Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the influence of student interest, perception and preference for different teaching methods, through a review of contemporary literature; ultimately to compile a set of recommendations for future science teaching practice.
Literature Review
In order to understand in which direction science education should head, we need to accurately gauge which methods appeal to students; A study conducted by Owen, Dickson, Stanisstreet & Boyes (2008) explored students’ own perceptions of different learning activities that are used in physics lessons by investigating three aspects:
Students reported they liked making things (88%), performing experiments (87%) doing puzzles and quizzes (84%) and participating in group work (79%), with listening to the teacher explain things (23%), copying notes from textbooks/whiteboard (20%) written exercises (16%) making up the least popular activities. For some students performing tasks or activities was more preferable as it was seen as replacing activities such as copying down notes. Also performing tasks as a group and quizzes was seen as fun rather than work because ‘you can share ideas’ and ‘you aren’t really doing work or anything’
However the second aspect of the questionnaire reports that only 45% of students felt they were performing experiments, 16% reported making things and 10% reported games and puzzles on a regular basis. This is in contrast to the students’ perception that
Listening to the teacher (79%), copying notes (76%) and written exercises (65%) were the most frequent.
Progressing to the third aspect, Students reported that conducting experiments (89%) working in a group (75%) and having the teacher explain content (69%) were the most useful in learning physics, commenting that ‘doing things helps it stick in your head’ and ‘you get to see it happen’ Conversely completing puzzles/quizzes (51%), completing written exercises (50%) and copying notes (46%) were perceived as of less use as students report that ‘it’s more revision for a test’ or ‘you don’t really have to think about it, you just copy’
These findings resonate with Palmer (2009), though this study is targeted to investigate situational interest and its sources in a science lesson. The research questions were:
1. How much situational interest is generated during different parts of a science lesson?
2. What are the sources of situational interest?
This qualitative study has a sample size of 224 year 9 students (52% male/48% female) sourced from 5 different schools within a south-eastern Australian city. Students were split into groups of eight (four males/four females) and participated in a single 40 minute inquiry lesson (28 in total, taught by the same person)
The structured lessons consisted of four phases
In order to have a baseline of interest in science Palmer (2009) induced two phases of copying notes from the board (one before the demonstration phase, the second after the reporting phase). This consisted of two statements:
Palmer (2009) found that students were on average more interested in the experiment phase (4.4) and the demonstration phase (3.8) compared to the proposal and reporting phases (3 respectfully) and the note taking activities (1.9 each). To investigate this further by conducting audiotaped interviews at the conclusion of the lessons, concluding that situational interest was enhanced from 5 sources:
Therefore Palmer (2009) concludes that the students engaged in proposing investigable questions, making observations and explanations and reporting; however their skills were not of a high standard as some students had their observations tended to be superficial and had difficulty articulating questions. The author found it was difficult at times to get them to offer sufficient explanations and in most cases their experiments were not impartial tests, and their reports were often wanting in clarity; to which Palmer (2009) suggests is a lack of experience with inquiry based learning rather than an inability to effectively engage in the process.
This follows the idea of Swarat, Ortony & Revelle (2012) who focused their study to ask how do elements of science instructional episodes (content topic, activity type, and learning goal) and how their interactions (if any) do affect student interest in those episodes. Five hundred and thirty three middle school students from a suburban school district in a US Midwest city participated in this study, consisting of 187 from the six grade and 346 from the seventh grade.
For this pragmatic study students were administered a questionnaire at the beginning of the school year. The questionnaire consisted of 100 items describing theoretical instructional episodes (IE) with responses through a 6 point likert scale (1 = completely disagree, 6 = completely agree). An instructional episode ‘refers to a segment of instruction devoted to a specific content topic or skill, independent of the physical and social aspects of the learning situation’ (Swarat, Ortony & Revelle, 2012, pp.520) In other words IE’s mirror events in actual science classrooms, with each questionnaire item representing a combination of IE elements (such as content topic, activity type and learning goal)
Expanding on this Swarat, Ortony & Revelle (2012) detail that the element topic included four biology topics: Cells, Ecosystems, Diversity of living things, and Human body systems. The authors justify this selection as it aims to be gender neutral (i.e. not preferred by either over the other), close enough as not to cause confusion and that these topics align with the current curriculum.
For the element activity, five activity types were included; Brainstorm/Discuss,
Create products (e.g., poster), Receive information passively (e.g., listen to a lecture), Design/ Conduct investigation without scientific instruments or technology and Design/Conduct investigation with scientific instruments or technology.
The IE element learning goal consisted of seven goals; Natural curiosity (i.e., to satisfy curiosity naturally elicited by an observation or experience), Scientific curiosity (i.e., to satisfy curiosity about the scientific properties), Personal relevance (i.e., to appreciate the relevance of the learner’s own life), Societal impact (i.e., to appreciate the impact of society or environment), Science history (i.e., to satisfy curiosity about the history relevant to an object or phenomenon), Occupation requirement (i.e., to gain science-related knowledge or skills as the basis for a future occupation), and Course requirement (i.e., to meet course or test requirements). The IE program was followed by a series of 20 minute focused interviews with ten students (6 female/4 male) in order to have students explain their rating judgement for the IE’s rated as most interesting or least interesting, however each participant had differing questions as for time constraints.
