Research in Science Educatlon,1980,10,159-165.

SCIENCE TEACHERS AND SCIENCE RELATED ATTITUDES

R. A. Schibeci

Australian states, through their Education Departments, have traditionally produced centrallsed, prescriptive curricula, consisting mainly of a series of topics to be studied, more recently, curriculum documents have become less prescriptive: broad guidelines are provided, together with some suggestions for implementing the curriculum. In addition, curriculum writers have placed an increased emphasis on affectlve domain objectives relative to cognitive domain objectives, particularly in science education.

Each of these two trends can be discerned in the changes to the lower secondary science curriculum (for years 8-10) in Western Australia. There seems to be general agreement amongst many educators that these affective objectives are important; but the implications for classroom practitioners are not clear (De Landsheere, 1977).

Few systematic attempts have been made to seek the views of science teachers. McBurney (1978) gathered some data on this issue as part of a wiedr study of the implementation of a new secondary science curriculum in N.S.Wo This study indicated that science teachers were generally not clear about the role of affectlve domain objectives.

One of the few reports of teachers" views of affectlve objectives in Australia is that by Thomson (1975). He sent a letter to elghty-seven teachers requesting their views on this issue, but only fifteen replies were received.

A somewhat more useful contribution to the debate was provided by Brown (1979). She distinguished between four types of attitude objectives: those relating solely to feelings or emotions in the classroom; those concerned with awarenesss; those concerned with values; and, "genuine" attitude objectives, which are directed at specific objects or phenomena. Examples of each of these four types of attitude can be found amongst the objectives of school science curricula. Each of these categories can be located in the taxonomy for the affective domain in science education developed by Klopfer (1976).

For the purpose of this paper, science-related attitudes are divided into two groups. The first group includes those dealing with attitudes to science (such as "enjoyment of science lessons" and "interest in science"), which involve a specific attitude object. The second group includes those scientific attitudes (such as "honesty in reporting data" and "tolerance of the views of others"), which scientists are presumed to display in their

scientific work.

160

This paper reports the analysis of the interviews of a sample of science teachers in Western Australia.

METHOD

A questionnaire was sent to a sample of 202 science teachers in Western Australian government high schools. In addition, teachers from 68 non-government schools were invited to take part in the survey. A total of 149 government school teachers and 49 non-government school teachers returned completed questionnaires.

Of the 188 responding teachers, 72 indicated that they would be willing to be interviewed on the issues raised in the questionnaire. All of the 35 willing teachers in the Perth metropolitan area were interviewed. In addition, the issues were discussed with a group of teachers in one country high school. Large distances of schools from Perth precluded interviews with all willing non-metropolitan teachers.

The interviews were unstructured. At some stage, however, teachers were asked a number of questions. Are student attitudes important? Are they assessed? Does science make a unique contribution to the school curriculum?

Most interviews lasted 30-40 minutes, with a few lasting up to an hour. Each interview was taped, and half were transcribed and independently analysed by a graduate research assistant.

RESULTS and DISCUSSION

Teachers" background

Of the 35 teachers interviewed, 28 were male; this proportion (80.OZ) is similar to the proportion (82.4%) in the total sample of teachers who responded to the mail survey. Most of the interviewed teachers (88.6%) had taught for between four and nine years; this compares with 86.2% of the total sample.

The distribution of these two variables (sex and years of teaching in the two groups) were compared with a test. In addition, the distribution of formal teaching qualifications and number of years of science teaching were compared. No statistically significant differences were found; this indicated that those teachers interviewed were representative of their colleagues on these variables.

Attitudes to science

Teachers generally said that they regarded student enjoyment of science lessons as very important. One teacher summed this up by saying, "One of the most important attitudes ... is enjoyment. I feel that students should enjoy what they are doing".

161

Whether students actually do enjoy their science lessons, however, is a different issue. One teacher thought that " ... the majority of students are Just going through the routine of being in a subject". Another said, "... they are eager to get into it, but when they find it (science) is not just fizzing and bubbling but there is a lot of writing and exercises, they start to lose a bit of interest".

All teachers interviewed believed that student attitudes to science generally deteriorated during the high school years. One teacher summarised the views of his colleagues in this way: "Oh yes, I think they are keen to do anything at year 8. God only knows what we do to them between year 9 and year I0!" A number of factors related to this decline were mentioned by different teachers: as students grew into adolescence, they became interested in a variety of non-school activities; low ability students did not achieve well, and so lost interest; too much emphasis was given to achievement measured by cognitive tests; the home environment was not conducive to positive attitudes to science.

On one hand, enjoyment is regarded as an important objective; on the other, students do not seem to enjoy their lessons after their initial flush of enthusiasm. What factors, according to the teachers, influenced student enjoyment of science lessons?

Teachers regarded their own attitude to the science topic as an important influence. Thus, biology teachers did not find physical science topics such as "heat" or "mechanics" very interesting, and felt that this dislike communicated itself to students. One teacher stated:

.. last year I was interested in the topic "Mice and Men" because the kids love animals ... I was interested, they were interested, we had 86 mice running around and they thoroughly enjoyed it ... it was super, it was good. On the other hand, "Mechanics" I can't stand.

