JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 26, NO. 6, PP. 543-549 (1989)

THE MICROCOMPUTER AND ACHIEVEMENT AND ATTITUDES IN HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY

PAUL B. HOUNSHELL

School of Education, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hi l l , Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

STANFORD R. HILL, JR.

'Winston-SalemlForsyth County Schools, Winston-Salem, North Carolina

Introduction

The course called biology is taken by some 23% of all students enrolled in U.S. high schools (National Science Board, 1985). The numbers are gigantic-teachers, students, classrooms-and the problems associated with the course are gigantic, too. Failure rates are often high, especially in situations where the course is required, classes are too large, and lab space and equipment are inadequate. These factors and many more tend to affect motivation and ultimately general attitudes about science. The course needs to change, to keep up with a truly technological society, perhaps more than any other science course in the curriculum.

One school system in North Carolina chose to experiment with a new approach to the teaching of biology, hoping to improve the development of positive attitudes toward science and science instruction. In the process they felt that students would learn what is considered important in biology content. They arranged to utilize mi- crocomputers to expand, enrich, reconstruct, and supplement the laboratory and lecture components of the traditional biology course for students in grades 10- 12.

Background

Research data on the use of microcomputers in secondary-school biology is sparse. The technology is relatively new and still expensive by public school standards. More important, though, has been the lack of proven software available to users. As software becomes available, it will be used and even more research will be possible.

One of the areas of high potential for the use of microcomputers is obviously the laboratory, for through simulations students can do experiments normally considered

0 1989 by the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0022-4308/89/060543-07$04.00

544 HOUNSHELL AND HILL

impractical or impossible to conduct otherwise (Barnato’ & Barrett, 1981). For example, simulations allow analysis of genetic characteristics of many generations during a single laboratory session. Students are freed from time-consuming procedures so they can concentrate on other important genetics concepts. Experiments on diffusion, osmosis, mitotic division, and population problems can be simulated by microcomputers in a very short period of time and at nominal expense.

Microcomputers can provide much more than laboratory simulations (Adam, 1986). They can be interfaced with laboratory equipment for long-term, precise data collection. For example, the microcomputer can be programmed to take readings from a year-round weather station or to measure electrical impulses in muscle tissue. They can be used to turn laboratory appliances on and off at specified intervals. Computers provide speed and accuracy in the analysis of laboratory data. Although the actual analysis is done by the computer, the student has the responsibility of entering data and deciding on which calculations should be performed. The computer can also be used to determine experimental error plus calculate the precision and variance of laboratory instruments.

The microcomputer can provide remedial assistance, testing programs, and data storage in both the laboratory and the classroom (Walker, 1983). For example, often a great deal of memorization is expected in the study of anatomy: One software package organizes body parts into systems and anatomical regions. The program provides an organized study with appropriate repetition. Students can be tested at their terminal on any topic and at any time. They get rapid feedback on answers and an item analysis, if desired.

Positive contributions occur both in the laboratory and in the regular classroom. Students can learn independently and very rapidly. They are relieved of the drudgery associated with long, tedious calculation and they can really get involved in the “activity” of learning. The computer provides timeless yet immediate feedback while interacting with each student. Programs can respond to each individual student and can be tailored to meet individual needs. Often the computer-interested and -proficient student can be involved in the development and modification of software for biology instruction and this in itself can be both interesting and exciting.

While there are problems with any instructional technique, especially one heavily involved with a new technology, there are also many apparent advantages and these must be explored.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact a computer-loaded biology course has on student achievement and student attitudes toward science. Two questions were explored: (1) Is there a difference in achievement of students exposed to the computer-loaded biology course and students in a comparison group? (2) Is there a difference in attitudes toward science and the science course of students exposed to the computer-loaded biology course and students in a comparison group?