Swarat, Ortony & Revelle (2012) establish that students preferred IEs conducted through hands-on activities (3.82) and IEs involving technology (4.00) over purely cognitive IEs (3.31). The results also suggest that differences across gender and demographical sub-groups was minute, however females displayed a more of a preference for both hands-on and cognitive IEs compared to male students. This trend was mirrored in the focused interviews, however it became evident that the girls in the interviews had a preference for lectures over technology based on the content topic or the learning context in which is it used.
However Abrahams (2009) warns against purely using practicals for their own sake, it should be recognised that students and teachers report liking practical based activities however it would be more accurate to suggest the they prefer it over more mundane and tedious tasks, suggesting that the situational interest generated does not translate into an increased motivation to study science outside of the classroom. To make this claim Abrahams (2009) complied observation data from eight different schools (n= 7720), with the researcher interviewed the teacher and a selection of students at the conclusion of the lesson. This resulted in 25 multi-site case studies of science students aged between 11-16 years of age and their teachers. Abrahams (2009) highlights a specific aspect in the study, where 96 students were students were approached regarding their attitudes towards the use of practical activities in science; 65 (68%) students indicated a relative preference (containing words such as better than, less than) and 31 (32%) indicated absolute terms (I like it, it was exciting).
Abrahams (2009) draws several conclusions from the study overall, primarily students prefer rather than like practical activities (as mentioned earlier). The second conclusion describes the idea that although teachers use the idea that students are motivated by practicals, further questioning illustrated that motivation was being used as a synonym for situational interest; as the practical’s effect is likely to wear off before the next lesson.
The third and fourth conclusion reported (which have been condensed) demonstrates the use of practical activities as behaviour management tools to capitalise on the situational interest of the lower achieving students. The final conclusion drawn was the idea that teachers are using practical activities to foster a view that science is fun and enjoyable, however Abrahams (2009) concedes that ‘as early as the end of Year 7, have moved from claiming to like practical work in an ‘absolute’ sense to merely preferring it to other non-practical teaching methods and approaches’; therefore lessening their effect on long-term motivation to study science.
Our discussion moves from which methods are more effective to one of how can educators develop students’ interest in engaging in science. To investigate this Hassan (2008) set out to assess students’ attitudes to science and investigate the factors which might be associated with students’ interest and motivation in science. Second to this was the aim to compare students’ views of science across levels of education. This has been approached by splitting the research into seven focus areas:
Hassan (2008) found that compared to year 12 students, year 10 students had significantly less motivation (-.28), career interest for science (-.54), enjoyment of science (-.53), ability to make choices (-.23), lower self-concept of ability (-.08) and perceived that science was less useful (-.16); conversely year 10 students report to be less anxious than 12 students (+.21). From this, Hassan (2008) claims that although this study rebukes the ‘commonly’ held belief that students’ motivations tends to study science declines and their interest in science decreases as the students go older.
Conversely Barmby, Kind & Jones (2008) found that in their study of 11-14 year olds, motivation and interest in science had significantly waned over the three year period. Their study sought to investigate how attitudes change during the lower secondary years by constructing three main research questions:
To achieve this Barmby, Kind & Jones utilise their evaluation of the ‘Lab in a Lorry’ developed by the English Institute of Physics and the Schlumberger Foundation. Barmby, Kind & Jones’s study involved surveying (on a 5 point likert scale) of nine hundred and thirty two 11-14 year olds two weeks before their visit and a follow up interview of 44 students from 5 different schools following their visit.
The initial survey suggests that students experience a significant decline (0.89 on average) in their attitudes towards science between year 7 and year 9 with girls experiencing a larger shift, however students attitudes towards practical work only suffering from a small decline (under 0.3 on average).
The results from the interviews illustrates the reasons why students’ attitudes change between year 7 and year 9; first of all is that idea of school science as not being practical, with questions of ‘am I actually going to need to know this?’ becoming evident. The second aspect reported was the idea that science is not perceived as being well explained, or ‘in the students’ language’. The final finding was that science is not perceived as relevant to everyday life, or to be more exact, students cannot draw links between the concepts and the occurrences in their lives.
To remedy this McWilliam, Poronnik & Taylor (2008) advocate the case for re-thinking science pedagogy as a form of creative capacity building, that science should become a domain in which traditional forms of academic knowledge can come together with new forms of thinking and doing, not as separate bits of a program but as dynamic and integrated components, just as they are in 'real life' science.
To this end McWilliam, Poronnik & Taylor (2008) promote the need for a creative turn in science, a significant shift away from big "C" creativity (creativity in the individual), to an extensive 'little c' approach that focuses typically on the thinking and doing of society. The rationale for this is that:
Yet science educators should capitalise on what brings students to science in the first place, Maltese & Tai (2010) explore this by examining initial experiences in science of graduate students, focusing on what prompted to engage in science. To investigate this, three research questions were formulated:
Maltese & Tai (2010) found that 65% precent of the participants became interested in science before middle school (Year 6), with 30% of participants reporting that middle school/high school (year 6-matriculation). The importance of this is that the results show simular proportions of males and females became interested in science before middle school (66% female/68% male) In regards to the source of their interest, 40% of the respondents indicated that school or an educational experience were the source of their interest, compared to 45% who had an intrinsic self-interest and 15% reported that it was mostly attributed to a family member. The crucial factor here is the source of the interest start for each gender, as shown below:
Progressing onto the third outcome of the research, Maltese & Tai (2010) found that just under 50% of the participants detail that their interest started at home tinkering with electronics, conducting experiments and reading science or science fiction. Schooling was the second highest (38%), with class content (24%), teacher attributes (24%) and performing experiments (18%) the most common. The authors do acknowledge that due to the complexity of this section, participants were allowed to select more than one central experience, in total 120 responses coded into 23 different experiences. Those who indicated that family was the core source of their interest reported that science permeated everyday experiences.
