Attitudes towards School Science: An Update.
Jonathan Osborne, Stanford University. USA
Shirley Simon, Institute of Education, London, UK
Russell Tytler, Deakin University, Australia
Objectives
The aim of this paper will be to provide an update on recent research about
attitudes of students towards school science. It will build on, and add to, the review
conducted by the author and colleagues and published in 2003 (Osborne, Simon, &
Collins, 2003). The importance of this topic is shown by the fact that this paper has
been the most downloaded article on the IJSE website in 2007 (Treagust, personal
communication, 2008). Since the publication of this article a number of important
pieces of research have been published which provide some new insights into the
nature of the problem in contemporary contexts and possible methods of addressing
an issue which is of concern to all developed countries.
Perspectives
Attitudes towards school science has been a topic of enduring interest with three
major reviews (Gardner, 1975; Osborne, et al., 2003; Schibeci, 1984) in the past four
decades. The lack of student interest in STEM related careers is of rising concern
amongst both scientists and industrialists who perceive it as a threat to the
economic competitiveness both in the UK (HM Treasury, 2006), Europe (European
Commission, 2004; National Academy of Sciences: Committee on Science
Engineering and Public Policy, 2005; Tytler, et al., 2008). The focus of such report
has, however, been principally on the supply of future scientists and not the
demand. Some evidence here would suggest that the concern is more one of
nationalistic hubris (Jagger, 2007) which has failed to recognise that contemporary
societies are operating in a global market. Other evidence would suggest that even
when examined locally i.e. the US, the nature of the shortage is questionable
(Teitelbaum, 2007).
Indeed, a now considerable body of evidence now exists that, by age 15, compared
to other school subjects, science is failing to engage young people (Jenkins & Nelson,
2005; Lyons, 2006; Osborne & Collins, 2001; Sjøbeg & Schreiner, 2005). For instance,
data collected by the Relevance of Science Education (ROSE) Project (Schreiner &
Sjøberg, 2004), using a standard survey administered in over 20 countries, shows
that the decline of student interest in school science is an international phenomenon
with girls, in the overwhelming majority of countries, liking school science
significantly less than their male counterparts. A significant finding of this study is
that there is a 0.92 negative correlation between students’ responses to the
question ‘I like school science more than other subjects’ and the UN index of Human
Development (Sjøberg & Schreiner, 2005) suggesting that the phenomenon is deeply
cultural and not unique to any one society – a product of youths’ values in advanced
societies. A similar finding emerges from Ogura’s (Ogura, 2006) analysis of the 1999
TIMSS results of attainment and attitudes towards school science.
Yet, student interest in science at age 10 has shown to be high and with little gender
difference (Haworth, Dale, & Plomin, 2008; Murphy & Beggs, 2005; Pell & Jarvis,
2001). However, in the UK, a sharper decline would appear to begin in the final year
of elementary school (Murphy & Beggs, 2005). Recent research would suggest that
by the age of 14, for the majority of students interest in pursuing further study of
science has largely been formed (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 2001;
Lindahl, 2007; Tai, Qi Liu, Maltese, & Fan, 2006; The Royal Society, 2006). For
instance, in a recent analysis of data collected for the US National Educational
Longitudinal Study, Tai et al (2006) showed that by age 14 students with
expectations of science-related careers were 3.4 times more likely to earn a physical
science and engineering degree than students without similar expectations. This
effect was even more pronounced for those who demonstrated high ability in
mathematics – 51% being likely to undertake a Science, Technology, Engineering or
Mathematics (STEM) related degree. Indeed Tai et al’s analysis shows that the
average mathematics achiever at age 14 with a science-related career aspiration has
a greater chance of achieving a physical science/engineering degree than a high
mathematics achiever with a non-science career aspiration (34% compared to 19%).
Further evidence that children’s life-world experiences prior to 14 are the major
determinant of any decision to pursue the study of science comes from a survey by
the Royal Society (2006) of 1141 SET practitioners’ reasons for pursuing scientific
careers. It found that just over a quarter of respondents (28%) first started thinking
about a career in STEM before the age of 11 and a further third (35%) between the
ages of 12 -14. Likewise a small-scale longitudinal study conducted following 70
Swedish students from Grade 5 (age 12) to grade 9 (age 16) (Lindahl, 2007) found
that their career aspirations and interest in science was largely formed by age 13.
Lindahl concluded that engaging older children in science would become
progressively harder. Similar results emerge from the work of Bandura et al. on
student career trajectories (Bandura, et al., 2001).