The Computer-Loaded Biology Course

The course involved the use of microcomputers to expand, enrich, and supplement the laboratory and lecture components of the traditional biology course. Content of

MICROCOMPUTER AND HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY 545

the course was specified by a cumculum guide for biology used throughout the school system by all teachers of introductory biology. The difference between the computer- loaded (experimental) classes and the traditional classes was in the use of computer simulations. All students in the experimental classes used the computer an average of 60% of the class time during the experiment with topics such as genetics, population studies, ecology, and environmental studies. Over 100 software items were available for student use during the year (see Table I). Between 70% and 80% of the laboratory

TABLE I Software for Carver Biology Project

INTRO. TO BIOLOGY Cells Tr ibble s

MICROBIOLOGY Microbioloaical Techniques Bacteria Review

Fungi Virus Viruses Virus Questions Protozoa The Pros

BR2

GENETICS Genetics Inheritance Catlab Genetics Gen 1,2,3

PLANTS Photosynthesis Reprodkt ion Plants Transpiration Leaves Plant

"RITION/ENERGY Human energy Expenditure Food Facts MECC Nutrition Volume 1 Health Maintenance Nutrition Volume 2

wIscELuINEous Insects Mammals Life in the Oceans Isaac and F.G. Newton Aquarium Diffusion Game MECC Teacher Utilities 1-4 Games

H" ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGY Microbe Excretion Transport Digestion Nervous Locomotion Experiments in Human

The Ear Heart Lab circulatory System Your Body ( 6 programs) The Skeletal System Bones Muscles The Muscular System Muscles Review Questions Nerves Nervous System

NS Parts NS Anatomy More NS Anatomy The Last NS Reflex Digestion I, 11, 111 circ Blood Nerves 1,2,3,4 Review NS Parts Review Last NS Review Digestion 1,2 Review Fish

ECOLOGY Pest Buff d o

Whale Predator-Prey Relationships Pond Ecology Water Pollution Air Pollution Manrgy Energy and Environment Biomes Review Ecology 1,2,3 Review Eco Review Heatloss lrii ne r a 1 s ode11 Lake

Physiology

NS-2,3

Tag

546 HOUNSHELL AND HILL

activity utilized the computer in one way or another. Students were introduced to computer use during the first two weeks of class with additional instruction incorporated into the program as needed throughout the year.

The Design

Seventy-six students were randomly selected from a total population of 202 students who volunteered to be considered for inclusion in the study. Biology is a required high-school subject and all 202 students needed the course. The remaining 126 students comprised the comparison group.

The 76 students in the experimental group were placed in five classes with class size limited to 16. This allowed a ratio of two students to one computer. The classroom is equipped with eight Apple IIE microcomputers and one printer and is designed with a laboratory area for conducting noncomputerized laboratory activity. Students in the comparison group were in traditional classes and classrooms, using the prescribed systemwide biology curriculum. Experimental and comparison groups were involved in this research project for 27 consecutive weeks. Experimental and comparison students were tested at the end of 27 weeks, all on the same day.

Instruments

Three instruments were utilized to provide data for the project: the I.O.X. Self Appraisal Inventory, the Moore’s Science Attitude Inventory, and the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills. The I.O.X. and Moore’s were used to identify differences in attitudes and the CTBS was used to provide data on science achievement.

This test employs a criterion-referenced approach to detect the status of a selected sample. Developed by the Instructional Objectives Exchange in conjunction with the UCLA Center For the Study of Evaluation, the inventory focuses on four aspects of self-concept: “peer,” “family,” “school,” and “general.” Test users may employ the entire exam with a single score or any combination of one or more sections.

This study utilized the 15 statements emphasizing the aspect “school” with the terms “science class” or “science teacher” inserted in order to solicit responses that applied to their experience in the science classroom.

This inventory is based on a group of specific attitudes toward science and science teaching and three criteria governed the selection of these attitudes: The attitudes to be assessed had to reflect the concerns of science educators for the objectives of science teaching, intellectual attitudes toward science and emotional attitudes about science had to be assessed, and both positive and negative attitudes had to be included in the assessment.