To investigate the effect of family on the development of interest in science, Archer et.al (2012) draws on Bourdieuian ideas and his theory of practice ‘which seeks to understand the reproduction of social inequalities in society’ (pp.884) that being relations of privilege and domination are reproduced through the interaction of habitus with capital (be that economic, cultural, social, and symbolic) and field (contexts in society). Utilising this, Archer et.al (2012) constructed the ASPIRES project, a pragmatic 5 year longitudinal study of 9000 English children tracking them from 10 to 14 years of age through an online survey. In this phase of the research (phase 1) 160 interviews with 78 parents and 92 children age 10 (Year 6), drawn from 11 schools in England.
Two interview questionnaires were developed (one for children/one for parents) covering such areas as aspirations for the future, interests inside/outside school, what they liked/disliked about school, attitudes toward and engagement in school science, and broader perceptions of science. The parental questionnaire followed simular lines, exploring perceptions on both their child’s engagement and interest in science and their own, including their thoughts on why few children pursue science post 16 years of age.
The survey found that 23.4% of children said that they ‘‘never’’ do any science-related activities outside of school compared to 18.8% were regularly engaged in science-related activities at least every week. 36.6% report that they have never read a book or magazine about science and 33.8% never looked at science-related websites compared to 18.1% who read a book/magazine and 15.4% who look at science related websites at least once a week. 18.9% reported that they never visit a museum or zoo and 18.8% never watch a science-related TV program compared to 35.5% who do so once a week.
Analysis of the survey data suggests that parental attitudes towards science influence the shaping of their child’s aspirations, with positive parental perceptions being associated with greater aspirations in science. The results also suggest that experiences of both the parent and the child during school science and student self-concept have equal impact, however it should be noted that students were inclined to view their parents attitudes to be positively biast. Finally the interview data suggest that the family’s attitude to science on their daily life has a greater effect on student aspirations compared to the family’s social structural location (i.e. ethnicity).
Investigating this further Ainley & Ainley (2011) sought to uncover the relation between enjoyment of science and interest in science and the relation between personal value of science and students’ enjoyment of science. To investigate in the context of students of early adolescence age the authors utilise the science data set from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which is an international survey of achievement among nationally representative samples of 15-year-old students across OECD and partner countries.
The PISA study was done on a grand scale with 400,000 students from 57 countries participating in the survey, however Ainley & Ainley (2011) narrow the countries in their investigation to samples of more than 4000 students: Colombia n=4412, United States n=5444, Estonia n=4837, and Sweden n=4351 (These samples included approximately equal numbers of girls and boys.)
For the purposes of research each student answered questions in one of 13 randomly assigned booklets (based on combinations of four item clusters in a rotated block design). Each of the item clusters consisted of 31 topic specific embedded interest items
and followed immediately the set of achievement items on the relevant topic. Upon completing this, students completed a 30 min questionnaire based on family background, access to educational resources and a range of attitudinal measures such as personal value of science, enjoyment of science, and interest in learning science.
To accomplish this Ainley & Ainley (2011) propose that the science aspect of the PISA study measured seven key areas surrounding student engagement in science:
Ainley & Ainley (2011) propose there are strong connections between personal value of science, enjoyment of science, interest in learning science and students’ interest in
Learning, suggesting that students’ have embedded interest. However Ainley & Ainley (2011) concede that though enjoyment and interest are important in influencing students’ engagement and re-engagement with science topics, the significance of personal value of science and students’ engagement should not be disregarded.
Discussion
This paper has introduced various components of factors that influence students’ interest in and continuation of science in the classroom, primarily the influence of external factors (such as family attitudes, availability of science resources, intrinsic motivations). Teachers of science need to be aware of the circumstances which their students have developed in and the scientific understandings of which they present (Archer et.al, 2012)
Referring back to Dickson, Stanisstreet & Boyes (2008), 87% of the students reported that they liked performing experiments, with 89% of the student group reporting that they learn from conducting experiments, however only 45% of students felt they were performing experiments on a regular basis. These findings resonate with Palmer’s (2009) study found that students were on average more interested in the experiment phase (with 54% reporting that physical activity was the major source of interest). This suggests that students need to reconcile their content knowledge with their lived experiences. Maltese & Tai’s study adds emphasis to this by detailing 30% of participants reporting that middle school/high school was where their interest in science originated.