Other recent work conducted by Haste (Haste, 2004) and Schreiner (Schreiner, 2006)
would suggest that contemporary youth should not be seen as a homogeneous
entity, but that rather, there exist 4 or 5 independent personality types who are, or
are not, attracted to science. For instance, both Haste and Schreiner identify a group
of ‘techno-investors’ who are predominantly male and fascinated by technology. In
contrast, they both find a group who are ‘alienated from science’ who are
predominantly female. Such insights suggest that school science needs to offer a
different vision of what a career in science might offer from its traditional narrow
foci (Munro & Elsom, 2000). These findings also throw some light on the enduring
problem of recruiting female students to the study of the physical science and
engineering where, for many countries, the levels of participation remain below 30%
(Directorate General Education and Culture, 2005). A significant review of nine
common hypotheses to explain this phenomenon conducted by Blickenstaff (2005)
offers some valuable insights. His review makes a strong case for the weakness of
some e.g girls are less able or lack spatial reasoning and identifies areas of greater
importance – e.g the nature of classroom pedagogy.
Research evidence shows that it is indeed the quality of the educational experience
provided by teachers - the learning and teaching methods used – which play a critical
role in students’ success in and take up of STEM. Good quality teachers are more
important than any other factor (Barber & Mourshed, 2007; Barber, Mourshed, &
McKinsey&Company, 2007; L. Darling-Hammond, 2007; Linda Darling-Hammond,
2007; Druva & Anderson, 1983; Haladyna, Olsen, & Shaughnessy, 1982; Haladyna &
Shaughnessy, 1982; R.E. Myers & J.T Fouts, 1992; R.E. Myers & J.T. Fouts, 1992). A
significant body of research evidence suggests that tailoring teaching style and
pedagogies to suit students’ learning needs is an effective way to increase
attainment levels and engagement. Hattie & Timperley (2007) found that
interventions involving feedback are more effective than any other educational
intervention, whilst Wiliams (2007) calculates that, for the achieved effect size, the
cost of formative assessment is lower in comparison to any other educational
intervention.
To explain the attitudes of contemporary youth to school science, the analysis
presented will pay particular attention to the notion of ‘identity’ and the insights it
offers in how students make subject choices. Ever since the work of Goffman (1959),
social life has been seen as a performance with agreed rules for behaviour in which
every facet of individuals’ public choices and behaviour, such as language, actions,
values and beliefs, are tacit symbols or codes of social identities. identity is both an
embodied and a performed construction , that is both produced agentically by
individuals and shaped by their specific structural locations (e.g. see Archer 2003;
Archer & Francis 2006). Identities are understood, therefore, as discursively and
contextually produced – and as profoundly relational. That is, a sense of self is
constructed as much through a sense of what/who one is not, as much as through
the sense of who/what one is (Said, 1978). Importantly as well, notions of identity
are multifaceted and complex, being shaped in relation to intersecting axes of
gender, ethnicity, social class, and so on, which can generate powerful notions of
what is/not felt to be appropriate or normal for ‘people like me’ – which in turn can
profoundly shape individuals’ educational choices and trajectories (Bourdieu &
Passeron, 1990). A notable feature of contemporary society is also the growing
range of interactive technologies and media that young people have access to.
Schools, albeit important are simply another experience which compete with other
information sources for their attention (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003). For many young
people, the project in which they are engaged is the construction of a public identity
through engaging in creative and autonomous self expression (Buckingham, 2000;
Sefton-Green, 2007) – a feature which is missing from much of what might be
termed the ‘deep grammar’ of school science education. This post-structuralist
perspective is innovative in foregrounding the pupil voice and recognising its
significance.
Another enduring problem that has bedeviled the field, and which will be explored in
this paper, is the construction of instruments for measuring attitudes towards
science. The major concern is the lack of construct validity reflected in
questionnaires which have not been rigorously tested using factor analysis and the
failure to resolve and identify the separate dimensions that are being measured.
More recent work on this topic (Barmby, Kind, & Jones, 2008; Blalock, et al., 2008)
would now suggest that some of these problems have been addressed and that the
field has advanced.
Methods and Mode of Inquiry
This paper will draw on three pieces of work which have been conducted in the past
year. First, a major review of the literature conducted for the Australian government
by Tytler et al. (2008). This team conducted a systematic search of the available
literature using specific keywords to identify 2296 relevant and salient articles which
formed the basis of their review. Second, it will draw on a chapter being written by
two of the authors for the Second International Handbook of Science Education to
be published in 2009 and a chapter by two of the authors for the 2 nd edition of the
book ‘Good practice in science teaching: What research has to say’ to be published
by the Open University Press.
