prefer inquiry- oriented instruction. Zimmerer and Bennett (1987) found that both eighth-grade boys and girls enjoy doing science experiments, but that boys were more enthusiastic than girls. Shymansky, Hedges, and Woodworth (1990) observed that inquiry-oriented instruction only improved the attitude of boys toward science, while Fleming and Malone (1983) found that boys had a more positive attitude toward science than girls at the elementary level, but that girls had a more positive attitude toward science at the middle school level. Finally, the National As- sessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) indicates that boys tend to have a more positive attitude toward science than girls and that this trend has changed little over time (Mullis & Jenkins, 1988). From an achievement perspective, the NAEP results indicate no difference between boys and girls at the knowledge level (knows everyday science facts), but that boys perform at higher pro- ficiency levels than girls in middle/juinor high, sug- gesting a relationship between attitude and achieve- ment (Mullis & Jenkins, 1988; Mullis, Dossey, Foertsch, Jones, & Gentile, 1991). However, Steinkamp and Maehr (1983) concluded that there is insufficient evidence to link gender differences in attitude toward science to science achievement. Because of the poor attitude toward science of both boys and girls, Yager and Penick (1986) have argued that science needs to be taught differently; that science needs to be taught dynamically, not as a static subject in textbooks. Exemplary science pro- grams accentuate the dynamic teaching of science, emphasizing inquiry instruction, allowing students to pursue areas of personal interest (Reynolds et al., 1985). Exemplary science programs recognize that student attitude toward science arises from the suc- cess or failure students have with instructional materials (Penick & Krajcik, 1985). School Science and Mathematics

Upload: daniel-p-shepardson

Post on 30-Sep-2016

214 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Gender, Achievement, and Perception Toward Science Activities

Gender, Achievement, and Perception TowardScience Activities

Daniel P. ShepardsonDepartment of Curriculum & InstructionPurdue University

Edward L. PizziniScience Education CenterThe University of Iowa

The purpose of this study was to investigate the perception toward science activities and scienceachievement ofboys and girls inmiddle school life science. Studentperceptions towardscience activitiesand achievement were measured in three different instructional treatments: textbook-worksheet,traditional laboratory, and Search, Solve, Create, Share (SSCS) problem solving. The results indicateno significant difference in student achievement by gender or science activities, and no significantdifference in perception by gender. However, a significant difference (p<.05) was obtainedfor studentperception by science activities. Follow-up comparisons suggested significant differences among SSCSproblem solving and traditional laboratory and textbook-worksheet activities, with no differencebetween traditional laboratory and textbook-worksheet activities.

The underrepresentation of women in scientificprofessions has become a national concern. Thisconcern has resulted in a variety of studies designedto identify gender differences that may contribute tothe dirth of females in the scientific pipeline (seeOakes, 1990). It has been proposed that the attitudeof girls toward science is one factor that influencesthe decision of girls to participate in science, as wellas their achievement in science. Important attributesof attitude formation, for girls, appear to be the per-ceived usefulness of the science being learned, con-fidence in learning and doing science, interest inpeople, and a liking of science (Oakes, 1990).

Further, the learning situation can affect theattitude students develop toward science (Hofstein,Scherz, & Yager, 1986; Kulm, 1980; Talton &Simpson, 1987). Therefore, learning situations thatare perceived positively by girls may contribute totheir development of a positive attitude toward sci-ence, as well as improve achievement. The learningsituation also influences the opportunity girls haveto engage in learning science. Although there isevidence that boys benefit more from traditional in-structional activities, whereas girls benefit morefrom cooperative and hands-on activities, theevidence is inconclusive (Oakes, 1990).

Kahle (1990) has stated that inquiry-orientedinstruction has the potential of producing equitableoutcomes in attitude and achievement, and Glaton(1981) has concluded that girls prefer inquiry-oriented instruction. Zimmerer and Bennett (1987)found that both eighth-grade boys and girls enjoydoing science experiments, but that boys were moreenthusiastic than girls. Shymansky, Hedges, and

Woodworth (1990) observed that inquiry-orientedinstruction only improved the attitude of boystoward science, while Fleming and Malone (1983)found that boys had a more positive attitude towardscience than girls at the elementary level, but thatgirls had a more positive attitude toward science atthe middle school level. Finally, the National As-sessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) indicatesthat boys tend to have a more positive attitudetoward science than girls and that this trend haschanged little over time (Mullis & Jenkins, 1988).