However Abrahams (2009) findings are highly concerning, as it paints a picture of practicals as entertainment or to maintain order rather than to scaffold learning, possibly due to the gradual slide away from science as illustrated by Barmby, Kind & Jones (2008) and Abrahams (2009). McWilliam, Poronnik & Taylor (2008) illuminates a key issue in science classrooms, It is the boredom which disengages them, rather than the required scientific rigor, suggesting that content must adapt to suit the student rather than the student adapting to suit the content. This is clearly established by Swarat, Ortony & Revelle (2012), who detail that students strive for flexible, adaptable and multi-faceted learning programs which contain an integration of the core sciences, reporting methods (both with and without technology) which are experiential in nature. (i.e. embodied and meaningful)
Students are more likely to engage in science classrooms if science connects with their lived experiences leading up to the classroom door(Ainley & Ainley, 2011; Archer et.al, 2012; Maltese & Tai 2010); In other words schools need to teach scientific content that resonates with the students’ lives (Barmby, Kind & Jones, 2008), through activities which interest them (Owen, Dickson, Stanisstreet & Boyes, 2008; Swarat, Ortony & Revelle 2012), using lesson structures which capitalise on situational interest (Palmer, 2009) and ultimately take control of their learning by moving from a passive receiver of knowledge to an active constructor of understandings (McWilliam, Poronnik & Taylor, 2008)
Recommendations For Practice
Based on the literature review, educational departments (both at a school and a governance level) should reconceptualise their thinking surrounding science education, predominately by using a pragmatic approach to what constitutes learning in the science classroom.
Educators need to view their students dynamic entities, which are a combination of the key trends, issues and controversies in the wider community, specifically the child’s socio-economic background, therefore it is plausible to facilitate ‘‘science families’’ (Archer et.al, 2012) as parental influence can:
Allowing students to have autonomy inside the classroom, by allowing them to engage in ‘little c’ creativity (McWilliam, Poronnik & Taylor 2008), as well as allowing students to engage in a range topics in which they have an interest in (Swarat, Ortony & Revelle, 2012) using methods in which optimise their interest, motivation and ultimately learning of the scientific content and concepts. (Ainley & Ainley 2011; Owen, Dickson, Stanisstreet & Boyes, 2008; Palmer, 2009; Swarat, Ortony & Revelle, 2012)
Lastly science educators need to effectively This is not to suggest that students need to be disadvantaged by a shift towards a cyclical theory-practical-theory approach as ‘This is not about "dumbing down" scientific literacies by adding frills or padding out “boring stuff”’ (McWilliam, Poronnik & Taylor, 2008 pp. 232); by utilising practical experiences to maintain situational interest, students are more likely to have residual interest for theory components.
Reference list
Abrahams, I. (2009) Does Practical Work Really Motivate? A study of the affective value of practical work in secondary school science, International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 31, No. 17, pp. 2335-2353, DOI: 10.1080/09500690802342836
Ainley, M. & Ainley, J. (2011) Student engagement with science in early adolescence: The contribution of enjoyment to students’ continuing interest in learning about science. Contemporary Educational Psychology. Vol. 36 pp. 4–12
Archer, L. et.al, (2012) Science Aspirations, Capital, and Family Habitus: How Families Shape Children’s Engagement and Identification With Science, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 49, No. 5, pp. 881–908, DOI:10.3102/0002831211433290
Barmby, P. Kind, P. & Jones, K. (2008) 'Examining changing attitudes in secondary school science.' International journal of science education, Vol.30, No.8. pp.1075-1093. DOI: 10.1080/09500690701344966
Hassan, G. (2008) Attitudes toward science among Australian tertiary and secondary school students, Research in Science & Technological Education, Vol. 26, No.2, pp. 129-147, DOI: 10.1080/02635140802034762
Maltese, A & Tai, R. (2010) Eyeballs in the Fridge: Sources of early interest in science, International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 32, No.5, pp. 669-685, DOI: 10.1080/09500690902792385
McWilliam, E. Poronnik, P. & Taylor, P. (2008), Re-designing Science Pedagogy: Reversing the Flight from Science, Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 226-235
Owen, S. Dickson, D. Stanisstreet, M & Boyes, E. (2008) Teaching physics: Students’ attitudes towards different learning activities, Research in Science & Technological Education, Vol. 26, No.2, pp. 113-128, DOI: 10.1080/02635140802036734
Palmer, D. (2009) Student Interest Generated During an Inquiry Skills Lesson, Journal of research in science teaching, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 147–165 DOI 10.1002/tea.20263
Swarat, S. Ortony, A & Revelle, W. (2012) Activity Matters: Understanding Student Interest in School Science, Journal of research in science teaching Vol. 49, No. 4, pp. 515–537
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the influence of student interest, perception and preference for different teaching methods, through a review of contemporary literature; ultimately to compile a set of recommendations for future science teaching practice.
Literature Review
In order to understand in which direction science education should head, we need to accurately gauge which methods appeal to students; A study conducted by Owen, Dickson, Stanisstreet & Boyes (2008) explored students’ own perceptions of different learning activities that are used in physics lessons by investigating three aspects:
- Popularity in general of different classroom activities
- The frequencies with which these are perceived as being used in physics
lessons
- The extent to which students view the various activities as being useful
for learning physics
Students reported they liked making things (88%), performing experiments (87%) doing puzzles and quizzes (84%) and participating in group work (79%), with listening to the teacher explain things (23%), copying notes from textbooks/whiteboard (20%) written exercises (16%) making up the least popular activities. For some students performing tasks or activities was more preferable as it was seen as replacing activities such as copying down notes. Also performing tasks as a group and quizzes was seen as fun rather than work because ‘you can share ideas’ and ‘you aren’t really doing work or anything’
However the second aspect of the questionnaire reports that only 45% of students felt they were performing experiments, 16% reported making things and 10% reported games and puzzles on a regular basis. This is in contrast to the students’ perception that
Listening to the teacher (79%), copying notes (76%) and written exercises (65%) were the most frequent.
