the attitude of in-service elementary teachers toward science

The Attitude of In-Service Elementary Teachers TowardScience

Robert L. ShrigleyAssociate Professor in Education

andTheodore M. Johnson

Director, Curriculum Materials Center, The Pennsylvania State University, UniversityPark, Pennsylvania 16802

Blackwood’s (1964) nationwide survey of elementary teachers andprincipals revealed a lack of interest in science as one of the barriersto effective science teaching. Five years later, Hone and Carswell(1969) remind educators of the distaste many elementary teachershave for science. The latter authors cite an attitude change as theprimary need of in-service science education.A neutral or negative attitude toward science influences teachers

in at least two ways. Some elementary teachers simply avoid theteaching of science, says Stollberg (1969). Others pass on to youngstudents a negative attitude toward science.The less than positive attitude of elementary teachers toward science

is so widely believed that the assertion must be one of the truismsof American education. Yet there is little empirical evidence for theassertion. The 1969 edition of The Encyclopedia of EducationalResearch cites no significant research on the attitudes of in-serviceelementary teachers toward science.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The purpose of this study was to investigate the status of the scienceattitude of in-service elementary teachers as measured by a Likert-typeinstrument. More specifically, the investigation dealt with six forcesthat may be pertinent in analyzing the science attitude of elementaryteachers.The variables tested were:

A. The effect of sex difference on the science attitude of in-service elementaryteachers.

B. The effect of teacher age on science attitude.C. The effect of teaching level, primary and intermediate grades.D. The effect of faculty size.E. The effect of classroom organization, self-contained or cooperative teaching.F. The effect of type of science program, conventional or an innovative program.

POPULATION AND PROCEDURE

The sample of respondents for this study was 114 in-service

437

438 School Science and Mathematics

elementary teachers enrolled in 10 science education classes sponsoredby the Continuing Education Program of The Pennsylvania StateUniversity. Although the sample of respondents was not random innature, it did represent teachers at 10 different geographical locationsthroughout urban, rural and suburban Pennsylvania. The attitude scalewas administered to the 114 in-service teachers by the 10 courseinstructors. The scale was administered twice, once early in the courseto generate the data, and again three weeks later to establish test-retestreliability.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCIENCE ATTITUDE SCALE

Prior to the study a Likert-type attitude scale was developed bythe investigators. As reported by Johnson (1972), the initial 41 state-ments were gathered from three sources: (1) literature concerned withteachers’ attitudes toward science; (2) oral statements relative toscience attitude made by in-service teachers enrolled in scienceeducation courses at The Pennsylvania State University were included;and (3) statements from Shrigley’s (1971) science attitude scale forpre-service elementary teachers were modified.

In summarizing the work of Wang, Thurstone, Chave, Likert, Birds,Edwards and Kilpatrick, Edward’s (p. 13-14, 1957) list of criteriarecommended in the writing of attitude statements was used as aguide:

1. Avoid statements that refer to the past.2. Avoid statements that are factual or capable of being interpreted as factual.3. Avoid statements that may be interpreted in more than one way.4. Avoid statements that are irrelevant to the psychological object under consider-

ation.5. Avoid statements that are likely to be endorsed by almost everyone or by almost

no one.6.. Select statements that are believed to cover the entire range of the affective

scale of interest.7. Keep the language of the statements simple, clear and direct.8. Statements should be short, rarely exceeding 20 words.9. Each statement should contain only one complete thought.

10. Statements containing universals such as all, always, none, and never oftenintroduce ambiguity and should be avoided.

11. Words such as only, just, merely and others of a similar nature should beused with care and moderation in writing statements.

12. Whenever possible, statements should be in the form of simple sentences ratherthan in the form of compound or complex sentences.

13. Avoid the use of words that may not be understood by those who are to begiven the completed scale.

14. Avoid the use of double negatives.

Fifty in-service elementary teachers volunteered to serve as a pilotgroup by responding anonymously to each of the 41 statements. Thepilot group was invited to edit and modify the statements.