From an achievement perspective, the NAEPresults indicate no difference between boys andgirls at the knowledge level (knows everydayscience facts), but that boys perform at higher pro-ficiency levels than girls in middle/juinor high, sug-gesting a relationship between attitude and achieve-ment (Mullis & Jenkins, 1988; Mullis, Dossey,Foertsch, Jones, & Gentile, 1991). However,Steinkamp and Maehr (1983) concluded that thereis insufficient evidence to link gender differences inattitude toward science to science achievement.

Because of the poor attitude toward science ofboth boys and girls, Yager and Penick (1986) haveargued that science needs to be taught differently;that science needs to be taught dynamically, not as astatic subject in textbooks. Exemplary science pro-grams accentuate the dynamic teaching of science,emphasizing inquiry instruction, allowing studentsto pursue areas of personal interest (Reynolds et al.,1985). Exemplary science programs recognize thatstudent attitude toward science arises from the suc-cess or failure students have with instructionalmaterials (Penick & Krajcik, 1985).

School Science and Mathematics

Page 2: Gender, Achievement, and Perception Toward Science Activities

Gender, Achievement, and Perception

Purpose

Although studies have investigated student at-titude toward science and achievement, few studieshave attempted to investigate the underlying at-tributes of student attitude; that is, what is it aboutscience that boys and girls like or dislike. The per-ception boys and girls have about science activitiesmay contribute to the development of their attitudetoward science, as well as influence achievement.Thus, the purpose of this study was to assess theperception toward science activities and scienceachievement of boys and girls in middle school lifescience. The specific questions of this study were:

1. Is there a difference in the perceptionboys and girls have of science activities?

2. Is there a difference in the scienceachievement of boys and girls exposedto different science activities?

Method

The study involved a pretest/posttest design forstudent achievement and a posttest only design forstudent perception toward science activities. Be-cause students had different science experiencesprior to the study, which colors their perception,and since we were only interested in their percep-tion of the immediate science activities they wereexposed to, the posttest-only design for student per-ception was considered appropriate. Gender wastreated as an effect in both designs. The achieve-ment pretest was administered 10 days prior to thestudy. The achievement posttest and perceptionquestionnaire were administered immediatelyfollowing the completion of the treatments, 20 daysfrom the administration of the pretest.

Science ActivitiesStudents were exposed to one of three science

activities: textbook-worksheet, traditional labora-tory, and problem solving. The problem solvingactivities were considered representative of exem-plary science. That is, they were inquiry oriented.The science activities were conducted in the contextof a 10 day unit on simple plants, designed aroundthe science content of a dominant middle school lifescience textbook (Weiss et al., 1989). Thus, eachtreatment was similar in content coverage andlength of instruction, but differed in the nature ofthe science activities students completed. Eachteacher maintained a teaching log, which was re-

viewed to insure consistency among teachers in theimplementation of the treatments.

The textbook-worksheet treatment introducedstudents to science content through a combinationof lecture and textbook reading. Students com-pleted all textbook questions and publisher-basedworksheets, which were designed to reinforce thecontent discussed during lecture and textbookreading. Worksheet activities consisted of puzzels/games and "dry" laboratory exercises. Answers totextbook questions and worksheets were discussedin whole class situations to insure that all studentsreceived the "correct" answer.

Traditional laboratory activities were based onpublisher materials, which according to Pizzini,Shepardson, and Abell (1991) emphasize verifica-tion or structured inquiry. Science content waspresented to students prior to laboratory activities,through class lecture and textbook reading. Labora-tory activities required students to follow predeter-mined procedures, collect and analyze data, anddraw conclusions. Students worked together insmall groups to complete the laboratory activities,and received an individual grade. Following thecompletion of the laboratory activities, teacher-leadclass discussion ensued. The purpose of class dis-cussions were to insure that all students derived asimilar conclusion from the laboratory activities.

Problem-solving activities revolved around theSearch, Solve, Create, Share (SSCS) problem-solving model. SSCS activities involved students inidentifying and refining their own problems inscience, identifying potential solutions to theirproblems, developing and implementing their planof action, preparing a means to communicate theirproblem and findings, and presenting their problemand findings to the class. To provide students withcontent background knowledge, a lecture and text-book reading session was conducted prior to studentproblem identification. SSCS involved students incollaborative group settings. For additional infor-mation on SSCS see Pizzini, Abell, and Shepardson(1988) and Pizzini, Shepardson, and Abell (1989).