Progressing to the third aspect, Students reported that conducting experiments (89%) working in a group (75%) and having the teacher explain content (69%) were the most useful in learning physics, commenting that ‘doing things helps it stick in your head’ and ‘you get to see it happen’ Conversely completing puzzles/quizzes (51%), completing written exercises (50%) and copying notes (46%) were perceived as of less use as students report that ‘it’s more revision for a test’ or ‘you don’t really have to think about it, you just copy’
These findings resonate with Palmer (2009), though this study is targeted to investigate situational interest and its sources in a science lesson. The research questions were:
1. How much situational interest is generated during different parts of a science lesson?
2. What are the sources of situational interest?
This qualitative study has a sample size of 224 year 9 students (52% male/48% female) sourced from 5 different schools within a south-eastern Australian city. Students were split into groups of eight (four males/four females) and participated in a single 40 minute inquiry lesson (28 in total, taught by the same person)
The structured lessons consisted of four phases
- Demonstration:
The teacher demonstrates the activity and the students give observations about
such things of rate of fall, shape, etc. with the teacher giving possible
explanations.
- Proposal:
The teacher displays the range of materials and allows groups of students to brainstorm what they would like
to find out about parachutes
- Experiment:
Students set up, conduct and record their results; the intention was for
students to emulate the demonstrated experiment with slight variations
- Report: As
students may have investigated different things, the sequence ended with an
oral report from each pair, including what the students sought to investigate.
In order to have a baseline of interest in science Palmer (2009) induced two phases of copying notes from the board (one before the demonstration phase, the second after the reporting phase). This consisted of two statements:
- Scientists
carry out investigations in order to find out more about the world around us.
During these investigations, scientists use the skills of observing and explaining.
- A
scientist’s job is to investigate the world around us. Scientists must make
careful observations as they carry out their investigations
Palmer (2009) found that students were on average more interested in the experiment phase (4.4) and the demonstration phase (3.8) compared to the proposal and reporting phases (3 respectfully) and the note taking activities (1.9 each). To investigate this further by conducting audiotaped interviews at the conclusion of the lessons, concluding that situational interest was enhanced from 5 sources:
- Learning
(71% reported it was a source of interest in the demonstration phase)
- Choice: (68%
reported it was a source of interest in the proposal phase)
- Novelty/Suspense/Surprise:
(46% reported it was a source in the experiment stage)
- Physical
Activity: (54% reported it as a source in the experiment stage)
- Social
Involvement (14% reported it as a source in the proposal stage)
Therefore Palmer (2009) concludes that the students engaged in proposing investigable questions, making observations and explanations and reporting; however their skills were not of a high standard as some students had their observations tended to be superficial and had difficulty articulating questions. The author found it was difficult at times to get them to offer sufficient explanations and in most cases their experiments were not impartial tests, and their reports were often wanting in clarity; to which Palmer (2009) suggests is a lack of experience with inquiry based learning rather than an inability to effectively engage in the process.
This follows the idea of Swarat, Ortony & Revelle (2012) who focused their study to ask how do elements of science instructional episodes (content topic, activity type, and learning goal) and how their interactions (if any) do affect student interest in those episodes. Five hundred and thirty three middle school students from a suburban school district in a US Midwest city participated in this study, consisting of 187 from the six grade and 346 from the seventh grade.
For this pragmatic study students were administered a questionnaire at the beginning of the school year. The questionnaire consisted of 100 items describing theoretical instructional episodes (IE) with responses through a 6 point likert scale (1 = completely disagree, 6 = completely agree). An instructional episode ‘refers to a segment of instruction devoted to a specific content topic or skill, independent of the physical and social aspects of the learning situation’ (Swarat, Ortony & Revelle, 2012, pp.520) In other words IE’s mirror events in actual science classrooms, with each questionnaire item representing a combination of IE elements (such as content topic, activity type and learning goal)
Expanding on this Swarat, Ortony & Revelle (2012) detail that the element topic included four biology topics: Cells, Ecosystems, Diversity of living things, and Human body systems. The authors justify this selection as it aims to be gender neutral (i.e. not preferred by either over the other), close enough as not to cause confusion and that these topics align with the current curriculum.
For the element activity, five activity types were included; Brainstorm/Discuss,
Create products (e.g., poster), Receive information passively (e.g., listen to a lecture), Design/ Conduct investigation without scientific instruments or technology and Design/Conduct investigation with scientific instruments or technology.
The IE element learning goal consisted of seven goals; Natural curiosity (i.e., to satisfy curiosity naturally elicited by an observation or experience), Scientific curiosity (i.e., to satisfy curiosity about the scientific properties), Personal relevance (i.e., to appreciate the relevance of the learner’s own life), Societal impact (i.e., to appreciate the impact of society or environment), Science history (i.e., to satisfy curiosity about the history relevant to an object or phenomenon), Occupation requirement (i.e., to gain science-related knowledge or skills as the basis for a future occupation), and Course requirement (i.e., to meet course or test requirements). The IE program was followed by a series of 20 minute focused interviews with ten students (6 female/4 male) in order to have students explain their rating judgement for the IE’s rated as most interesting or least interesting, however each participant had differing questions as for time constraints.
