understanding the nature of science and attitudes toward science and science teaching of preservice...

UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE OF SCIENCE ANDATIITUDES TOWARD SCIENCE AND SCIENCE

TEACHING OF PRESERVICE ELEMENTARYTEACHERS IN THREE PREPARATION SEQUENCES

Harold Harty, John V. Samuel, and Hans O. Andersen

ABSTRACTThis study examined differences among three elementary school science

preservice teacher preparation course sequences with respect to three variables:understanding of the nature of science; attitudes toward science; and attitudes towardscience teaching. Also, this study sought to ascertain whether correlations werepresent among these variables within each of the three course sequences: (1)Science-Process-ContentiMethods-Field Sequence; (2) Science Process-MethodsSequence; and (3) Methods Sequence. Significant differences were found amongthe groups of preservice teachers in the three course sequences in terms of anunderstanding of the nature of science. Teachers completing the Science ProcessMethods Sequence and Methods Sequence groups possessed a significantlygreater understanding of the nature of science than teachers in the Science ProcessContentiMethods-Field Sequence group. No significant differences were foundamong the three groups with respect to either attitudes toward science or attitudestoward science teaching. No significant correlations were found between understanding the nature of science and attitudes toward science or between attitudestoward science teaching within each of the two groups. Significant correlations werefound between attitudes toward science and attitudes toward science teaching for allthree groups. Suggestions for future research and implications for sciencecontentlprocess integration and preservice teacher preparation programs have alsobeen discussed.

Perspective of the StudyKimball (1967), Rubba and Andersen (1978) and Rubba, Horner

and Smith (1981) stressed the importance and general acceptance of theunderstanding of the nature of science. The construct of understandingthe nature of science has been couched in a number of conceptualframeworks (Pella, O'Hearn and Gale, 1966; Kimball, 1967). Of particularinterest to this study was Kimball's "eight assertions' model," which definedand operationalized the nature of science. This model is comprised ofeight characteristics and/or declarations including: (a) curiosity; (b)process-orientation; (c) increasing comprehensiveness and simplification;(d) no single scientific method; (e) methods with a few specific attributes,such as sense experiences. operational definitions, and reproducibility ofresults; (f) susceptibility of the physical universe to human ordering andunderstanding: (g) openness; and (h) uncertainty and tentativeness asmeasured by a score obtained on the "Nature of Science Scale" (Kimball,1967, pp. 110-112).

Another major goal of science education has been the developmentof positive attitudes toward science and science teaching amongelementary school teachers (Lazarowitz, Barufaldi and Huntsberger,1978; Piper and Hough, 1979). Teachers' attitudes toward science andscience teaching have long been known to influence science teachinglearning situations. Piper and Moore (1977) emphasized that, given the

Pre service Preparation

recent attention focused on elementary school science teaching, theattitudes of elementary school teachers toward science and scienceteaching should be a key concern of science educators. Throughout theprofessional education literature, many theoretical frameworks have beendeveloped and validated which delineate and provide logical foundationsfor the study of human attitudes. Of these, the conceptual frameworks andtheoretical designs of Kerlinger's (1958) "directive state theory" (attitudestoward science teaching), Fishbein and Ajzen's (1975) "expectancy valuemodel" (attitudes toward science and attitudes toward science teaching),and Shrigley's (1978) "persuasive communication model" (attitudestoward science) were especially relevant to this study.

Purpose of the StudyThe purpose of this study was to determine whether differences

existed among preservice elementary teachers engaged in three differentpreparation programs with respect to their understanding of the nature ofscience, attitudes toward science, and attitudes toward science teaching.The three programs of study were a Science-Process-Content/MethodsField Sequence, a Science Process-Methods Sequence, and a MethodsSequence. This study also examined whether relationships (correlations)existed between understanding of the nature of science, attitudes towardscience, and attitudes toward science teaching among the preserviceteachers participating in each of the course sequences.