SampleThe middle school (grades 7-8) students were

taught in two different school districts by two dif-ferent science teachers. Each teacher taught twoclasses within each treatment. The intact classeswere randomly assigned to a treatment. Do to stu-dent absenteeism, only the achievement and percep-tion scores for those students who completed the

Volume 94(4), April, 1994

Page 3: Gender, Achievement, and Perception Toward Science Activities

Gender, Achievement, and Perception

unit were analyzed. The number and gender ofstudents in each treatment are displayed in Table 1.Students had not been exposed to SSCS problem-solving activities prior to the study. Thus, a poten-tial novelty affect may exist.

Table 1.

Number of Students by Gender for each Treatment

Treatment/GenderTextbook-worksheet Activities

Girls 414384

414788

455196

BoysTotal

Traditional Laboratory ActivitiesGirlsBoysTotal

SSCS Problem Solving ActivitiesGirlsBoysTotal

Achievement Test and Perception QuestionnaireThe pre- and post-achievement tests were

identical, consisting of 30 items divided into threecategories of 10 items each: textbook-based facts,processes, and application. Each item was of amultiple choice nature and weighted equally, pro-viding a minimum achievement score of zero and amaximum achievement score of 30. Four scienceteachers and three university science educatorsdeemed the achievement test to be content validbased on the textual information provided to allstudents. However, because of the nature of SSCSproblem-solving activities (students determiningtheir own learning within the content area), theachievement posttest may be negatively biasedtoward student performance. That is, the achieve-ment posttest may not be content valid for the SSCStreatment. Reliability was determined by the KR20procedure, using pretest scores. A reliability co-efficient of r = .43 was obtained. The low reliabil-ity is likely attributed to the limited number of testitems.

The perception questionnaire was designed toassess student perception toward science activities:student perception of involvement, learning useful-ness, and personal enjoyment. The questionnairewas piloted in the prior academic year, under

similar conditions. The questionnaire was refinedbased on teacher input, student responses, and itemanalysis. The questionnaire was designed to bebrief to reduce resistance from students, whichcould influence the interpretation (Issaac &Michael, 1978). The questionnaire consisted ofeight Likert Scale items. Each item contained fiveresponse levels: strongly agree, agree, undecided,disagree, and strongly disagree. The responselevels were weighted according to their positiveperception toward science activities, ranging fromfive (most positive) to one (least positive). Eachresponse item score was totaled to derive an accu-mulative score. Thus, 40 would be the maximumpositive perception score possible and 8 would bethe minimum positive perception score possible. Areliability ofr= .84 was obtained.

Data AnalysisBecause of intact classrooms, achievement and

perception data were analyzed using an ANCOVA.Bonferroni t-tests were employed, where appropri-ate, as follow-up comparison tests. The pretestachievement scores served as the covariate in theachievement analysis by science activities and gen-der effect. Student perception was analyzed usingthe posttest achievement scores as the covariate andscience activities and gender as the effect. Homo-geneity of slope was analyzed and appears plausiblefor both achievement (F^ = 0.18,;? = .834) andperception (F = 1.51,p = .224). All analysiswere conducted using SYSTAT (Wilkinson, 1988).

Results

The descriptive results are presented in Tables2 (achievement) and 3 (perception). The ANCOVAresults indicated no statistical difference in studentachievement by gender or science activities (Table4). The ANCOVA indicated a statistically signifi-cant difference in student perception toward scienceactivities (Table 5). However, no statistical differ-ence was indicated by gender.

Follow-up comparisons for student perceptionsuggested significant differences among SSCS andtraditional laboratory activities, ^ ^ = 20.53, p <.001; and SSCS and textbook-worksheet activities,

^ ^g= 11.96, p = .001. No significant difference

between the traditional laboratory and textbook-worksheet activities were observed, ^ ^ = 2.14,/?=.145.

School Science and Mathematics

Page 4: Gender, Achievement, and Perception Toward Science Activities

Gender, Achievement, and Perception

Table 5.

ANCOVAfor Perception

Science Activities

Textbook-worksheetGirlsBoysTotal

Traditional LaboratoryGirlsBoysTotal

SSCS Problem SolvingGirlsBoysTotal

PreM

8.717.848.30

7.427.367.41

6.737.066.94

testCDO-L^

3.333.12320j*^\j

3.063.333 23j t^j

2.192.81251Aj.fc^ A

PostM

11.7311.0911.40

12.3411.6612.12

11.4711.3511 441 A �’II

LtestCD\j]Lf

3.963.153.60

3.903.703.82

2.932.882.90

Source DF SS MS

Activities 2 938.63 469.32Gender 1 28.95 28.95Interaction 2 0.55 0.27Covariate 1 25.15 25.15Error 261 10108.89 38.73

Discussion

This study provides a glimpse intoschool life science, contributing to our understand-ing of gender, achievement, and perception towardscience activities. It appears that science activitiesin exemplary programs, like SSCS problem solving,do not imoede the science achievement

F

12.120.750.01

middle

of bovs

p

.001

.388

.99

and

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics for Achievement by ScienceActivities and Gender

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics for Perception by ScienceActivities and Gender

Science ActivitiesSDM

Textbook-worksheetGirlsBoysTotal

Traditional LaboratoryGirlsBoysTotal

SSCS Problem SolvingGirlsBoysTotal

33.2233.7233.50

31.7132.4332.10

36.1336.7736.50

5.834.865.30

7.086.886.90

6.256.136.20

Table 4.