Swarat, Ortony & Revelle (2012) establish that students preferred IEs conducted through hands-on activities (3.82) and IEs involving technology (4.00) over purely cognitive IEs (3.31). The results also suggest that differences across gender and demographical sub-groups was minute, however females displayed a more of a preference for both hands-on and cognitive IEs compared to male students. This trend was mirrored in the focused interviews, however it became evident that the girls in the interviews had a preference for lectures over technology based on the content topic or the learning context in which is it used.
However Abrahams (2009) warns against purely using practicals for their own sake, it should be recognised that students and teachers report liking practical based activities however it would be more accurate to suggest the they prefer it over more mundane and tedious tasks, suggesting that the situational interest generated does not translate into an increased motivation to study science outside of the classroom. To make this claim Abrahams (2009) complied observation data from eight different schools (n= 7720), with the researcher interviewed the teacher and a selection of students at the conclusion of the lesson. This resulted in 25 multi-site case studies of science students aged between 11-16 years of age and their teachers. Abrahams (2009) highlights a specific aspect in the study, where 96 students were students were approached regarding their attitudes towards the use of practical activities in science; 65 (68%) students indicated a relative preference (containing words such as better than, less than) and 31 (32%) indicated absolute terms (I like it, it was exciting).
Abrahams (2009) draws several conclusions from the study overall, primarily students prefer rather than like practical activities (as mentioned earlier). The second conclusion describes the idea that although teachers use the idea that students are motivated by practicals, further questioning illustrated that motivation was being used as a synonym for situational interest; as the practical’s effect is likely to wear off before the next lesson.
The third and fourth conclusion reported (which have been condensed) demonstrates the use of practical activities as behaviour management tools to capitalise on the situational interest of the lower achieving students. The final conclusion drawn was the idea that teachers are using practical activities to foster a view that science is fun and enjoyable, however Abrahams (2009) concedes that ‘as early as the end of Year 7, have moved from claiming to like practical work in an ‘absolute’ sense to merely preferring it to other non-practical teaching methods and approaches’; therefore lessening their effect on long-term motivation to study science.
Our discussion moves from which methods are more effective to one of how can educators develop students’ interest in engaging in science. To investigate this Hassan (2008) set out to assess students’ attitudes to science and investigate the factors which might be associated with students’ interest and motivation in science. Second to this was the aim to compare students’ views of science across levels of education. This has been approached by splitting the research into seven focus areas:
- students’ motivation for science
- Career interest
- students’ enjoyment of science,
- lack of anxiety
- Ability to make choices
- the usefulness of science
- self-concept of ability
Hassan (2008) found that compared to year 12 students, year 10 students had significantly less motivation (-.28), career interest for science (-.54), enjoyment of science (-.53), ability to make choices (-.23), lower self-concept of ability (-.08) and perceived that science was less useful (-.16); conversely year 10 students report to be less anxious than 12 students (+.21). From this, Hassan (2008) claims that although this study rebukes the ‘commonly’ held belief that students’ motivations tends to study science declines and their interest in science decreases as the students go older.
Conversely Barmby, Kind & Jones (2008) found that in their study of 11-14 year olds, motivation and interest in science had significantly waned over the three year period. Their study sought to investigate how attitudes change during the lower secondary years by constructing three main research questions:
- How do
attitudes toward science vary as students’ progress through the lower secondary
years in English schools?
- How do
attitudes towards science vary with gender in these schools?
- What factors
impact on these students’ attitudes towards science?
To achieve this Barmby, Kind & Jones utilise their evaluation of the ‘Lab in a Lorry’ developed by the English Institute of Physics and the Schlumberger Foundation. Barmby, Kind & Jones’s study involved surveying (on a 5 point likert scale) of nine hundred and thirty two 11-14 year olds two weeks before their visit and a follow up interview of 44 students from 5 different schools following their visit.
The initial survey suggests that students experience a significant decline (0.89 on average) in their attitudes towards science between year 7 and year 9 with girls experiencing a larger shift, however students attitudes towards practical work only suffering from a small decline (under 0.3 on average).
The results from the interviews illustrates the reasons why students’ attitudes change between year 7 and year 9; first of all is that idea of school science as not being practical, with questions of ‘am I actually going to need to know this?’ becoming evident. The second aspect reported was the idea that science is not perceived as being well explained, or ‘in the students’ language’. The final finding was that science is not perceived as relevant to everyday life, or to be more exact, students cannot draw links between the concepts and the occurrences in their lives.
To remedy this McWilliam, Poronnik & Taylor (2008) advocate the case for re-thinking science pedagogy as a form of creative capacity building, that science should become a domain in which traditional forms of academic knowledge can come together with new forms of thinking and doing, not as separate bits of a program but as dynamic and integrated components, just as they are in 'real life' science.
To this end McWilliam, Poronnik & Taylor (2008) promote the need for a creative turn in science, a significant shift away from big "C" creativity (creativity in the individual), to an extensive 'little c' approach that focuses typically on the thinking and doing of society. The rationale for this is that:
- Active tasks
causes young people to engage than with
a passive consumption approach (i.e. copying notes)
- It is
boredom, not rigour, which disengages them
- Creativity
is the core business of scientific thinking and not opposed to scientific
rigour
- Creative
pedagogies have evolved that teaching strategies are more visible and
effective.
- Each these aspects
develop the students’ academic, digital and social capacity simultaneously,
which is the new aim for the science educator.