Attitudes of In-Service Elementary Teachers 439

Kohr’s (1968) Likert Analysis Computer Program at The Pennsyl-vania State University was used to analyze the statements. On positivestatements, "strongly agree" was weighted as 5 points; "agree," 4points: "undecided," 3 points; "disagree," 2 points and "stronglydisagree," 1 point. In scoring negative statements, the weights werereversed. A favorable-unfavorable index for each statement wasestablished by comparing the raw scores of the respondents in theupper 27 percent with scores of those in the lower 27 percent. Thepurpose of this procedure is to eliminate neutral statements fromthe scale.The Likert Analysis provides a "^" value which is a measure of

discrimination between the low and high groups. The ^-scores onthe 41 statements ranged between 0.6 and 6.5. With a minimum of25 respondents in each the high and low groups, Edwards (1957)suggests a minimum t-score of 1.75 for each statement. Choosinga minimum t-score of 2.0, 14 of the 41 statements were dropped.The scale, now having 27 statements, was administered to a second

sample of 42 in-service elementary teachers. The responses of thesecond group to the 27 statements, along with the responses of thoseof the initial group, to those particular statements, were resubmittedto the Likert analysis. The ^-scores on the statements ranged from1.5 to 11.42. The reliability coefficient alpha on the attitude scalewas .88. The science attitude scale used during the investigation had26 items, 16 positive and 10 negative statements.

Following the investigation when the science attitude scale wasadministered to 114 subjects, the scale was further analyzed. Thereliability coefficient alpha was .92. When subjected to a test-retestmethod for establishing reliability, the correlation coefficient was .94.Data gathered on the attitude statements during the investigation,

along with the positive and negative designation are recorded below.This includes the ^-scores for each statement. Each respondent’s scoreon a particular item when correlated with that respondent’s scoreon the remaining items yielded an additional reliability check, theadjusted item-total correlation. It should be noted that all statementsyielded a correlation above .30, the boundary established for Likert-type attitude scale analysis.

THE SHRIGLEY-JOHNSON SCIENCE ATTITUDE SCALE1. As a teacher, I am afraid that science demonstrations will not work. (N, 3.4,

.34)2. I enjoy discussing science topics with fellow teachers. (P, 9.3, .76)3. If I had time, I would like to attend an elementary science workshop during

the summer. (P, 6.0, .55)4. If I were to enroll in a college science course, I would enjoy the laboratory

periods of the course. (P, 6.0, .55)


5. I am afraid that I do not have enough background to teach science adequately.(N, 7.7, .61)

6. If I were to return to college for additional graduate work I would enroll inat least one science course. (P. 6.9, .59)

7. I enjoy manipulating science equipment. (P, 8.9, .69)8. I believe science is too difficult for me to learn. (N, 5.5, .36)9. I would like to have a desk barometer that measures air pressure. (P, 10.4,

.72)10. I would like to work with the science consultant on my science program. (P,

6.7, .55)11. Most science equipment confuses me. (N, 7.5, .56)12. I enjoy constructing simple equipment. (P, 6.4, .62)13. I would not enjoy working in a science laboratory for a summer. (N, 3.4, .42)14. I enjoyed science courses. (P, 7.9, .53)15. I would enjoy participating in a science in-service program in my school district.

(P, 5.8, .57)16. I eagerly anticipate the teaching of science to elementary school children. (P,

10.1, .71)17. Science is my favorite subject. (P, 9.2, .70)18. If I were to enroll in any college science course I would likely to be bored.

(N, 5.6, .38)19. I prefer teaching science over any other subject of elementary school. (P, 8.4,

.68)20. I would not like to keep a hamster in my classroom. (N, 3.3, .33)21. In a departmental situation or similar situations, I would like to be responsible

for teaching all of the science. (P, 10.2, .71)22. I am apprehensive about anything that is associated with science. (N, 5.5, .54)23. I would read an issue of the professional journal. Science and Children, if it

were in the teacher’s room. (P, 6.5, .59)24. I would be interested in working in an experimental science curriculum project.

