JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 25, NO. 3, PP. 179-184 (1988)

CHANGES IN PERCEIVED ATTITUDES TOWARD THE GOALS FOR SCIENCE INSTRUCTION IN SCHOOLS

ROBERT E. YAGER and JOHN E. PENICK Science Education Center, The University of Iowa, Iowa Cify, Iowa 52242

Abstract

Four goal areas were identified by the Project Synthesis research team, including science for affecting daily living, science for resolving societal issues, career awareness in science/technology, and science necessary for further study. In 1976 15 science educators across the U.S. agreed to administer a short, one-page assessment form to at least 50 mem- bers of service clubs or community groups in their respective communities. This survey asked the respondents about the relative importance for the four goal areas across the K-12 cur- riculum (K-3,4-6,7-9, and 10-12). The 1976 survey was repeated with similar respondents during 1980, 1984, and 1986. The results indicate that the view of the importance of science as preparation for studying science further is perceived as a most important goal which chan- ges little across grade levels or time. During the 1976-86 period respondents rated the im- portance of science for improvement of daily living as significantly more important; in fact, its importance was perceived almost as great as academic preparation. Similarly, science for the resolution of societal issues and for meeting career-awareness goals were viewed as sig- nificantly more important in 1986 than was the case in 1976. The respondents survey in 1984 and 1986 ranked science goals for resolving societal issues as more important than those as- sociated with information useful in daily living. There is no way of determining how much of this change of perception is caused by professionals and/or forces at work at a given point in time. Nor is it clear how the information can or should be used to plan school programs.

Public support for science and science education was at the lowest point since the 1950’s in the mid-70’s (Yager, 1985). Surely, science education was in crisis once again. By 1976 all National Science Foundation funds designated for science- teacher education activities were suspended and all active curriculum develop- ments were reviewed critically by experts and representatives of the public. Most of these curriculum efforts were continued but with reduced funding. And none at- tracted major publishers as the developmental work was completed. The decade of the 70’s was one of confusion, reassessment, and emerging new directions.

In such a climate, many asked for specific information about goals, direct evidence of success and failure, and new procedures and instruments for assess-

@ 1988 by the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Published by John Wdey & Sons. h e . CCC 0022-4308/88/030179-06$04.00

56-220

180 YAGER AND PENICK

ment. Past assumptions and frames of reference were questioned. With the suspen- sion of programs developed for the improvement of school science, priorities shifted to new programs of research and assessment. The total funding for science education within NSF remained at almost the same level into the 80’s; however, the limited funds were directed to evaluation, research, and new developmental projects, often at the college level.

In this setting NSF funded three large status studies in 1976 (Helgeson, Blosser, & Howe, 1977; Weiss, 1978; Stake & Easley, 1978) to assess what re- search suggested the study of science education to be in 1955-75, what profes- sionals reported it to be, and what trained ethnographers could see firsthand to be occurring. Later NSF funded nine organizations to read the 3,000 pages of materials and to summarize the findings from the three studies (NSF, 1979). Final- ly, Project Synthesis, a major research effort, established desired states for science teaching and compared these with the actual states as revealed in the status studies (Harms, 1977). Prior to submission of the Synthesis proposal, Harms, with the help of some of the most prestigious scientists, science educators, and philosophers, identified major goal clusters for school science. These became important or- ganizers for the Synthesis effort, providing four reasons for the inclusion of science in the general K-12 program for all learners. These goals included:

1. Personal Needs. Science education should prepare individuals to use science for improving their own lives and coping with an increasingly technological world.

2. Societal Issues. Science education should produce informed citizens prepared to deal responsibly with science-related societal issues.

3. Career EducatiodAwareness. Science education should give all stu- dents an awareness of the nature and scope of a wide variety of science- and technology-related careers open to students of varying aptitudes and interests.

4. Academic Preparation. Science education should allow students who are likely to pursue science academically as well as professionally to acquire the academic knowledge appropriate for their needs.

The identification of these four “justifications” for school science resulted in some criticisms, especially from those who viewed inquiry (processes of science) as a major objective. Others concerned with the nature of science felt that their view of science was not adequately portrayed in the four clusters. Nonetheless, the clusters remained the primary organizer for Project Synthesis and provided four distinct reasons for science; reasons readily understood by school leaders and the general public. Our concern with the public’s general understanding of the goal areas suggested the study being reported.