Yet science educators should capitalise on what brings students to science in the first place, Maltese & Tai (2010) explore this by examining initial experiences in science of graduate students, focusing on what prompted to engage in science. To investigate this, three research questions were formulated:
- What was the
timing of their initial interest in science?
- Who was
responsible for sparking their interest?
- What was the
nature of the initial experiences?
Maltese & Tai (2010) found that 65% precent of the participants became interested in science before middle school (Year 6), with 30% of participants reporting that middle school/high school (year 6-matriculation). The importance of this is that the results show simular proportions of males and females became interested in science before middle school (66% female/68% male) In regards to the source of their interest, 40% of the respondents indicated that school or an educational experience were the source of their interest, compared to 45% who had an intrinsic self-interest and 15% reported that it was mostly attributed to a family member. The crucial factor here is the source of the interest start for each gender, as shown below:
Progressing onto the third outcome of the research, Maltese & Tai (2010) found that just under 50% of the participants detail that their interest started at home tinkering with electronics, conducting experiments and reading science or science fiction. Schooling was the second highest (38%), with class content (24%), teacher attributes (24%) and performing experiments (18%) the most common. The authors do acknowledge that due to the complexity of this section, participants were allowed to select more than one central experience, in total 120 responses coded into 23 different experiences. Those who indicated that family was the core source of their interest reported that science permeated everyday experiences.
To investigate the effect of family on the development of interest in science, Archer et.al (2012) draws on Bourdieuian ideas and his theory of practice ‘which seeks to understand the reproduction of social inequalities in society’ (pp.884) that being relations of privilege and domination are reproduced through the interaction of habitus with capital (be that economic, cultural, social, and symbolic) and field (contexts in society). Utilising this, Archer et.al (2012) constructed the ASPIRES project, a pragmatic 5 year longitudinal study of 9000 English children tracking them from 10 to 14 years of age through an online survey. In this phase of the research (phase 1) 160 interviews with 78 parents and 92 children age 10 (Year 6), drawn from 11 schools in England.
Two interview questionnaires were developed (one for children/one for parents) covering such areas as aspirations for the future, interests inside/outside school, what they liked/disliked about school, attitudes toward and engagement in school science, and broader perceptions of science. The parental questionnaire followed simular lines, exploring perceptions on both their child’s engagement and interest in science and their own, including their thoughts on why few children pursue science post 16 years of age.
The survey found that 23.4% of children said that they ‘‘never’’ do any science-related activities outside of school compared to 18.8% were regularly engaged in science-related activities at least every week. 36.6% report that they have never read a book or magazine about science and 33.8% never looked at science-related websites compared to 18.1% who read a book/magazine and 15.4% who look at science related websites at least once a week. 18.9% reported that they never visit a museum or zoo and 18.8% never watch a science-related TV program compared to 35.5% who do so once a week.
Analysis of the survey data suggests that parental attitudes towards science influence the shaping of their child’s aspirations, with positive parental perceptions being associated with greater aspirations in science. The results also suggest that experiences of both the parent and the child during school science and student self-concept have equal impact, however it should be noted that students were inclined to view their parents attitudes to be positively biast. Finally the interview data suggest that the family’s attitude to science on their daily life has a greater effect on student aspirations compared to the family’s social structural location (i.e. ethnicity).
Investigating this further Ainley & Ainley (2011) sought to uncover the relation between enjoyment of science and interest in science and the relation between personal value of science and students’ enjoyment of science. To investigate in the context of students of early adolescence age the authors utilise the science data set from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which is an international survey of achievement among nationally representative samples of 15-year-old students across OECD and partner countries.
The PISA study was done on a grand scale with 400,000 students from 57 countries participating in the survey, however Ainley & Ainley (2011) narrow the countries in their investigation to samples of more than 4000 students: Colombia n=4412, United States n=5444, Estonia n=4837, and Sweden n=4351 (These samples included approximately equal numbers of girls and boys.)
For the purposes of research each student answered questions in one of 13 randomly assigned booklets (based on combinations of four item clusters in a rotated block design). Each of the item clusters consisted of 31 topic specific embedded interest items
and followed immediately the set of achievement items on the relevant topic. Upon completing this, students completed a 30 min questionnaire based on family background, access to educational resources and a range of attitudinal measures such as personal value of science, enjoyment of science, and interest in learning science.
To accomplish this Ainley & Ainley (2011) propose that the science aspect of the PISA study measured seven key areas surrounding student engagement in science:
- Science
knowledge (SCK)
- Embedded
interest (EIS)
- Socio-economic
status (SES)
- Personal
value of science (PVS)
- Enjoyment of
science (ENJ)
- Interest in
learning science (INS)
Ainley & Ainley (2011) propose there are strong connections between personal value of science, enjoyment of science, interest in learning science and students’ interest in
Learning, suggesting that students’ have embedded interest. However Ainley & Ainley (2011) concede that though enjoyment and interest are important in influencing students’ engagement and re-engagement with science topics, the significance of personal value of science and students’ engagement should not be disregarded.
Discussion
This paper has introduced various components of factors that influence students’ interest in and continuation of science in the classroom, primarily the influence of external factors (such as family attitudes, availability of science resources, intrinsic motivations). Teachers of science need to be aware of the circumstances which their students have developed in and the scientific understandings of which they present (Archer et.al, 2012)
Referring back to Dickson, Stanisstreet & Boyes (2008), 87% of the students reported that they liked performing experiments, with 89% of the student group reporting that they learn from conducting experiments, however only 45% of students felt they were performing experiments on a regular basis. These findings resonate with Palmer’s (2009) study found that students were on average more interested in the experiment phase (with 54% reporting that physical activity was the major source of interest). This suggests that students need to reconcile their content knowledge with their lived experiences. Maltese & Tai’s study adds emphasis to this by detailing 30% of participants reporting that middle school/high school was where their interest in science originated.