The SubjectsThree groups of preservice teachers were involved in the study.

Group A consisted of 24 potential teachers (96% female). Group Bincluded 25 prospective teachers (100% female), and 22 preserviceteachers (100% female) made up Group C. For the three groups, thewhite-Anglo cultural composition was 100% for Group A, 96% for Group B,and 100% for Group C.

MethodologyThe study was designed to examine the teachers' understanding of

the nature of science, attitudes toward science, and attitudes towardscience teaching as dependent variables. The three course sequencesconstituted the independent variables.

Teacher Group A took the Science Process-Content/Methods-FieldSequence of courses. The first course of the sequence, a threesemester-hour laboratory-oriented physical science course on scienceprocess skills for elementary science teaching, was designed to helppreservice teachers prepare to tackle science studies to be taken insubsequent semesters. Science teaching methods were covered in threesequential, highly coordinated and structured, one-semester hour sciencemethods courses that were taught concurrently with co-requisite sciencecourses designed for prospective elementary school teachers in biology,physical science, and geology and astronomy. The content vehicle for thefirst one-hour methods course was strictly biology because the preserviceteachers were taking the biology course concurrently. Similarly, thesecond methods course focused on physical science because the group

14

Preservice Preparation

was enrolled in the companion physics course, and the third methodscourse focused on earth science because the prospective teachers werealso taking a geology course. The methods and content gained in thesethree sequential course pairs were applied to planning and teaching smallgroups of school science students during biweekly field experiences overthe three semesters. Activities in this sequence were very demandingboth in terms of total time commitment and the time committed to science,and the methods courses were more contenUsubject matter oriented thanthose experienced by Teacher Groups Band C.

Instruction for Group B consisted of the Science Process-MethodsSequence, which included a three-semester hour science process skillscourse (same as Group A) and a single, three-semester-hour sciencemethods course consisting of a lecture and a two-hour laboratory perweek. The lecture and lab were oriented toward preparing the prospectiveteacher to implement a process-discovery teaching approach. Group Bteachers were free to select science courses as they wished and were notrequired to take the companion science courses prescribed for Group A.The science content vehicle for the three-hour methods course was acombination of biological science, physical science and earth/spacescience. Also, Group B did not engage in field experiences where sciencelessons might be taught.

Instruction for Group C, which experienced the Methods Sequence,consisted only of a single three-semester-hour science methods coursesimilar to that experienced by Group B. Subjects in Group C lacked fieldexperiences and did not receive the three-semester-hour course onscience process skills given to groups A and B. Science course selectionfor Group C was similar to Group B. The science content vehicle for thethree-hour methods course was a combination of biological science,physical science and earth/space science.

The subjects in all three groups had completed three semesterhours of science teaching methods as indicated above and had completedall of their science courses prior to the collection of data on the threedependent variables. Also, the subjects in all three groups werescheduled to do student teaching the following semester.

InstrumentationPreservice teachers' understanding of the nature of science was

measured by the "Nature of Science Scale" (Kimball, 1967) which consistsof 29 items rated on a 1 (low) to 3 (high) scale similar to a Likert scale. Thetotal score ranged from a low of 29 (little understanding) to a high of 87(great understanding). Kimball reported split-half internal consistencyreliability to be 0.72 on a sample of 95 undergraduates. In the currentstudy, an alpha internal consistency reliability coefficient of 0.74 wascalculated on the total sample of 71.

Prospective teachers' attitudes toward science were measured bythe "Shrigley Science Attitude Scale" (Shrigley, 1974) which is composedof 23 Likert-type items rated on a 1 (low) to 5 (high), strongly agreestrongly disagree scale. The total score ranged from a low of 23 (negativeattitudes toward science) to a high of 115 (positive attitudes towardscience). Shrigley reported that an alpha internal consistency reliabilitycoefficient of 0.94 was computed on the total sample of 71; anddiscriminant validity was established using high and low attitude criteriongroups.