(P, 9.3, .68)25. If given a choice in professional improvement, I would choose any area but

science. (N, 8.1, .73)26. I would prefer to be a team leader in any curriculum area but science. (N,

6.0, .56)

ASSUMPTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

A. Sex Differences

Do male elementary teachers have a greater interest in science,and therefore, serve as better science teachers than females?One of the truisms of the American cultures is that science is

a masculine endeavor. Could this cultural bias, if it exists, affectthe attitude of American elementary teachers, 85 percent of whomare female, and thus have a global influence on science teachingin the classroom?

In Shrigley’s (1972) study of the science attitude of pre-serviceteachers, the masculine bias was not evidenced. This finding refutesthe assumption that male students preparing to teach young studentshave a better science attitude than female students. This study implieslittle need to provide female pre-service teachers training in any waydifferent from male teachers.


A similar finding when testing the science attitude of in-serviceteachers would further refute the assumption that male elementaryteachers are more interested in, and for this reason more successfulat science teaching, than females.Therefore, null hypothesis A was: There was no significant difference

in the mean scores of (1) male and (2) female in-service teachersas measured by the science attitude scale.

B. AgeDo younger teachers have a more favorable science attitude than

older elementary teachers?Schwirian (1969) reported that age is strongly related to science

attitude. In her study, teachers 40 years of age and under demonstrateda more favorable science attitude.

If older teachers, some of whom are teaching science for the firsttime, have a less favorable attitude toward the subject, there maybe need for retraining in science. If younger, and presumably betterprepared, teachers of science have a better attitude, school officialsmight well look to the young teachers for leadership in elementaryscience.

Null hypothesis B was: There was no significant difference betweenthe mean attitude scores of (1) younger and (2) older teachers.

C. Grade Level

Blackwood’s survey disclosed more time allotted to science in grades5-8 than K-4 (1964). There could be many explanations for thisphenomenon. Young pupils require much time to learn basic skills.Science may be more incidental or correlated with the skills and,therefore, lacks visibility.However, we must entertain the possibility that teachers with a

less favorable attitude toward science gravitate to the primary gradeswhere they feel less threatened by science teaching. If this assumptionwas substantiated, the priority for attitude change might well be theprimary grade teachers of a school district.

Null hypothesis C was: There was no significant difference betweenthe mean attitude scores of (1) K-3, (2) 4-6, and (3) 7-8 (middleschool) teachers.

D. School Size

Do the supportive services provided by larger schools raise teachermorale and, therefore, affect their attitude positively?The lack of supplies, consultant services and funds were the top


three barriers, relates Blackwood (1964) to science teaching in smallerschools. Assuming that those barriers still exist in smaller schools,it might be further assumed that the morale, and thus, attitude ofteachers in smaller schools are affected by a lack of such supportiveservices.

Larger faculties, especially where there are several classroom groupsat each grade level, such organization as continuous progress anddifferentiated staffing could affect morale and attitude positively. Ifattitude was found to be a function of supportive services andorganization, administrative changes could be used to affect teacherattitude and science instruction.

Null hypothesis D was: There was no significant difference in themean attitude scores of teachers whose faculty size was (1) less than12, and (2) 13 or more.

E. Classroom Organization

Do teachers in a self-contained classroom have a different attitudetoward science than those involved in some form of cooperativeteaching?There is some reason to believe that expecting one individual to

deal with the complexities of learning for 30 pupils in most, if notall, curricular areas is a herculean task. For this reason, educatorsare examining team teaching and differentiated staffing as a meansof giving elementary teachers the opportunity to lead in one curriculararea while they follow in others.Could it be assumed that teachers in a self-contained classroom

might exhibit a less than positive attitude toward science becausescience is the most recent curricular area where instant expertiseis expected. The makeup of a teaching team could be such that theyexhibit a more positive science attitude.

Null hypothesis E was: There will be no significant differencebetween the mean attitude scores of (1) teachers in self-containedclassrooms and (2) those involved in cooperative modes of schoolorganization.