However Abrahams (2009) findings are highly concerning, as it paints a picture of practicals as entertainment or to maintain order rather than to scaffold learning, possibly due to the gradual slide away from science as illustrated by Barmby, Kind & Jones (2008) and Abrahams (2009). McWilliam, Poronnik & Taylor (2008) illuminates a key issue in science classrooms, It is the boredom which disengages them, rather than the required scientific rigor, suggesting that content must adapt to suit the student rather than the student adapting to suit the content. This is clearly established by Swarat, Ortony & Revelle (2012), who detail that students strive for flexible, adaptable and multi-faceted learning programs which contain an integration of the core sciences, reporting methods (both with and without technology) which are experiential in nature. (i.e. embodied and meaningful)
Students are more likely to engage in science classrooms if science connects with their lived experiences leading up to the classroom door(Ainley & Ainley, 2011; Archer et.al, 2012; Maltese & Tai 2010); In other words schools need to teach scientific content that resonates with the students’ lives (Barmby, Kind & Jones, 2008), through activities which interest them (Owen, Dickson, Stanisstreet & Boyes, 2008; Swarat, Ortony & Revelle 2012), using lesson structures which capitalise on situational interest (Palmer, 2009) and ultimately take control of their learning by moving from a passive receiver of knowledge to an active constructor of understandings (McWilliam, Poronnik & Taylor, 2008)
Recommendations For Practice
Based on the literature review, educational departments (both at a school and a governance level) should reconceptualise their thinking surrounding science education, predominately by using a pragmatic approach to what constitutes learning in the science classroom.
Educators need to view their students dynamic entities, which are a combination of the key trends, issues and controversies in the wider community, specifically the child’s socio-economic background, therefore it is plausible to facilitate ‘‘science families’’ (Archer et.al, 2012) as parental influence can:
- Make science
highly ‘‘visible’’ and familiar within everyday life.
- Provide
specific opportunities, resources, and support for children to develop a
practical ‘‘feel’’ and sense of mastery of science.
- Enable the
cultivation of a perception of science as desirable.
Allowing students to have autonomy inside the classroom, by allowing them to engage in ‘little c’ creativity (McWilliam, Poronnik & Taylor 2008), as well as allowing students to engage in a range topics in which they have an interest in (Swarat, Ortony & Revelle, 2012) using methods in which optimise their interest, motivation and ultimately learning of the scientific content and concepts. (Ainley & Ainley 2011; Owen, Dickson, Stanisstreet & Boyes, 2008; Palmer, 2009; Swarat, Ortony & Revelle, 2012)
Lastly science educators need to effectively This is not to suggest that students need to be disadvantaged by a shift towards a cyclical theory-practical-theory approach as ‘This is not about "dumbing down" scientific literacies by adding frills or padding out “boring stuff”’ (McWilliam, Poronnik & Taylor, 2008 pp. 232); by utilising practical experiences to maintain situational interest, students are more likely to have residual interest for theory components.
Reference list
Abrahams, I. (2009) Does Practical Work Really Motivate? A study of the affective value of practical work in secondary school science, International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 31, No. 17, pp. 2335-2353, DOI: 10.1080/09500690802342836
Ainley, M. & Ainley, J. (2011) Student engagement with science in early adolescence: The contribution of enjoyment to students’ continuing interest in learning about science. Contemporary Educational Psychology. Vol. 36 pp. 4–12
Archer, L. et.al, (2012) Science Aspirations, Capital, and Family Habitus: How Families Shape Children’s Engagement and Identification With Science, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 49, No. 5, pp. 881–908, DOI:10.3102/0002831211433290
Barmby, P. Kind, P. & Jones, K. (2008) 'Examining changing attitudes in secondary school science.' International journal of science education, Vol.30, No.8. pp.1075-1093. DOI: 10.1080/09500690701344966
Hassan, G. (2008) Attitudes toward science among Australian tertiary and secondary school students, Research in Science & Technological Education, Vol. 26, No.2, pp. 129-147, DOI: 10.1080/02635140802034762
Maltese, A & Tai, R. (2010) Eyeballs in the Fridge: Sources of early interest in science, International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 32, No.5, pp. 669-685, DOI: 10.1080/09500690902792385
McWilliam, E. Poronnik, P. & Taylor, P. (2008), Re-designing Science Pedagogy: Reversing the Flight from Science, Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 226-235
Owen, S. Dickson, D. Stanisstreet, M & Boyes, E. (2008) Teaching physics: Students’ attitudes towards different learning activities, Research in Science & Technological Education, Vol. 26, No.2, pp. 113-128, DOI: 10.1080/02635140802036734
Palmer, D. (2009) Student Interest Generated During an Inquiry Skills Lesson, Journal of research in science teaching, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 147–165 DOI 10.1002/tea.20263
Swarat, S. Ortony, A & Revelle, W. (2012) Activity Matters: Understanding Student Interest in School Science, Journal of research in science teaching Vol. 49, No. 4, pp. 515–537