ANCOVAfor Achievement

Source

Activities

Gender

Interaction

Covariate

Error

DF

2

1

2

1

261

SS

8.93

8.59

3.76

949.60

2127.00

MS

4.49

8.59

1.88

949.60

8.15

F

0.55

1.05

0.23

P

.579

.305

.794

This study provides a glimpse into middleschool life science, contributing to our understand-ing of gender, achievement, and perception towardscience activities. It appears that science activitiesin exemplary programs, like SSCS problem solving,do not impede the science achievement of boys andgirls as they promote a more positive perception ofscience activities. Further, the results suggest that itis not the success or failure students have with theinstructional materials (Penick & Krajcik, 1985), asdetermined by achievement, but the nature or con-text of the interactions with the instructional ma-terials. However, this study was of a short duration,therefore, perhaps over longer periods such resultswould not be obtained.

From an achievement perspective, the resultsare consistent with the NAEP findings (Mullis &Jenkins, 1988; Mullis et al., 1991) that no profi-ciency difference exists between boys and girls inmiddle school science. However, caution is war-ranted in the interpretation of the achievementresults of this study, because of the low reliabilityof the achievement test. Although Mullis andJenkins (1988) alluded to the possibility of apositive relationship between attitude and profi-ciency, that relationship is not suggested here. Itappears that a positive perception toward scienceactivities is not an indicator of achievement, whichis consistent with the findings of Steinkamp andMaehr (1983). That is, students may perceive thescience activities (traditional laboratories and text-books) engaged in as uninteresting, but their en-gagement in the activities is sufficient to promoteachievement. Although Shymansky et al. (1990)noted a gender effect for attitude, no gender effectexisted for student perception toward science activ-ities. However, students (boys and girls) engagedin SSCS problem solving were more positive about

Volume 94(4), April, 1994

Page 5: Gender, Achievement, and Perception Toward Science Activities

Gender, Achievement, and Perception

the science activities than students engaged in tra-ditional laboratory and textbook-based instruction.Thus, the nature of the instructional activities maybe an underlying attribute of student attitude towardscience, supporting the view of Hofstein et al.(1986) and Talton and Simpson (1987) that thenature of the activities affects student attitude. Theresults of this study support the notion that inquiry-oriented instruction has the potential for equitableoutcomes (Kahle, 1990), and that girls (Gallon,1981) as well as boys prefer inquiry-oriented in-struction. Although this study was of a short dura-tion, the results suggest that when science is taughtdynamically, student attitude toward science maybe enhanced through positive student perception ofscience activities.

References

Fleming, M.L. & Malone, M.R. (1983). Therelationship of student characteristics andstudent performance in science as viewed bymeta-analysis research. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 20,481-495.

Glaton, M. (1981). Differential treatment of boyand girl pupils during science lessons. In A.Kelly (Ed.), The missing half. Manchester,England: Manchester University Press.

Hofstein, A., Scherz, Z., & Yager, R.E. (1986).What students say about science teaching,science teachers and science classes in Israeland the U.S. Science Education, 70,21-30.

Isaac, S. & Michael, W.B. (1987). Handbook inresearch and evaluation. San Diego, CA:Edits Publishers.

Kahle, J.B. (1990). Why girls don’t know. InM.B.Rowe (Ed.), What research says to the scienceteacher, (Vol. 6). Washington, DC: NationalScience Teachers Association.

Kulm, G. (1980). Research on mathematics atti-tude. In R.J. Shumway (Ed.), Research inmathematics education. Reston, VA: NationalCouncil of Teachers of Mathematics.

MuUis, I.S. & Jenkins, L.B. (1988). The sciencereport card elements of risk and recovery.Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

MuUis, I.S., Dossey, J., Foertsch, M., Jones, L., &Gentile, C. (1991). Trends in academicprogress. Washington, DC: Office of Educa-tional Research and Improvement, U.S. Depart-ment of Education.

