Children S Attitudes to Science and Their Choices Post-16

Children’s Attitudes to Science and their Choices Post-16

John Sears

Secondary ITE, Canterbury Christ Church College

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference

(September 11-14 1997: University of York)

ABSTRACT:

This paper reports the results (as far as they have been analysed) of a study of pupils’ attitudes to science. The attitudes were studied using the TOSRA and a number of other approaches. The main findings so far would indicate that children enjoy their science lessons and think that science is a valuable activity. However, they find science difficult and prefer to choose a mixture of subjects at A-level. Sex stereotypes in choices remains a concern, as does the problem of lower achieving pupils at KS4.

INTRODUCTION:

The history of the meaning of the term “attitudes” is long and complex and full of disagreement, and yet most people would agree that attitude is a fundamental concept in analysing human behaviour. Attitude is clearly a theoretical construct to help explain the covariation between stimuli and responses. Most theorists have assumed that attitudes are a form of learned disposition “…the concrete representations of culture…” (Allport 1935) although more recently some psychologists have suggested that some attitudes may have a biological (indeed genetic) base (McGuire 1985 reported in Eagly & Chaiken 1993). Perhaps a useful and generally agreed definition would be “a learned state that creates a disposition to respond in particular (consistent) ways to particular objects”. This learned state should further be acknowledged as an evaluative tendency that judges “objects” in terms of favour or disfavour, such “objects” being values, courses of action, persons or things.

For many years the concept of attitude has been built around the tripartite view, that attitudes have the possibility of affecting cognitive structures (beliefs), affective structures (emotions) or connation (behaviour). It is not clear that all three are, or should be, necessary to the existence of an attitude, or to what degree each may be important in particular attitudes. There is conflicting evidence as to the overall discriminant validity of the three components and this has led some to argue for a two-component, or even one component model (Fishbein & Ajzen 1974, Dillon & Kumar 1985 reported in Eagly & Chaiken 1993).

One of the main problems facing all attitude theorists is the connection between attitude and behaviour. Many studies have shown very weak correlation between attitude and behaviour. To overcome this perceived defect of behavioural prediction Ajzen and Fishbein 1980 proposed the theory of reasoned action. (Of course there are ways of explaining the low correlation in terms of competing attitudes, social interaction pressures and so on, but there remains a lurking suspicion that if attitudes are a predisposition to act, then they should have a high correlation with behaviour.) This theory took the view that attitude was mainly to do with the affective component and that the important notion was the attitude towards the behaviour in question. This attitude could be influenced by cognitive beliefs about the behaviour which in turn would affect the intention to act. Moreover the behaviour would be influenced by beliefs about the views of significant others. These normative beliefs give rise to a subjective norm which also affects the intention to act.

In structuring the model in this way Ajzen and Fishbein tried to eliminate, as separate variables, external factors such as personality, parental background, sex, etc. which could at best be shown to have weak correlations with attitude and behaviour. The model takes the view that the most important attitude in predicting behaviour is the intention to act. To ascertain this they would gain the measures of belief strength, measures of attitudes towards the behaviour; the views of significant others and subjective norms, and use these to measure the intention to act. They would then use this as a prediction to compare with the actual behaviour.

Although there have been criticisms of this approach the model seems to work well when dealing with behaviours that can be seen to relate to planning for the future. As Ajzen and Fishbein say:-

“…human beings are usually quite rational and make systematic use of the information available to them.” and

“…people consider the implications of their actions before they decide to engage or not engage in a given behaviour.”

(Ajzen & Fishbein 1980, p5)

This model therefore seemed to be appropriate to use in looking at the relation between the attitudes of year 11 pupils and the choices they go on to make post-16.

In the current study measures of pupils' attitudes to science, their beliefs and attitudes to the behaviour, their subjective norms, their intention to act, and their actual behaviour, and their own explanations of their choices have been used. The study began in 1992 and this also seemed an appropriate moment since the pupils coming into year 12 at that point were just beginning to come through from a double award science background and could be compared with those already there who had largely come from a separate science background. Full analysis of the data is not yet available but the findings so far are included.

THE STUDY:

The initial part of the study was a survey of A-level year 12 & 13 pupils from six different, mixed, comprehensive schools in the south of England. This work (partially reported in Sears 1993a and 1995) gathered pupils' attitudes to science using an attitude scale, the TOSRA (Fraser 1977, 1978 & 1981) which has been widely used and validated (Schibeci and McGaw 1981). This scale is based on a categorisation of attitudes to science and scientific attitudes (Klopfer 1971) which sought to discriminate the kinds of attitudes that people might have learnt. The TOSRA is a set of seven, Likert style, scales; the social implications of science; the normality of scientists; attitude to scientific enquiry; adoption of scientific attitudes; enjoyment of science lessons; leisure interest in science; career interest in science. (This last was not included in the study since this information was elicited in a different form.) There is some evidence that the separate scales within the TOSRA are themselves highly correlated which would suggest that they may all be measures of one underlying set of values, or of a single attitude, but since they clearly describe different things in terms of meaning they do provide an indicator as to the set of beliefs and attitudes that people hold.