The authors were familiar with many of the pros (Moore and Sutman, 1970) and cons (Munby, 1983) on the SAI and its use in research. Validity and reliability of affective instrumentation are, indeed, serious concerns. They are not overlooked in this research project and are addressed more in the “Discussion” section that follows.

Each of the 42 items is designed to aid in the assessment of four attitudes and each attitude is approached in both a positive and a negative manner. Students respond to each item by choosing one of four responses: strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree. Scores were analyzed two ways: (1) according to specific attitudes and (2) to yield an assessment of a global attitude toward science.

The I.O.X. Self Appraisal Inventory.

Moore’s Science Attitude Inventory.

MICROCOMPUTER AND HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY 547

Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills. The subtest used for this study was the 40- item science test. It is designed to access objectives included in the following: recognition, classification, quantification, interpretation of data, prediction of data, hypothesis eval- uation, and design analysis. It includes all areas of science instruction.

This test does have published validity and reliability data, and while it is not just a biology test it does include content from the areas of botany, zoology, and ecology. Additional discussion of this test is included in the last section.

Findings

1 . Is there a difference in the achievement of students exposed to the computer- loaded biology course and students in a comparison group? Mean score on the Comprehension Test of Basic Skills for the experimental group was 20.29 (S .D.: 7.14) with a mean score for the comparison group of 17.46 (S.D.: 6.46). A t-test of 2.67 was significant the 0.05 level.

2 . Is there a difference in attitudes toward science and the science course of students exposed to the computer-loaded biology course and students in a comparison group? Mean score on the I.O.X. Inventory for the experimental group was 29.11 (S.D.: 6.77) with a mean score for the comparison group of 26.63 (S.D.: 6.73). A t- test of 2.34 was significant at the 0.05 level.

The biology-loaded group, on the Science Attitude Inventory, scored significantly higher (0.05) with the total score than the comparison group. They also scored significantly higher on all of the “P” (positive) subscales than the comparison group.

Discussion

This school system wanted to field test a new approach to the teaching of biology and they wanted to be able to show all concerned-policy makers, administrators, teachers, and parents-whether or not it was worth expanding to other schools and eventually to all schools in the system.

As was indicated earlier, biology is required for all students for graduation- enrollments are high-and add to this fact that for many students it is the last science course they will ever take, the importance of the course escalates.

The data from this study indicated that the idea is worth trying elsewhere: Computer utilization for selected laboratory, demonstration, and other classroom activity can make a difference in improving both attitudes and achievement of students enrolled in biology.

A primary concern of school officials in this school system was and still is the students’ attitudes about science in general and biology specifically in regard to the first-year biology program. “Attitude” is, in this situation, very generic and reasonably undefined. It is “the feeling” that one has about science, including biology, and it is this feeling that this project tried to measure. Two instruments were used with both experimental and control groups, and prior use by the authors and claims by both instrument developers indicate that these generic inclinations are measured; i.e., those who have positive attitudes about science score higher than those who do not!

The attitude instruments, especially Moore’s, have been extensively examined and their use seriously questioned. Munby (Munby, 1983) questioned not only the SAI but the integrity of attitude research in general. These authors happen to agree with Munby’s concerns about attitude measurement while at the same time admitting

548 HOUNSHELL AND HILL

the importance and significance of attitudes-feelings, likes, and dislikes-about science. Two instruments were used and both were deemed likely to provide data more creditable that the oft-used “researcher-made’’ instruments. At least these instruments had bee0 used extensively and had been extensively analyzed!

Knowing that policy makers want “hard data” and that this usually means “how much did they learn,” the authors searched for an instrument that would measure achievement. Obviously, an insmment with existing “testing respect” was most desirable but one has only to contact test suppliers or look through Buros Mental Measurement to get an indication of the problem. There is very little available and what is still on the market is usually outdated. Another alternative was the “investigator-made instrument,” but this often-used approach leaves much to be desired!