F. Innovative Science ProgramsDo teachers serving on faculties using SAPA, ESS or SCIS have

a more positive attitude toward science than faculties with conventionalprograms?One of the strengths of the new science programs is the direct

involvement of the learner, not only in the manupulation of sciencematerials, but also such process skills as observation, classification


and measurement. The high interest level of the learner in thoseprograms assumes that they have a positive effect on the child’sattitude toward science.

If it can be further assumed that involvement of teachers in SAPA,ESS, or SCIS, will result in a more favorable attitude toward science,such involvement could become a factor in improving the scienceattitude of elementary teachers.

Null hypothesis F was: There will be no significant differencebetween the mean attitude scores of (1) teachers who have beeninvolved in SAPA, ESS or SCIS and (2) teachers using a conventionalprogram, or no organized science program.

RESULTS OF THE DATA

Hypothesis A dealt with the effect of sex difference on scienceattitude of in-service elementary teachers. The mean score of themale respondents was significantly higher than the mean scores ofthe females in the study. The F-ratio was 12.5, significant at .001level, (see Tables 1 and 2). Null hypothesis A was retained, (seeTables 1 and 2 for data on all six variables).

TABLE 1: MEAN SCORES ON THE SiX VARIABLES IN THE STUDY

VARIABLES

A. Sex1. Male2. Female

B. Age1. 39 years or younger2. 40 years or older

C. Grade Level1. K-32. 4-63. 7-8 (middle school)

D. Faculty Size1. 12 or less2. 13 or more

E. Classroom Organization1. Self-contained2. Cooperative teaching

F. Science Programs1. SAPA, ESS, SCIS2. Teachers not involved

N

2490

6547

444624

3577

6052

3180

MEAN

102.189.8

90.095.7

89.395.691.6

93.592.0

91.094.1

90.292.8

Hypothesis B dealt with the effect of age on science attitude onin-service teachers. The mean score of teachers 40 years or olderwas higher than scores of teachers whose ages were 39 or younger.

444School Science and Mathematics

TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

SOURCE

A. SexError

B. AgeError

C. Grade LevelError

D. Faculty SizeError

E. Classroom OrganizationError

F. Science ProgramsError

D.F.

1112

11102

1111

1101

1101

109

S.S.

2874.048510.5

859.527653.4

901.527640.7

59.828453.1

272.428240.5

145.226941.4

M.S.

2874.0229.2859.5251.4450.8249.059.8

258.7272.4256.7145.2247.2

FRATIO

12.5

3.4

1.8

0.2

1.1

0.6

PROBABILITY

0.001

0.067

0.168

0.632

0.305

0.445

There were 114 respondents in the study; however, on variables B, D, E and F,a small number of respondents failed to record the expected information.

However, the F-ratio was 3.4, not significant at the .05 level, (seeTables 1 and 2). Null hypothesis B was accepted.

Hypothesis C dealt with the grade level of pupils taught by teacherand its effect on attitude. Intermediate grade teachers made a highermean score than K-3 and 7-8. However, the F-ratio was 1.8, notsignificant at .05 level. Null hypothesis C was accepted.Hypothesis D dealt with the effect of faculty size on science attitude.

The mean score was slightly higher for teachers from small faculties.However, the difference in means was so slight that the F-ratio was0.2. Null hypothesis D was accepted.

Hypothesis E dealt with classroom organization and its effect onscience attitude. Tables 1 and 2 reveal a higher mean score for teachersfrom classrooms that were not self-contained. The F-ratio was 1.1,not significant at .05 level. Null hypothesis E was accepted.Hypothesis F dealt with science programs SAPA, ESS, SCIS and

their effect on science attitude. Tables 1 and 2 reveal a higher meanscore for teachers whose faculties were not involved in the scienceprograms. The F-ratio was 0.6, not significant at .05 level. Nullhypothesis Fwas accepted.