Results & Conclusions
The goal of the paper will be to assess the relative importance that can be assigned
to the many factors that have been identified as being formative on students’
attitudes to science by drawing on a large evidence base that now exists. In
addition, it will develop some new insights around the concept of identity and how
science education might respond and appeal to a wider cross-section of
contemporary youth.
Educational Importance of this study.
Young people’s response to science is a central focus of policy makers and has been
the subject of two recent reports in Europe (Osborne & Dillon, 2008; Rocard, et al.,
2007). For instance, the European Round Table of Industrialists are holding a one
day conference in October 2008 on the theme of ‘Inspiring the Next Generation’
where the keynote speaker is the President of the European Union, José Manuel
Barroso, with a specific focus on STEM subjects. Likewise, the French have organised
a special two day conference on ‘Science Learning in the Europe of Knowledge’ also
in October 2008 as one of the priority themes of their Presidency of the European
Union. The principal author has been invited to both of these and additional insights
and data gathered there will contribute to this paper. What this signifies though is
that, perhaps more than any other domain in science education, that is this domain
of research to which policy makers pay particular attention, and for which the
academic community requires good research overviews – something to which this
paper will contribute.
Archer, L. & Yamashita, H. (2003) ‘Knowing their limits’? Identities, Inequalities and
Inner City School Leavers’ Post-16 Aspirations, Journal of Education Policy
18(1) 53-6
Archer, L. & Francis, B. (2006) Understanding Minority Ethnic Achievement. London,
Routledge.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (2001). Self-Efficacy
Beliefs as Shapers of Children's Aspirations and Career Trajectories. Child
Development, 72(1), 187-206.
Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world's best-performing school systems
come out on top: McKinsey & Company.
Barber, M., Mourshed, M., & McKinsey&Company (2007). How the World's bestperforming school systems come out on top. London: McKinsey and Co.
Barmby, P., Kind, P. M., & Jones, K. (2008). Examining Changing Attitudes in
Secondary School Science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(8),
1075 - 1093.
Blalock, C. L., Lichtenstein, M. J., Owen, S., Pruski, L., Marshall, C., & Toepperwein,
M. (2008). In Pursuit of Validity: A comprehensive review of science attitude
instruments. International Journal of Science Education, 30(7), 961 - 977.
Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005). Women and science careers: leaky pipeline or gender filter?
Gender and Education, 17(4), 369-386.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1990). Reproduction in Education, Society and
Culture. London: Sage.
Buckingham, D. (2000). After the death childhood: Growing up in the age of
electronic media. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The flat earth and education: How America's
commitment to equity will determine our future. Educational Researcher,
36(16), 318 - 334.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The Flat Earth and Education: How America's
Committment to Equity will Determine Our Future. Educational Researcher,
36(6), 318-334.
Directorate General Education and Culture (2005). Key Data on Education in Europe.
Brussels: Eurydice.
Druva, C., & Anderson, R. (1983). Science teacher characteristics by teacher behavior
and by student outcome: A meta-analysis of research. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 20(5), 467-479.
European Commission (2004). Europe needs More Scientists: Report by the High
Level Group on Increasing Human Resources for Science and Technology.
Brussels: European Commission.
Gardner, P. L. (1975). Attitudes to Science. Studies in Science Education, 2, 1-41.
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor
Books.
Haladyna, T., Olsen, R., & Shaughnessy, J. (1982). Relations of Student, Teacher, and
Learning Environment Variables to Attitudes to Science. Science Education,
66(5), 671-687.
Haladyna, T., & Shaughnessy, J. (1982). Attitudes toward Science: A Quantitative
Synthesis. Science Education, 66(4), 547-563.
Haste, H. (2004). Science in my future: A study of the values and beliefs in relation to
science and technology amongst 11-21 year olds: Nestlé Social Research
Programme.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational
Research, 77(1), 81-112.
Haworth, C. M. A., Dale, P., & Plomin, R. (2008). A Twin Study into the Genetic and
Environmental Influences on Academic Performance in Science in nine-yearold Boys and Girls. International Journal of Science Education, 30(8), 1003 1025.
HM Treasury (2006). Science and Innovation investment Framework: next steps.
London: HMSO.
Jagger, N. (2007). Internationalising Doctoral Careers. Paper presented at the The
National Value of Science Education.
Jenkins, E., & Nelson, N. W. (2005). Important but not for me: students' attitudes
toward secondary school science in England. Research in Science &
Technological Education, 23(1), 41-57.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New Literacies: Changing Knowledge and
Classroom Learning. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press.