Teacher enthusiasm (either for a specific science topic or for science in general) was consistently mentioned by teachers as being an important influence on student enjoyment of lessons.

Another variable mentioned was the amount of practical work students did. This may, of course, be linked to teacher enthusiasm. A teacher interested in a topic may make more effort to provide practical activities related to the topic. There was general agreement that students enjoyed such activities. In the words of one teacher: "Mainly, I think they seem to enjoy the practical work ... they love heating things up and melting

them down".

An interesting comment on practical activities was provided by one teacher:

�9 . boys expect to work with their hands, whether it's fixing up the car or butcher the meat or whatever, but girls are not expected to do these things and ... they have got this attitude built into them that, here we are, this is a science room, science is difficult, I can't do practical things.

Whether this comment applied to practical activities in biology lessons (which girls, according to teacher, generally enjoy) is not known.

162

Teachers indicated a number of ways in which student interest in science could be improved. The most frequently mentioned of these was "relevance". The claim was made that interest in science would be fostered if the science programme was made more relevant (by the encouragement of student inquiry, by the discussion of issues raised by students, by the study of areas nominated by students).

Two of the teachers interviewed disagreed with their colleagues" views of the importance of attitudes. They said that attitudes were irrelevant: if students were interested, and enjoyed their lesson, this was to be regarded as a "bonus". Another cautioned against making science enjoyable for its own sake: "If you simplify ... (concepts) ... beyond a certain point in attempting to make science enjoyable, I think a lot of the times the concepts are lost".

While the majority of teachers believed that student attitudes were important, they all indicated that no formal attempt was made to assess student attitudes, since they had neither the expertise, nor the time for this type of assessment. All teachers interviewed believed that they could gauge student attitudes quite well through informal methods 4"1 would have a fair idea of each individual kid's attitudes. I think that enjoyment of science is halfway to -'It's the Job half done.")

Some teachers believed that attitudes could not be assessed in the same way as cognitive achievement. Many believed that attitudes should not be used in formal assessment ("I don't think you could use it [an attitude mark] as part of their assessment. It would be useful in knowing how to react to the student"). There was a general disquiet about the use of attitude data for grading purposes..~l~s disquiet, however, was generally not well articulated.

Scientific attitudes

Teachers" views of scientific practice and scientific attitudes can be analysed in terms of three elements: Ca) "Pure" or "ideal" scientific behavlour, which is characterised by scientific attitudes such as "open-mindness", "honesty in recording data", "being tolerant of the views of others" and "suspending Judgement"; (b) the actual behaviour of scientists; (c) the actual behaviour of "normal" people.

Teachers" views of scientific attitudes reveal a confusion regarding these three elements. One teacher stated: "I believe they (scientists) are no more open-mlnded than anybody else, and probably less so." No distinction is made between the behavlour of the scientist in his professional and non-professional llfe. That is, the behaviours represented by (b) and (c) are regarded as identical.

Klopfer 41971) made the important point that these scientific attitudes are best regarded as professional standards, not behaviours of any individual scientist. It was clear, however, that this view was not held by many of the science teachers interviewed.

163

Since the teachers interviewed did not have a clear, coherent view of "scientific method(s)" and scientific attitudes, students could be expected to interpret cues emitted by the teacher (for example, the way the teacher conducts a demonstration lesson in science, or the way in which the teacher presents experimental results). Students must acquire scientific attitudes indirectly if teachers, on thier own admission, do not make conscious attempts to inculcate these attitudes.

One teachers felt that "...science teachers have closed minds and pre-conceived ideas". In the light of this comment, it is interesting to examine some of the perceptions students have of their science teachers. The following year, during a separate stage of the research, students were asked to name a living Australian scientist (or failing that, any living scientist). Invariably, students nominated their science teacher. (The second most popular choice - a poor second - was Harry Butler, a naturalist who conducted a well-known wildlife T.V. series.) At least some students perceive science teachers as models for scientists, and interpret their behaviour in science lessons as typical behaviour of scientists.

Despite the lack of clarity about scientific practice, teachers believed that (in the words of one of them),".., the scientific method should come through science lessons". In the light of this, a comment from oe of the teachers is interesting:

I will be honest, I often cheat the results at times on long-term experiments purely because if the experiment doesn't work (the students will say) our teacher is useless because the experiments don't work.

Does the scientific attitude "honesty in reporting data" need to be modified in school science?

Teachers were not optimistic about the possibility of their students gaining scientific attitudes. There was a general view that ability level of students was an important factor. One teacher summed this up by saying, "The A level (high ability) kids we try to develop the attitude of inquiry and open-mindedness and to be flexible in their thinking. Not possible with basics (low ability children)." This same teacher, however, agreed that the development of an attitude of inquiry was the overall aim of the curriculum. Another teacher believed that this attitude of inquiry was an attitude all children have, particularly in some topics: "Kids have an attitude of inquiry. You talk to them about sex - they have a tremendous attitude of inquiry, but it is only inquiry into things that are motivating them". Some teachers doubted that students" level of thinking was sufficiently developed to allow these attitudes to be fostered.