15


The attitudes toward science teaching of the preservice teacherswere measured by the study-specific "Preservice Elementary TeacherAttitudes toward Science Teaching Scale." The development of thisinstrument was influenced by the assumptions, suggestions and itemsexpressed by Moore (1973) and Piper and Moore (1977). This measureconsists of 16 Likert-type items rated on 1 (low) to 5 (high) strongly agreestrongly disagree scales. The total score ranges from a low of 16(negative science teaching attitudes) to a high of 80 (positive scienceteaching attitudes). An alpha internal consistency reliability of 0.76 wascalculated for a sample of 43 preservice elementary teachers; test-retestreliability was computed at 0.86 (p < 0.01) for a sample of 47 preserviceelementary teachers with a two-week interval between administrations. Inthe current study, an alpha coefficient of internal consistency reliability of0.89 was determined for the total sample of 71. Face validity of theinstrument was established by examining the literature and the generationof the items by three professors of science education. Content validity ofthe items was qualitatively determined by two professors of scienceeducation, three doctoral-level graduate students in science education,one professor of elementary education, three inservice elementary schoolteachers, and four advanced-level preservice elementary teachers. Thevalidation dimensions reacted to were: (1) representativeness of the itemsfrom the total pool or universe of items dealing with preservice teacherattitudes toward science teaching; (2) relevance of the items to theproposed study; (3) significance of the items to the need to measureattitudes toward science teaching; (4) clarity and understanding of theitems; (5) utility/usefulness of the knowledge production resulting from thecollected data; and (6) applicability of the instrument at another time and inother settings.

ProceduresThe three instruments were administered during the last week of

semester (over a three-day period) to the teachers who took the ScienceProcess-Methods sequence (Group B) and the Methods sequence(Group C). During the same time period, the three instruments also wereadrninistered to the Science Process-ContentiMethods-Field teachers(Group A) who were completing the third of the three, one-semester hourmethods courses. Because there were some reservations about therandomness of the subject selection process, the small number ofsubjects per group, and the normality of the distributions of therespondents' scores on the three measures, the data for the threedistributions for the three groups were tested for normality using theKolmogorov-Smirnov "goodness of fit" test. No significant differences (p <0.05) were found among the three distributions and their theoreticallynormal counterparts. Therefore, a parametric one-way analysis ofvariance was employed to test for significant differences at the 0.05 level.If significant differences were found among the three groups, the analysiscontinued with Scheffe' post hoc comparisons. In addition, significantrelationships among the variables of understanding the nature of science,attitudes toward science, and attitudes toward science teaching weretested at the 0.05 level within each of the groups using the Pearsonproduct-moment correlation technique.


Results and DiscussionA descriptive statistical analysis performed on the dependent

variables for the three groups (Table 1) revealed a mean-response of49.7 (SO = 7.2) for Group A (Science Process-Content/Methods-FieldSequence), 54.2 (SO = 6.8) for Group B (Science Process-MethodsSequence). and 55.6 (SO = 7.5) for Group C (Methods Sequence) withrespect to their understanding the nature of science. Significantdifferences (F = 4.5. P < 0.02) were found among the three groups interms of their understanding the nature of science. A post hoc comparisonemployed the Scheffe' procedure to identify the group(s) which accountedfor the differences. These data indicated that Groups Band C weresignificantly different from Group A (Science Process-Content/MethodsField Sequence). but no statistically significant differences were foundbetween Groups Band C. It appears that preservice teachers in Groups B(Science Process-Methods Sequence) and Group C (Methods Sequence)possessed a significantly greater understanding of the nature of science.