Oakes, J. (1990). Opportunities, achievement, and

choice: Women and minority students inscience and mathematics. In C. B. Cazden(Ed.), Review of Research in Education,Washington, DC: American EducationalResearch Association.

Penick, J.E. & Krajcik, J. (1985). Middle schooVjunior high science: A synthesis and critique.In J. Penick & J. Krajcik (Eds.), Focus onexcellence: Middle school/junior high science,(Vol. 2, No. 2). Washington, DC: NationalScience Teachers Association.

Pizzini, E.L., Abell, S.K., & Shepardson, D.P.(1988). Rethinking thinking in the scienceclassroom. The Science Teacher, 55, 22-25.

Pizzini, E.L., Shepardson, D.P., & Abell, S.K.(1989). A rationale for and the development ofa problem solving model of instruction inscience education. Science Education, 73, 523-534.

Pizzini, E.L., Shepardson, D.P., & Abell, S.K.(1991). The inquiry level ofjunior highactivities: Implications to science teaching.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28,111-121.

Reynolds, K.E., Pitotti, W.W., Rakow, S.J., Thomp-son, T., & Wohl, S.M. (1985). Excellence inmiddle/junior high school science. In J. Penick& J. Krajcik (Eds.), Focus on excellence:Middle school/junior high science, (Vol. 2, No.2). Washington, DC: National ScienceTeachers Association.

Shymansky, J.A., Hedges, L.V., & Woodworth, G.(1990). A reassessment of the effects ofinquiry-based science curricula of the ’60’s onstudent performance. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 27, 127-144.

Steinkamp, M. & Maehr, M. (1983). Affect, ability,and science achievement: A quantitativesynthesis of correlational research. Review ofEducational Research, 53, 369-396.

Talton. E.L. & Simpson, R.D. (1987). Relation-ships of attitude toward classroom environmentwith attitude toward and achievement inscience among tenth-grade biology students.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24,507-525.

Weiss, I.R., Nelson, B.H., Boyd, S.E., & Hudson,S.B. (1989). Science and mathematics educa-tion briefing book 1989. Chapel Hill, NC:Horizon Research, Inc.

Wilkinson, L. (1988). SYSTAT: The system forstatistics. Evanston, IL: SYSTAT, Inc.

School Science and Mathematics

Page 6: Gender, Achievement, and Perception Toward Science Activities

Gender, Achievement, and Perception 193

Yager, R.E. & Penick, J.E. (1986). Perceptions offour age groups toward science classes, teach-ers, and the value of science. Science Educa-tion, 70, 355-363.

Zimmerer, L.K. & Bennett, S.M. (1987). Genderdifferences on the California statewide assess-ment of attitudes and achievement in science.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

American Educational Research Association,Washington, DC.

Note: The authors’ addresses are Daniel P.Shepardson, School Mathematics and Science Center,Department of Curriculum and Instruction, PurdueUniversity, West Lafayette, IN 47907; and Edward L.Pizzini, Science Education Center, The University ofIowa, Iowa City, IA 52242.

Spreadsheets in Mathematics and Science Teaching

John C. WhitmerWestern Washington University

Monograph #3 in the SSMA Classroom Activities Series

This publication provides an introduction to the fundamentals of spreadsheet usage and design.Classroom strategies and approaches, including the introduction of templates for student usage,are recommended with the admonition that:

"... although well suited in science and mathematics classes, spreadsheets shouldnot overshadow what they are being used for. Ideally, students should be concentrat-

ing on the science and mathematics, not the computer. A spreadsheet, like any tool,is a means to an end, not the end in itself." (p. 24)

Over 20 sets of examples are introduced to provide a model for usage of the spreadsheet,including:

Circles and K - Magic Squares - Our ClassElectricity Bills - Solar System Models

Number Sequences and Patterns - ProbabilityIdeal Gas Equation of State - Radioactive Decay

Population Changes - The Elements of LifeChemical Stoichiometry - pH of Acid SolutionsBarometric Pressure - The Simple Pendulum

Stock Market Simulation - The Mean and Standard DeviationLeast Squares Linear Regression - Solution of Equations

The Maxwell Distribution of Molecular Speedsplus

Solutions to Extensions and Problemsand a

Bibliography

Spiral Bound, 118 pages, ISBN 0-912047-09-7, Copyright 1992Price $15.00 (shipping included), SSMA members receive a 20% discount

Order from: Executive Office, Curriculum & Foundations, Bloomsburg University,Bloomsburg, PA 17815, telephone number (717) 389-4639

Volume 94(4), April, 1994