All teachers interviewed indicated that no attempt was made to assess these attitudes formally. One pointed to time as the problem: "...time is at a premium and questions related to scientific method are very tlme-consuming and one doesn't seem to get much reward from them". It may be, however, that the lack of a coherent view of the role of scientific attitudes may be a more important reason. The assessment of attitudes to science was regarded as being somewhat ethically repugnant; this objection was not raised with the assessment of scientific attitudes.

164

The unique contribution to science

The teachers were all asked at some point in the interview to identify what they perceived to be the unique contribution of science to the curriculum. Generally, the question posed was in the form, "If science were no longer a compulsory curriculum area in grades 8-10, in what way(s) would the students be disadvantaged?"

Most teachers could not i~ediately point to skills or attitudes that develop in students as a result of studying science for three years. Some pointed out that students would obviously lack knowledge of the content of science if they did not study it. Others felt that science was an important part of modern society: " ... you have to have an understanding of the place of science in society and the effects of technology in society �9 .. ". Another said, "... it would be a loss because we live in a scientific world; we have to appreciate that". However, when they were pressed to identify anything students would remember or be able to do (when they left school) as a result of studying science, they could not.

Some teachers identified a knowledge of "the scientific method" as an important contribution of the curriculum. However, these teachers indicated that this knowledge could also be developed in the school's social studies programme, and therefore science was not making a unisue contribution in this area. Others blamed the lack of coherence among the topics in the science curriculum: " ... they cover a topic and throw it away; they throw the books away as well".

In general, then, there was no unique contribution that teachers could point to as Justification for a study of science in the Junior years of high school. ~ne words of one teacher reflected the views of his colleagues: "No ... I really honestly couldn't say that I could put my finger on a unique contribution that comes from science".

REVIEW

One conclusion from this study of perceptions of science-related attitudes could be that science teachers are confused and can articulate their views in a poor fashion only. While this may be a reasonable conclusion, what is more important is that teachers" lack of clear thinking on the issues is a reflection (at least in part) of the confusion shown by curriculum writers in this area. The recent review of the literature related to scientific attitudes (Gauld & Huklns, 1980) indicates clearly the vagueness and inconsistency displayed by many writers. The confusion in the literature related to attitudes to science has been clearly demonstrated by Brown (1979).

It is clear that curriculum writers need to provide much clearer guidance on the role of, and justification for, science-related attitudes. Brown (1979) summarised the position this way:

165

�9 .. the purposes of, and Justification for, teaching towards attitude goals and assessing their achievement have not been given close enough scrutiny: and that scrutiny involves examination of the moral and rational basis of the demands that are made upon teachers or pupils in asking them to accept responsibilities in the affective domain. (p.27)

It may be that developing student interest in science is an important goal; certainly it was one of the major goals of the curriculum reform movement, even though some observers (e.g. Welch, 1979) claimed the movement failed on this criterion. It may be that scientific attitudes can help students in ordinary life, even though some writers (e.g. Gauld, 1976) have cast doubts on this view. Nevertheless, it is clear that there is not yet sufficient agreement amongst curriculum writers; science teachers cannot and should not be expected to implement a set of objectives which are fraught with practical and ethical problems.

Acknowledgement

Ken Treharne provided an independent analysis of the transcripts of the interviews. His helpful comments and suggestions are gratefully recorded.

REFERENCES

BROWN, S. Attitude assessment. Issues in Educational Assessment, Scottish Education Department Occasional Papers, H.M.S.O., 1979.

DE LANDSHEERE, V. On defining educational objectives. Evaluation i__n_n Education, 1977, I, 73-190.

GAULD, C.F. "Scientific attitudes* and personal development. Australian Science Teachers" Journal, 1976, 22(2), 73-82.

GAULD, C.F. & HUKINS, A.A. Scientific attitudes: A review. Studies in Science Education, 1980, in press.

KLOPFER, L.E. Evaluation of learning in science. In Bloom, B.S., Hastings, J.T. & Madaus, G.F. (Eds.) Handbook on summatlve and formative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.

KLOPFER, L. E. A structure for the effective domain in relation to science education. Science Education, 1976, 60(3),299-312.

McBURNEY, S. An evaluation of the implementation of an alms-oriented syllabus. Volumes I-III. Sydney: N.S.W. Department of Education, 1978.

SCHIBECI, R.A. Do teachers rate science attitude objectives as highly as cognitive objectives? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, in press.

THOMPSON, P. The affective outcomes of science teaching: some teacher opinions. Australian Science Teachers" Journal, 1975, 21(2), 5-21.

WELCH, W.W. Twenty years of science curriculum development: A look back. Review of Research in Education, 1979, 7, 282-306.