Lindahl, B. (2007). A Longitudinal Study of Student's' Attitudes Towards Science and
Choice of Career. Paper presented at the 80th NARST International
Conference New Orleans, Louisiana.
Lyons, T. (2006). Different Countries, Same Science Classes: Students' experience of
school science classes in their own words. International Journal of Science
Education, 28(6), 591-613.
Munro, M., & Elsom, D. (2000). Choosing Science at 16: The Influences of Science
Teachers and Careers Advisors on Students’ Decisions about Science Subjects
and Science and Technology Careers. Cambridge: Careers Research and
Advisory Centre (CRAC).
Murphy, C., & Beggs, J. (2005). Primary Science in the UK: A Scoping Study. Final
Report to the Wellcome Trust. London: Wellcome Trust.
Myers, R. E., & Fouts, J. T. (1992). A cluster analysis of high school science classroom
environments and attitude toward science. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 29(9), 929-937.
Myers, R. E., & Fouts, J. T. (1992). A Cluster Analysis of High School Science
Classroom Environments and Attitude toward Science. Journal of Research in
Science Teachinig, 29(9), 929-937.
National Academy of Sciences: Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy
(2005). Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America
for a Brighter Economic Future. Washington, DC: National Academy Sciences.
Ogura, Y. (2006). Graph of Student Attitude v Student Attainment. Based on data
from: Martin, M.O. et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report:
Findings from IEA's Repeat of the Third International Mathematics and
Science Study at the eighth grade. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
National Institute for Educational Research: Tokyo.
Osborne, J. F., & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils' views of the role and value of the science
curriculum: a focus-group study. International Journal of Science Education,
23(5), 441-468.
Osborne, J. F., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science Education in Europe: Critical Reflections.
London: Nuffield Foundation.
Osborne, J. F., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards Science: A Review of
the Literature and its Implications. International Journal of Science Education,
25(9), 1049–1079.
Pell, T., & Jarvis, T. (2001). Developing attitude to science scales for use with children
of ages from five to eleven years. International Journal of Science Education,
23(8), 847-862.
Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Dieter Lenzen, Walberg-Henriksson, H., &
Hemmo, V. (2007). Science Education Now: A Renewed Pedagogy for the
Future of Europe. Brussels: Directorate General for Research, Science,
Economy and Society.
Said, E. W. (1978). The Problem of Textuality: Two Exemplary Positions. Critical
Inquiry, 4(4), 673-714.
Schibeci, R. A. (1984). Attitudes to Science: an update. Studies in Science Education,
11, 26-59.
Schreiner, C. (2006). EXPLORING A ROSE-GARDEN: Norwegian youth's orientations
towards science - seen as signs of late modern identities: Thesis submitted for
Doctor Scientarium. Oslo: Faculty of Education.
Schreiner, C., & Sjøberg, S. (2004). Sowing the seeds of ROSE. Background,
Rationale, Questionnaire Development and Data Collection for ROSE (The
Relevance of Science Education) - a comparative study of students' views of
science and science education (pdf) (Acta Didactica 4/2004). . Oslo: Dept. of
Teacher Education and School Development, University of Oslo.
Sefton-Green, J. (2007). Youth, Technology, and Media Culture. Review of Research
in Education, 30, 279-306.
Sjøbeg, S., & Schreiner, C. (2005). How do learners in different cultures relate to
science and technology? Results and perspectives from the project ROSE.
Asia Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 1-16.
Sjøberg, S., & Schreiner, C. (2005). How do learners in different cultures relate to
science and technology? Results and perspectives from the project ROSE.
Asia Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 1-16.
Tai, R. H., Qi Liu, C., Maltese, A. V., & Fan, X. (2006). Planning Early for Careers in
Science. Science, 312, 1143-1145.
Teitelbaum, M. (2007). Do We Need More Scientists and Engineers? Paper presented
at the The National Value of Science Education.
The Royal Society (2006). Taking A Leading Role. London: The Royal Society.
Tytler, R., Osborne, J. F., Williams, G., Tytler, K., Clark, J. C., Tomei, A., et al. (2008).
Opening up pathways: Engagement in STEM across the Primary-Secondary
school transition. A review of the literature concerning supports and barriers
to Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics engagement at
Primary-Secondary transition. Commissioned by the Australian Department of
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Melbourne: Deakin
University.
Williams, G. (2007). Research enriched by the student voice. Paper presented at the
Mathematics: Essential Research, Essential Practice: Proceedings of the 30th
annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of
Australasia.