DISCUSSION

A. Sex Difference

Finding a significant sex difference in science attitude of in-serviceelementary teachers supports the truism that science has a masculinebias in our culture. It refutes, however, an earlier study (Shrigley,


1972) indicating no sex difference in science attitude of pre-serviceteachers.The disagreement in the two studies could mean that a more negative

science attitude is developed by teachers from the time they enrollin a science methods course until they become in-service teachers.There is obvious need for rigorous experimental research on sex

difference. If further research reveals a significant difference in scienceattitude, the in-service training for female teachers might well differfrom that of male teachers.

B. AgeAlthough the mean differences were not significant, the mean of

teachers 40 years or older was higher. Schwirian (1969) found youngerteachers having the more positive attitude. If more rigorous researchwould support Schwirian’s finding of an age difference in scienceattitude, at least two recommendations could be made to sciencesupervisors. Priority of in-service training in science could be givento older teachers, or younger teachers could be recruited for leadershiproles in elementary school science.

C. Grade Level

The lack of significant findings of attitudinal differences amongK-3,4-6 and 7-8 grades refutes the assumption that, if primary teachersdo spend less time on science, it is due to their science attitude.

D. School Size

The lack of significant findings of attitudinal differences on thevariable of school size refutes the assumption that the supportiveservices, in the form of supplies and consultants, of larger schoolsaffect science attitude of teachers. Perhaps Blackwood’s (1964) studycompleted a decade ago, should be repeated. Having since passedthrough the era of NDEA Federal funding, smaller schools may nothave the unique problem of lesser supportive services than largerschools.

E. Classroom Organization

The lack of significant findings of attitudinal differences on thevariable of classroom organization refutes the assumption that teachersin self-contained classrooms have a less favorable science attitudethan teachers in other forms of organization.To have examined this variable more carefully, the investigators

needed further information on the population sample. Had we been


able to compare teachers in self-contained classrooms with scienceteam leaders and departmental science teachers, the results may havebeen more significant. In our study the second group of teacherscould have included teachers involved in cooperative teaching, buthaving only minor roles in the teaching of science. If special teachersfor elementary science are more successful because of a more favorableattitude, some evidence should be realized in experimental research.

F. Science ProgramsIn view of an educational bias to in-service programs that directly

involve teachers with the supplies and processes of SAPA, ESS andSCIS, the lack of a significant finding refutes the assumption thatsuch involvement motivates teachers, and therefore, improves thescience attitude of the in-service teacher.The investigators realize the need to add precision to this variable

before substantial confidence could be placed in this finding. Therespondents in the study were asked if their school faculty was involvedin one of the science programs. There is need for more information.It can be assumed that some faculties had recently adopted one ofthe programs with the time so limited that the involvement couldhave had little attitudinal effect.Some school faculties adopt a program gradually meaning that

kindergarten teachers may be involved years before the sixth gradeteacher. School districts are known to adopt one of the programswith little, if any, in-service preparation for the new program. Inthis case there may be an initial lag in attitude change.

REFERENCES

1. BLACKWOOD, P. E., "Science in the Elementary School, Science Life, 47: 13-15,November, 1964.

2. EDWARDS, A. L., Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts, 1957.

3. The Encyclopedia of Educational Research, (Science Education, p. 1192-1205),Macmillian Company, Collier-Macmillian Canada, Ltd., Toronto, Canada, 1969.

4. HONE, E. AND E. M. CARSWELL, "Elements of Successful In-Service Education,"Science and Children, 6: 24-26, January-February 1969.

5. JOHNSON, T. M., "Scale for Measuring Science Attitude of In-Service ElementaryTeachers," paper presented at the Annual Convention of the National ScienceTeacher Association held in New York City, April 7-10, 1972.

6. KOHR, R., Likert Attitude Scale Analysis, The Computation Center, The PennsylvaniaState University, 1968.

7. SCHWIRIAN, P. M., "Characteristics of Elementary Teachers Related to AttitudesToward Science," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6: 203-213, 1969.

8. SHRIGLEY,R. L., "The Attitudeof Pre-Service Elementary Teachers Toward Science."Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the National Science TeachersAssociation held in New York City on April 7-11, 1972.

the attitude of in-service elementary teachers toward science

Documents