Table 1

Difference among Preparation Groups with Respect toUnderstanding the Nature of Science, Attitudes toward

Science, and Attitudes toward Science Teaching

Tendencies

Groups

(Group A)ScienceProcess-Contentl

Methods-Field p

(N=24) (N ..25) (N =22)Understanding theNature of Science 49.7 7.2 54.2 6.8 55.6 7.5 4.5 0.02

Attitudes towardScience 72.1 15.7 73.8 13.8 76.1 23.1 0.29 NS

Attitudes towardScience Teaching 62.9 7.3 63.1 5.4 62.2 14.7 0.06 NS

The data yield evidence that the Methods Sequence (Group C) and theScience Process-Methods Sequence (Group B) tend to foster anintegration of the components considered crucial to a development of anunderstanding of the nature of science. In the Group A sequence,subjects encountered science methods simultaneously with sciencecontent experiences but in separate courses of study which may, in some

17


preservice teachers' cases, have presented conflicting views of science.These inferences are also supported by the findings of Gabel, Rubba andFranz (1977) and Duschl (1983). Stated another way, the degree ofstructure employed in a sequenced instructional approach could minimallyprovide opportunities for preservice elementary teachers to experiencescience both as content and as process. Where the Group C approachlacked a process orientation, the Group A sequence may have been toohighly structured to permit independent integration and/or synthesis of theexperiences designed to promote an understanding of the nature ofscience. In a retrospective examination of the course syllabi utilized for thescience teaching methods courses for Groups A, B, and C sequences, itwas noted that one instructor included a brief unit of study into thephilosophy and nature of science. While this instructor was directlyinvolved with instruction in the science teaching methods in each of theGroup A, B, and C sequences, he/she was basically responsible for theinstruction in Group C; therefore, the potential influence of specific studyinto the philosophy of science may have contributed to the results found inTable 1.

When examining the preservice teachers' attitudes toward science(Table 1), those in Group C (Methods Sequence) exhibited the mostpositive attitudes (M .. 76.1, SO = 23.1) toward science when compared totheir counterparts in Group A (M =72.1, SO .. 25.7) and Group B (M =73.8,SO", 13.8). There were no significant differences among the three groupsin reference to their attitudes toward science of Group A (ScienceProcess-Content/Methods-Field Sequence) preservice teachers whomight have been expected to possess the most positive attitudes in termsof the three groups. The slightly less positive set of attitudes might be afunction of a situation where the Science Process-Content/Methods-FieldSequence (Group A) is more demanding both in terms of total timecommitment and time prospective teachers must commit to science. Itwas also assumed that if preservice teachers experienced the usefulnessof science they were learning through opportunities to teach it to children,their attitudes toward science would be more positive. Therefore, thisassumption was not supported by the data collected for this study.

When considering the prospective teachers' attitudes towardscience teaching (Table 1), those in Group B (Science Process-MethodsSequence) possessed slightly more positive (M .. 63.1, SO = 5.4) attitudestoward science teachin~ than preservice teachers in Group A (M .. 62.9,SO = 7.3) and Group C M'"' 62.2, SO .. 14.7). Significant differences werenot found among the tree groups. The outcome of this investigationappears to be more in line with those of Gabel, Rubba, and Franz (1977),Weaver, Hounshell, and Coble (1979), and Sunal (1980) where early andcontinuous field experiences did not influence the enhancement ofattitudes toward science teaching.

An instructional approach, such as the Group A sequence, might betoo highly structured. It might also create such an overload ofscience/science methods-related tasks that it prevented preserviceteachers from thoroughly understanding the nature of science anddeveloping desirable attitudes toward science and science teaching.Despite the more fully developed rationale and theoretical baseundergirding the Group A sequence, both the Group B and Group Csequences produced a greater understanding of science and moredesirable attitudes toward science and science teaching. Thus, there are

1 8


no specific advantages to the more costly, the more coordinated, and themore difficult to articulate Group A sequence.