Finally, the investigators decided to go with a well-known instrument from a well- known supplier. The tests from CTB/McGraw-Hill are developed using contemporary test construction, state-of-the-art methods, and both reliability and validity data are published.

The test used does cover the major biological areas as well as physical science areas but the purpose of the project was not to compare to national norms or validate a total science program. The test was to provide information on the difference between two groupings of students-one using computer labs and one using the traditional (for that school system) approach. No claims about the test or comparison of results to national norms were a part of the analysis.

As with any field test in education when you try to utilize a “reasonably normal” situation, you generally sacrifice some control factors. Students volunteered; did this create a biased population? Perhaps, but both experimental and comparison groups came from the same group of volunteers and the experimental group was randomly selected. Causal examination of the volunteer group did not indicate abnormal features: Sex, race, teacher reaction to group characteristics, achievement, and attitudes in general all appeared in line with the total biology-student population. Even so, care must be taken in generalizing to populations other than similar volunteer groups!

The instruments used in this study may not be ideal, but when one examines market availability of sound achievement and attitude instruments the problem comes into perspective. The picture is dismal.

Class size of the experimental group was small as compared to average class size of other biology classes. Computer availability alone restricted class size for the experimental group (one computer for each pair of students); the same class size could not be justified for other biology classes, which average around 24 students per class. These researchers speculate that the class-size differential between these experimental and comparison groups would not make the difference in results, but this factor must be tested.

In summary, the computer-loaded biology cumculum appears to offer promise in secondary education in regard to achievement and attitudes and it has the added benefits, among others, of ease of management (in comparison to the traditional laboratory), and the utilization of “modern technology.

References

Adams, Richard C. (1986). Science for the ungifted. The Computing Teacher, 13(4).

MICROCOMPUTER AND HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY 549

Barnato, Carolyn & Barrett, Kathy (1981). Micro-computers in biology inquiry. The American Biology Teacher, 43(7), 372-378.

Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (1974). Technical Bulletin No. 1 , Del Monte Research Park, Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.

Francis, Peter R. & Boysen, John P. (1981). Them bones: The use of computer- assisted instructional techniques in the teaching of human anatomy. The Computing Teacher, pp. 11-16, November.

Haney, Michael R. (1982). The computer in science education: Defining the role of technology. The Computing Teacher, pp. 32-35, April.

Haney, Michael R. (1982). The Micro-computer in the science lab: Where can teachers find the resources? The Computing Teacher, pp. 34-36, May.

Hilgenfeld, Robert (198 1). “Checking out” software. The Computing Teacher, pp. 24-27, November.

Hofstetter, Fred T. (1979). Fourth Summative Report of the Delaware PLAT0 Project. ED 202-472.

Mathis, Judi, Statistical sampling of fish populations. The Computing Teacher, 13(9).

Measures of Self Concept, K-12 (Revised Edition) (1972). Los Angeles, CA: Instructional Objectives Exchange.

Moore, Richard W. & Sutman, Frank X. (1970). The development, field test and validation of an inventory of scientific attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

Munby, High (1983). Thirty studies involving the scientific attitude: What confidence

O’Brien, Thomas C. (1983). Five essays on computers in education. Phi Delta

Science Indicators: The 1985 Report of the National Science Board (1985). Wash-

Singer, Barbara (1983). How do teacher and student evaluation of CAI software

Walker, Decker F. (1983). Reflections on the educational potential and limitations

Walton, Susan & McLamb, Skip (1986). Getting your feet wet in Iowa. The

7, 85-94.

do we have in this instrument?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(2).

Kappan, 65(2), 110-112.

ington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

compare?. The Computing Teacher, pp. 34-36, October.

of micro-computers. Phi Delta Kappan, 65(2), 103-107.

Computing Teacher, 13(5).

Manuscript accepted April 15, 1988.