The Problem

George Gallup conducts annual polls of the attitude of the U.S. public con- cerning various educational issues. The 1976 poll included many items concern- ing opinions of various offerings and teaching approaches (Gallup, 1976). However, the poll included few items regarding science per se and none concern- ing perceptions of the Synthesis goal clusters or related items.

CHANGES IN PERCEIVED AlTITUDES 181

Since in the U.S. the public must support education and educational change, the decision was made to survey the public concerning their perceptions of the four goal areas for school science across the K-12 program. Information was sought an- nually where the focus for a given year was varied. Information concerning the perceived importance of the four goal areas was sought on alternate years begin- ning in 1976.

This report compares the perceptions of similar samples of the public during the 1976-86 period. Are there changes in perceptions over time? Are the percep- tions concerning the four goal clusters the same over the K-12 years? How can/should such changes affect school practices and professional thought? Or do schools and professionals affect the perceptions of the public? These last questions are included for speculation, while data collected from 1970-86 provide direct in- formation for the first two.

Procedures

Initially, Gallup was approached as extensions of their annual polls for PDK were proposed and the National Science Teachers Association endorsed the need for annual surveys in science education. However, funds for efforts like the PDK Gallup Poll were not available. (Surveys were conducted for three years of NSTA members-the results of such perceptions of science teachers over time are being tabulated for other reports). With severe financial limitations it was decided that science educators across the U.S. would be invited to help with data collection.

More than 150 Ph.D. graduates in science education have been granted at the University of Iowa since the degree was established in 1958. These persons, scat- tered throughout the U.S ., were contacted concerning their interest and willingness to help with assessing public understanding of science education. About half of these science educators agreed to help with different surveys for different years. The number of persons agreeing to help increases each year as new graduates are placed.

In 1976, we selected fifteen science educators by region to contact at least one community organization to get their members to respond to a survey concerning their perceptions of why science should be taught in their schools. These same science educators sought out similar community groups for follow-up surveys in 1980,1984, and 1986. Although the community groups were similar as to type and makeup over the ten year period, they were not the same respondents. Hence, the changes reflected do not represent real changes for the same respondents across years. For purposes of analysis it has been assumed that the groups are similar and that changes across the years represent real change of perceptions and not merely those of the particular groups sampled.

Basically all respondents arose from community groups that included mem- bers of service clubs, parents associated with Parent Teacher Associations, parent/community advisory groups for local schools, members of League of Women Voters, and community action/advisory groups. It was assumed that mem- bers of such groups represent a segment of the general public that can be called “informed and concerned.” Of course, it is only possible to generalize for the sample that was secured as described above. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that

182 YAGER AND PENICK

the groups responding for a given year differed from those responding for another year. And there is no indication that the groups responding were unlike any other groups secured at random.

Basically the respondents were given a form that indicated that there were four general areas that are used to define goals for schools science. In this case, goals were defined as reasons for teaching science or justifications for including science in the school program. Opinions were asked in each of the four goal levels and for four grade levels, namely K-3, 4-6, 7-9, and 10-12. Each of the 15 science educators met in person with each group agreeing to help with the survey. After a brief (five minute) statement concerning the importance of the survey, the one- page survey form was completed in approximately ten minutes. Each surveyor was asked to locate at least 50 respondents in their communities that conformed to the above list.

Results

Table I provides a record of the results of the surveys from four sample years selected to span a ten-year interval. While the tremendous importance of science study as preparation for further study is very great and evident across all grade levels and years, other goals are seen to grow in perceived importance across the ten years. Chi-square analyses were conducted in an effort to determine which changes in perception of respondents were significant ones during the ten-year period. All were significant at the 0.05 level except for the perceived importance of academic preparation as an important justification for school science.

This growing positive perception of the other goal areas signifies community interest in aspects of school science beyond academic preparation. Science which can be applied in daily life situations (i.e., helping to meet personal needs of stu- dents) is now considered to be very important by the members of the public sur- veyed, second only to the academic preparation goal. The increase in perceived importance in this area over the ten-year period is most significant in 1984 and 1986 for the 4-6 and 7-9 levels. In fact, in these instances, meeting such personal needs of students is perceived to be almost as important as preparing students to study science further.