To explore relationships among the three dependent measures, thePearson product-moment correlations were calculated (Table 2). Foreach group the data revealed that understanding the nature of science didnot exhibit any significant relationships with the other two variables(attitudes toward science and attitudes toward science teaching). In fiveout of the six cases the correlation coefficients represented inverserelationships where preservice teachers might have possessed a lesserunderstanding of the nature of science and positive attitudes towardscience and science teaching, or a greater understanding of the nature ofscience and negative attitudes. However, attitudes toward science andattitudes toward science teaching exhibited significant relationships forGroup A (r = 0.48, P < 0.02), Group S (r = 0.77, P < 0.001), and Group C (r= 0.88, P < 0.001). It appears that an understanding of the nature ofscience is a different construct (non-related) which is fairly independentfrom the other two attitudinal constructs. It might be inferred thatdeveloping an understanding of the nature of science is independent fromdeveloping better attitudes toward science and science teaching.Developing positive attitudes toward science and science teaching mightnot result In a better understanding of the nature of science. However, abetter understanding of the nature of science might influence morepositive attitudes toward science and science teaching. Withoutdeveloping a better understanding of the nature of science themselves,elementary school teachers may not be able to convey the nature ofscience to their pupils (Schmidt, 1964; Carey & Stauss, 1970).Furthermore, one cannot assume that enrolling in more science courseswill further enhance or confirm an understanding of the nature of sciencefor would-be elementary school teachers. Hence, teaching coursesoriented toward developing a better understanding of the nature ofscience might be more relevant and fruitful (Andersen, Harty & Samuel,1986).

This investigation has raised a number of questions suggestingfurther investigation. It is recommended that this exploratory study bereplicated on a larger overall sample of preservice teachers who havebeen randomly assigned into approximately equal sub-samples acrossthe three sequenced instructional approaches similar to Groups A, S, andC. Replication could be accomplished using a multiple-time-series design,in which preservice teachers would be examined for their entry level, priorto random assignment into the Science Process-Content/Methods-Field,Science Process-Methods, or Methods Sequence, on measures of theunderstanding of the nature of science, attitudes toward science, andattitudes toward science teaching. Subsequent longitudinal or repeatedmeasures might be performed on the three preparation sequence subsamples: (1) after completion of the process skills instruction, or prior toentry into science content experiences in the case of the MethodsSequence; (2) after completion of science content experiences; (3) aftercompletion of science teaching methods; and (4) after one year ofsuccessful elementary science teaching experience. The potentialadvantages of the multiple-time-series versus a separate-sample designrest in its ability to further reduce potential threats to internal validity and toidentify the effectiveness of the individual components implemented overtime.

19


Table 2

Correlations among Preservice Teachers' Understanding theNature Of Science, Attitudes toward Science, and Attitudes

toward Science Teaching

DependentVariables

Understandingthe Natureof Science

AttitudestowardScience

Attitudestoward

Science Teaching

(A) - Science Process-ContentiMethods-Field Group

Understanding theNature of Science

Attitudes towardScience

Attitudes towardScience Teaching

- O.12P < 0.56

0.06P < 0.79

0.48P < 0.02

(B)-Science Process-Methods Group




- 0.0 1P < 0.97

-0.23P < 0.28

0.77P < 0.001

(C)-Methods Group




-0.04p<0.85

-0.02P < 0.93

20

0.88P < 0.001


Implications of the StudyThe implications from this study focus on the need to examine

existing course sequences and instructional strategies in terms of theirability to provide preservice teachers with the experiences, degree ofemphasis, and integration of fundamental factors necessary for improvingthe quality of elementary science instruction. The greater theunderstanding of the relationship between science as process andscience as content fostered by an instructional strategy and/or sequenceof course work within an elementary science teacher preparationprogram, the greater the degree to which future elementary schoolscience teachers will be able to understand the nature of science and willacquire more desirable attitudes toward science and science teaching.