The survey also included a set of questions (Woolnough 1991) relating to the reasons why pupils had made their A-level choices. He derived his set of reasons from a study in schools where uptake to science was high, and although pupils in the current study had the opportunity to give other reasons affecting their choices, no extra ones were forthcoming. Finally pupils were asked for some biographical data and their GCSE English and maths results.

The second phase of the study was to follow a year 11 through to year 13. This study was undertaken in an east midlands, mixed, comprehensive school with slightly above average GCSE results. The year group were initially assessed using the TOSRA and a questionnaire asking them to state their subject preferences and what they thought they would be doing after their GCSE exams. At the same time they were asked to express their beliefs concerning the making of choices and who was important to them in this process. This was followed up with a further questionnaire to determine their beliefs and subjective norms as suggested by other studies based on the theory of reasoned action.

After their GCSE exams the whole year group were followed up to find out what they had chosen to do and what their results were. Those who remained at school were further investigated to give their reasons for their choices using Woolnough’s scale and to see if their attitudes, as measured by the TOSRA, had changed significantly. This latter was done as a check to the first study when all attitudes were being assessed retrospectively. In their final year the group at school were asked to give their views on science using a selection from the VOSTS questions developed by Aikenhead & Ryle 1992, and a small sample were interviewed to find out if they could add anything to their reasons for having chosen their particular subjects and futures.

FINDINGS SO FAR:

The Initial Survey

The main findings from the first study are summarised as follows:-

There were no significant differences in the proportions of sixth-sixth-formers taking different Alevels between those Year 12 students who did double award GCSE and those Year 13 students who did separate sciences of whatever combination. These results match those from ASE research (Sears 1992, 1993b, 1994) which also shows no change in the proportions taking the various Alevel sciences.

Similarly there were no significant differences in Higher Education intentions between the two groups. However, the year 12 students showed a decline in aspirations towards applied science courses when compared with year 13. This decline in applied science uptake has been noted at a national level and has been going on for some time.

However, significantly more of the students from double award backgrounds considered themselves undecided about longer term career intentions. This probably reflects the reduction of specialisation at 14. Students taking double award courses no longer have to make decisions about which sciences to study at 14 and may defer thinking and deciding about their futures as a result. For those who believe that 14 is too early to make specialist decisions about future study this is an encouraging result.

Those from a double award background were significantly less positive in their attitudes to the social value of science and their perception of scientists as normal people. Moreover they were negative towards their enjoyment of science lessons at GCSE and in the idea of having science as a hobby, and significantly more so than those students from a separate subject background. Some of these differences may be due to the fact that this double award group generally was the first of its kind. This may have meant many pupils having negative feelings about their loss of choice just as the first ROSLA pupils were more difficult to cope with than later cohorts. It is also probably true to say that in its first year of implementation teachers will have been learning as they went along and will have been faced with very different situations from before. This may well have reduced their ability to make the subject as enjoyable as usual.

There were two significant differences between the double award students and the others over why they chose their Alevels. More double award students said they were attracted by potential salaries in science jobs and more said they were put off by their lack of enjoyment at GCSE (although this has not made a difference in A-level uptake!).

When looking just at students from a double award background the sex imbalance has not changed. Far more boys than girls still go on to A-level physical science courses. However, there was a very significant difference in attitudes between the boys and girls if they had done separate sciences at GCSE. Girls were far less positive than boys about their science. With a double award background the girls had become much more positive although still not quite catching up to the boys. Overall the most positive were boys from separate sciences, followed by boys from double award courses, then girls from double award and finally girls from separate sciences. So it seems that boys who specialise early in separate sciences have very positive views of science whilst for girls this system produces more negative attitudes. Double award seems to have narrowed the gap between boys and girls attitudes to science.

Most students gave as their main reason for choosing Alevel subjects that they liked them, but significantly more boys than girls chose for career reasons. However, girls choosing science Alevels were far more likely to carry on to Higher Education in science than boys, suggesting a higher career commitment amongst the scientific girls. This extended to those doing mixed Alevel courses, where a higher proportion of girls went on to do science courses in Higher Education. Students from a physical science or a double award background were also more likely to choose for career reasons. Finally those of highest ability more often chose because they liked their subjects, whereas the least able more often chose for career reasons. It would seem that girls who take physical sciences are more determined and perhaps this is because of the general perception of these subjects as being "boys' subjects". With the reduction of emphasis on separate subjects at GCSE it may be that in time this kind of pressure against girls taking physical science will reduce. Overall the science Alevel courses took more than their fair share of able students. This finding is also reported in DfE(1994) report. When looked at carefully it shows that pupils going on to study physical science A-level are above the average for all A-level students as judged by their GCSE scores. This may contribute to an almost universally held view that sciences are more difficult than other subjects. This was particularly strongly felt by the girls in the sample.