Even though lower in priority, citizens now perceive science for helping stu- dents (and the public) to resolve societal issues as more important across time and as grade level increases. By 1984 both 7-9 and 10-12 grade levels were seen as key levels for the study of societal issues in science. The perceived importance is only slightly less than it is for students’ use of science for affecting their daily life for the 7-9 level and actually significantly greater for the 10-12 level.

Similarly, there is an increase in public perception of the relative importance of career-awareness goals across the years studied and as grade levels advance. Respondents do not view career awareness as important for K-3 students in com- parison with the respondents viewing such goals as important at the 10-12 level in 1984 and 1986. Interestingly, a third of those polled felt career awareness was important for K-3 students in 1986; this number increased to two-thirds for the 10-12 level.

CHANGES IN PERCEIVED A " U D E S 183

TABLE I Attitudes Towards Four Major Goals for School Science

Percent Important 1976 1980 1984 1986 Significance

K-3 Meeting personal needs 60 76 8 0 8 1 8

Resolving sodetal issues 10 31 4 2 4 6 * Career awareness 5 2 6 31 33 8

Preparation for further study 86 88 8 7 8 5

4-6 Meeting personal needs 58 70 87 86 * Resolving sodetal issues 1 2 2 9 69 68 * Career awareness 7 31 53 57 a

Preparation for further study 90 91 9 3 9 2

7-9 Meeting personal needs 68 76 8 9 9 0 * Resolving sodetal issues 3 5 5 9 76 84 * Career awareness 25 42 5 8 6 0 a

Preparation for further study 91 90 93 92

10-12 Meeting personal needs 60 67 75 76 * Resolving sodetal issues 4 1 6 8 a7 89 a

Career awareness 32 51 6 3 6 5 a

Preparation for further study 98 97 9 6 9 7

1976: n= 614. 1980: n = 595. 1984: n = 816. 1986: n = 940.

*Chi-square analysis indicates significance at 0.05 level.

Analysis

The data suggest major shifts in public perceptions concerning the importance of studying science in schools. Goals associated with meeting daily needs, resolv- ing societal problems, and helping with career awareness are perceived as more important as the eight years advance and as the grade levels increase. At the same time that other goals are embraced, goals associated with content mastery as

1 84 YAGER AND PENICK

preparation for further study of science remain the goal area considered of utmost importance.

That public perception is changing is not surprising; that it is changing in the direction of more concern for personal needs, career awareness, and societal issues may not be either. During the period 1980-86 hundreds of articles have pushed at the public conscience, stressing the need for these goals.

As the public perception changes, so must our curriculum and teaching strategies. But changes in public interest in support for and perceptions of science in schools have not been studied widely. Perhaps it took our most recent “crisis” to make us serious about public support, the factors that affect such support, and the changes in such perceptions over time. We need more information both in terms of the extent of the perceptions and the factors that affect them. Perhaps much more research is needed which can in turn affect practice, especially that associated with teacher education. With such research and associated data, we will have a firmer base for decision making and, ultimately, action. Certainly professionals need to be aware of the perceptions on the part of the public which support education as well as how these perceptions arise and how they can be affected.

References

Gallup, G. (1976). Eighth annual Gallup poll of the public’s attitudes toward public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 58(2), 187-200.

Harms, N.C. (1977). Project Synthesis: An interpretive consolidation of re- search identifying needs in natural science education. (A proposal to the National Science Foundation.) University of Colorado, Boulder.

Helgeson, S.L., Blosser, P.E., & Howe, R.W. (1977). The Status of Pre-Col- lege Science, Mathematics, and Social Science Education: 195.5-75. The Center for Science and Mathematics Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, Stock No. 038-000-

National Science Foundation (1979). What are the Needs in Pre-College Science, Mathematics, and Social Science Education? Views from the Field. SE 80-9. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation.

Stake, R.E., & Easley, J. (1978). Case Studies in Science Education, Volumes I and II. Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Of- lice, Stock No. 038-000-00376-3.

Weiss, I.R. (1978). Report of the 1977 National Survey of Science, Mathe- matics, and Social Studies Education; Center for Educational Research andEvalua- tion, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, Stock No. 038-000-00364.

Yager, R.E. (1985). The attitudes of the public toward science and science education. Iowa Science Teachers Journal, 22(2), 2-4.

Manuscript accepted September 9, 1987.

00362-3.