Science educators and science content specialists need tocooperate closely on the development, implementation, and evaluation ofscience content experiences for elementary preservice teachers. Ascience methods course, whether similar to Group A or Groups Band C,should focus primarily on teaching techniques that make direct use of thecontent and appropriate science process skills. It is hoped that preserviceelementary science teachers will emerge from a preparation sequencewith a sound grasp of science as process within content, a betterunderstanding of the nature of science, and more desirable attitudestoward science and science teaching.

REFERENCES

Andersen, H. 0., Harty, H., & Samuel, J. V. (1986). Nature of science, 1969 and1984: Perspective of preservice secondary science teachers. SchoolScience and Mathematics, 86, 43-50.

Carey, R. L., & Stauss, N. G. (1970). An analysis of experienced science teachers'understanding of the nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 70,366-368.

Duschl, R. A. (1983). The elementary level science methods course: breedingground of an apprehension toward science? A case study. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 20, 745-754.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: Anintroduction to theory and research. Reading, Mass.: Addison-WesleyPublishing Company.

Gabel, D., Rubba, P., & Franz, J. (1977). The effect of early teaching and trainingexperience on physics achievement, attitude toward science and scienceteaching and process skill proficiency. Science Education, 61, 503-511.

Kerlinger, F. N. (1958). Progressivism and traditionalism: Some basic factors ofeducational attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 111-135.

Kimball, M. E. (1967). Understanding the nature of science: A comparison ofscientists and science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5,110-120.

Lazarowitz, R., Barufaldi, J., & Huntsberger, P. (1978). Student teachers'characteristics and favorable attitudes toward inquiry. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 15, 559-566.

Moore, R. W. (1973). The development, field test, and validation of scales to assessteachers' attitudes toward teaching elementary school science. ScienceEducation, 57, 271-278.

Pella, M. 0., O'Hearn, G. T., & Gale, C. W. (1966). Referents to scientific literacy.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4, 199-208.

21


Piper, M. K., & Hough, L. (1979). Attitudes and open-mindedness of undergraduatestudents enrolled in a science methods course and a freshman physicscourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 16, 193-197.

Piper, J. K., & Moore, K. D. (1977). The effect of a physics course for elementaryteachers on anitudes toward science of preservice elementary teachers. In M.K. Piper & K. D. Moore (Eds.). Attitudes toward Sciences (pp. 29-33).Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, ERIC Clearinghouse for Science,Mathematics and Environmental Education.

Rubba, P. A., & Andersen, H. O. (1978). Development of an instrument to assesssecondary school students' understanding of the nature of scientificknowledge. Science Education, 62, 449-458.

Rubba, P. A., Horner, J. K., & Smith, J. M. (1981). A study of two misconceptionsabout the nature of science among junior high school students. SchoolSciences and Mathematics, 81, 221-226.

Schmidt, D. (1964). Test on understanding science: A comparison among severalgroups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 80-84.

Shrigley, R. L. (1974). The attitude of pre-service elementary teachers towardscience. School Science and Mathematics, 74, 243-250.

Shrigley, R. L. (1978). The persuasive communication model: A theoreticalapproach for attitude change in science education. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 15, 335-341.

Sunal, D. W. (1980). Effect of field experience during elementary methods courseson preservice teacher behavior. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17,17-23.

Weaver, H. M., Hounshell, P. B., & Coble, C. B. (1979). Effects of science methodscourses with and without field experiences on attitudes of preserviceelementary teachers. Science Education, 63, 655-664.

Dr. Harold Harty is Professor of Education and Dean of the School ofEducation, Graduate and Special Academic Programs at Fort Valley State College,Fort Valley, Georgia 31030-3298 .

Dr. John V. Samuel is Research Associate and Instructor of Science Educationand Computer Technology courses at Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana47405.

Dr. Hans O. Andersen is Professor of Science Education at Indiana University,Bloomington, Indiana 47405 and past -president of the National Science TeachersAssociation.

22

understanding the nature of science and attitudes toward science and science teaching of preservice...

Documents