In attitude the whole group were generally positive about their science teachers and the practical nature of science. Students are positive about the idea of mechanical hobbies but very negative about the idea that one would read about science or watch TV programmes about science. So they seem to have divorced the idea of science as a leisure activity from hobbies which clearly have a science content. Most students are either neutral or negative about work experience in science, outside speakers, science clubs and competitions. This might be explained either because they have had bad experiences or, more likely insufficient experiences of these events.

The sample was analysed by cluster analysis using the PMMD program. It was possible to identify five clusters of students.

Cluster 1 (Science Positive) was mainly studying Alevel science and was positive about nearly everything, and never negative. It had more than its fair share of bright boys from a separate science background.

Cluster 2 (Neutral Negative) are an interesting group containing mainly arts students with more than its fair share of Double Award backgrounds, girls and the least able. It was very positive about the practical nature of science but did not enjoy GCSE science lessons. It was also negative about work experience, outside speakers, clubs, competitions and the difficulty of the subject.

Cluster 3 (Neutral) can be described as the virtually neutral group. It was relatively unaffected by any of the offered reasons as far as Alevel choices went. It was most positive about science teachers and most negative about the difficulty of the subject. A slight majority was doing arts Alevels.

Cluster 4 (Positive but Not Scientists) was a generally positive group. It enjoyed science at GCSE and was positive about the teaching it had received. It was also positive about the practical nature of science and the intellectual satisfaction of doing science. It slips into negative thoughts about outside speakers, work experience, clubs and competitions and the difficulty of the sciences. Despite this generally positive attitude 50% are doing arts Alevels. The group also has more than its fair share of the least able boys who do Biology.

Cluster 5 (Science Negative) was a small group, 90% of whom were studying Alevel arts, and was negative about nearly everything. It was only positive about the social value of science and the idea that scientists are normal people.

The Single school Study

The main results from this study remain to be fully analysed in terms of the theory of reasoned action, but the initial analysis of the first survey of attitudes and reasons yields the following findings.

Boys and girls were significantly different in their responses to the TOSRA. Boys were more positive about every scale except the normality of scientists. Both were positive about the nature of scientific enquiry and the value of science but girls did not enjoy their science lessons. Neither group perceived science as a leisure activity.
When the group was analysed by set (there were 8), the top set was overwhelmingly positive about everything except science as a leisure activity. Sets 7 & 8 were positive only about the social value of science and the value of scientific enquiry. They were neutral about scientific attitudes and negative about everything else. These three sets were significantly different from each other and the rest but the middle sets (2-6) were not significantly different from each other. This middle group was only negative about science as a leisure activity.

Cluster analysis of this year group produced a very similar pattern to the initial study. There was a very positive group who intend to go on and do science and a small, generally negative group who mainly consist of a group who intend to leave school and get a job.
When comparing the TOSRA results for the A-level group when they were year 11 and again in year 12 only one difference appeared. The boys became very much more positive than the girls about the social value of science. This gives some confidence to the view that the initial retrospective attitude assessment was a fair representation of the pupils’ views at that age.
It was also possible to compare the school sixth-former's views as year 11 pupils with the views of those who went to college. This showed that the school pupils were much more positive about the social value of science, scientific attitudes, their enjoyment of science lessons and science as a leisure interest. Some of this is no doubt because the college students were mainly girls and had gone to do vocational and other non-scientific courses. Equally some of the lack of enjoyment may reflect a general dissatisfaction with school rather than just with science.
Another possible comparison was between A-level and non-A-level students. In this case the A-level students were all much more positive than their non-A-level counterparts in every area except that of the value of scientific enquiry.
A few other interesting results were found whose significance is not yet clear. On the whole those staying at school are more able than those going to college. Students who did arts courses in year 12 came equally from all sets while the scientists came mainly from the top 4 sets. Boys are more likely to stay on at school, while more girls go to college.
In the initial analysis of the social norms those who ended up choosing arts were more likely to be influenced by friends and believed that you should avoid subjects you do not enjoy. Those who went to college were more likely to not want to do what their parents wanted and generally thought their science teachers did not want them to take science at A-level. Sixth-formers were more likely to want to do what their teachers wanted than college students.

DISCUSSION: