Construction and Validation of an Instrument to Measure Taiwanese Elementary Students’ Attitudes toward Their Science Class

This article was downloaded by: [University of Western Ontario]On: 15 November 2014, At: 23:01Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of ScienceEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Construction and Validation of anInstrument to Measure TaiwaneseElementary Students’ Attitudes towardTheir Science ClassTzu‐Ling Wang a & Donna Berlin b

a Department of Life Science , National Taiwan NormalUniversity , Taipei, Taiwanb School of Teaching and Learning , The Ohio State University ,OH, USAPublished online: 02 Feb 2010.

To cite this article: Tzu‐Ling Wang & Donna Berlin (2010) Construction and Validation of anInstrument to Measure Taiwanese Elementary Students’ Attitudes toward Their Science Class,International Journal of Science Education, 32:18, 2413-2428, DOI: 10.1080/09500690903431561

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690903431561

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09500690903431561

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690903431561

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

3:01

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

International Journal of Science EducationVol. 32, No. 18, 1 December 2010, pp. 2413–2428

ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/10/182413–16© 2010 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/09500690903431561

RESEARCH REPORT

Construction and Validation of an Instrument to Measure Taiwanese Elementary Students’ Attitudes toward Their Science Class

Tzu-Ling Wanga* and Donna BerlinbaDepartment of Life Science, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan; bSchool of Teaching and Learning, The Ohio State University, OH, USATaylor and FrancisTSED_A_443413.sgm10.1080/09500690903431561International Journal of Science Education0950-0693 (print)/1464-5289 (online)Research Report2009Taylor & Francis0000000002009Dr. [email protected]

The main purpose of this study is to develop a valid and reliable instrument for measuring theattitudes toward science class of fourth- and fifth-grade students in an Asian school culture. Specifi-cally, the development focused on three science attitude constructs—science enjoyment, scienceconfidence, and importance of science as related to science class experiences. A total of 265elementary school students in Taiwan responded to the instrument developed. Data analysis indi-cated that the instrument exhibited satisfactory validity and reliability with the Taiwan populationused. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.93 for the entire instrument indicating a satisfactorylevel of internal consistency. However, both principal component analysis and parallel analysisshowed that the three attitude scales were not unique and should be combined and used as ageneral “attitudes toward science class” scale. The analysis also showed that there were no genderor grade-level differences in students’ overall attitudes toward science class.

Keywords: Attitudes; Elementary school; Gender differences; Science education; Survey

Introduction

Research on students’ attitudes toward science began to appear in the 1960s andincreased significantly during the 1970s and 1980s (Koballa, 1995). Science educa-tors agree that the promotion of positive attitudes toward science remains an impor-tant goal of science education (Francis & Greer, 1999; Freedman, 1997;

*Corresponding author. Department of Life Science, National Taiwan Normal University, 9F-3,No. 222, Chung-Cheng Road, Yungho, Taipei 23455, Taiwan. Email: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

3:01

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

2414 T.-L. Wang and D. Berlin

Papanastasiou & Papanastasiou, 2004). Moreover, students’ attitudes towardscience are an important factor influencing student motivation (Hassan, 2008),achievement (Papanastasiou & Papanastasiou, 2002; Papanastasiou & Zembylas,2002), and course and career choices (Koballa, 1995; Koballa & Glynn, 2006).

Researchers have defined attitudes toward science in a variety of ways (Haladyna& Shaughnessy, 1982; Koballa & Glynn, 2006; Munby, 1980). These differences indefinition have led to the development of a variety of instruments to measure one ormore dimensions of student science attitudes. Gardner (1975b) suggested a basicdistinction between two categories of science-related attitudes: “attitudes towardscience” (e.g., interests in science, attitudes toward scientists, attitudes toward socialresponsibility in science) and “scientific attitudes” (e.g., open-mindedness, honesty,skepticism). Munby (1980) expanded the attitudes toward science category toinclude attitudes toward science careers, science instruction, the institution ofscience, specific science issues, and scientific processes.

Rationale for the Study

The weakness in justifying validity is a common problem found in the instrumentsdeveloped for the Asian region (e.g., Boone, 1997 for China; Dhindsa & Chung,2003 for Brunei; Ibrahim, 1984 for Malaysia; Scantlebury, Baker, Sugi, Yoshida, &Uysal, 2007 for Japan; Yu, 1998 for Taiwan). To date, there appear to be no scienceattitude instruments with acceptable reliability and validity evidence that are appro-priate for use with students in Asian elementary schools. In addition, using theinstrument developed in a different cultural system is dangerous and not appropriate(Pell & Manganye, 2007; van Rensburg, Ankiewicz, & Myburgh, 1999). Accordingto Mordi (1991), the majority of studies on attitudes toward science involvedstudents in Great Britain, Israel, Australia, and the USA. The construction andvalidation of an instrument to measure science attitudes for students in Taiwan willhelp to identify science-related attitudes for students with different cultural andeducational backgrounds in the Asian region. It is important, therefore, to developan instrument that is relevant and appropriate to the curriculum and instruction inAsian elementary schools in general and more specifically for use with elementaryschool students in Taiwan.

Thus, the purpose of this research was to develop a valid and reliable instrumentto measure attitudes toward science class for use with elementary school students inTaiwan. Specifically, the instrument was constructed to measure three specificscience attitude dimensions identified by Dhindsa and Chung (2003): (1) scienceenjoyment, (2) science confidence, and (3) importance of science as related toscience class experiences. The reason for selecting these three attitudinal dimensionswas because of their high frequency in attitude studies, though usually referenced bydifferent names in different instruments (Hassan, 2008; Kind, Jones, & Barmby,2007; Osborne, Simon, & Collins, 2003).

Many studies in western countries such as the USA have been conducted to inves-tigate the relationship of gender and grade level with science attitudes; however, in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

3:01

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Attitudes toward Science Class Survey 2415

the Asian region this issue has not yet been completely explored, particularly inTaiwan. Thus, a second purpose of this study was to investigate the gender andgrade-level relationship to attitudes toward science to fill the research gap in studentattitudes in an Asian culture generally and in Taiwan specifically.

In the literature, many researchers have shown that the decline in attitudes towardscience takes place among students between the ages of 9 and 14 years. For exam-ple, Hadden and Johnstone (1983) argued that the onset years for the decline instudent science attitudes occur among 9- to 14-year-olds, while Pell and Jarvis(2001) suggested the decline begins specifically in the last two years of primaryschool, a finding also supported by Murphy and Beggs (2003) and Sorge (2007).Kotte (1992) also reported that the sharpest decline in gender difference in attitudestoward science may occur between the ages of 10 and 14 years. In an effort to poten-tially find the point of change in attitudes toward science among elementary schoolstudents, the subjects in the current study included a sample of Taiwanese studentsin Grades 4 and 5 who were between the ages of 9 and 11 years.

Review of the Relevant Literature

The science attitude instruments developed to date have been critiqued closely,and a number of problems and weaknesses in them have been reported. Central tothese critiques is the lack of clarity and definition of the underlying attitudeconstruct being measured, for example, attitudes toward science, scientific atti-tudes, and understanding the nature of science (Blalock, Lichtenstein, Owen,Pruski, Marshall, & Toepperwein, 2008) or in other cases problems with the refer-ent science, for example, students’ attitudes toward science in schools, students’attitudes toward science outside school, and students’ attitudes toward scientists(Kind et al., 2007). The lack of clear definitions of the underlying constructsmakes comparing results across research studies (Kind et al., 2007) and synthesiz-ing the findings of previous research (Francis & Greer, 1999) difficult at best ortotally invalid at worse.

A second area of criticism of these instruments is around their psychometric integ-rity. Specifically, many researchers have added the scores from the separateconstructs to produce a single composite score without psychometric analysessupporting this practice. For example, Osborne et al. (2003) noted that attitudestoward science may not consist of a single construct but consist of many differentconstructs. If there is no single construct underlying a scale, combining unrelateditems into a single total is unjustified psychometrically.

Gardner (1996) suggests that factor analysis provides the statistical evidence toensure that item responses can be totaled and can yield a meaningful total score.The assumption underlying this statistical technique is that if all the items havesubstantial loadings on a single factor, then adding the items scores together toproduce a grand total score is justified. In addition, Gardner (1975a) suggests that ifempirical evidence is available to show that the separate constructs are all stronglyinter-correlated then combining them to form one scale is justified.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

3:01

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Finally, instrument developers have been criticized for failure to properly addressvalidity. Many developers use only a panel of judges to evaluate their instruments forvalidity. This is a subjective process and does not provide a strong estimate of valid-ity (Munby, 1980). And, while this approach has legitimacy as part of the validationprocess, “panel validity” alone is not sufficient (DeVellis, 2003).

To improve the quality of the validity evidence, Munby (1997) suggests thatvalidity evidence should include both psychometric or objective evidence and non-psychometric or subjective evidence. Kind et al. (2007) echo Munby’s position.

Koballa (1995) reviewed some of the more popular science attitude instrumentsdeveloped after 1966 by Ayers and Price, Chambers, Hadden and Johnstone,Haladyna and Thomas, Harvey and Edwards, and Lowery, Perrodin, and Shrigleyfor use with elementary school students. In general, he concluded that the reviewedinstruments reported satisfactory reliability but insufficient validity evidence.

A review of the literature on science attitude instruments that were developed after1995 and designed specifically for elementary school students revealed six instru-ments. Yu (1998) explored the relative effect of cooperation on Taiwanese fifthgraders’ science achievement and attitudes toward science. The instrument used tomeasure students’ attitudes toward science was directly translated into Chinese fromthe one developed by Germann (1988), which was originally designed for secondarystudents. A high Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.92 was reported, but no validity datawere reported.

Jones, Howe, and Rua (2000) investigated gender differences in experience, inter-ests, and attitudes of sixth-grade students toward science and scientists. Theirinstrument consists of four subscales—“out-of-school experience,” “things to learnabout,” “importance for future job,” and “science in action.” These four subscaleswere obtained from the instrument developed in 1995 by Sjoberg, Mehta, andMulemwa. The reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) for these four scales ranged from0.67 to 0.97. Face validity evidence was established by review of an internationalpanel and field testing in three countries.

Pell and Jarvis (2001) developed their attitude instrument for use with children aged5–11 years. Their instrument consists of five subscales—“liking school,” “indepen-dent investigator,” “science enthusiasm,” “social science context,” and “science as adifficult subject.” These subscales were confirmed by oblique factor analysis. Thereliabilities for the subscales (Cronbach’s alpha) ranged from 0.64 to 0.83.

Murphy and Beggs (2003) developed an instrument for 8- to 11-year-old childrenin Northern Ireland. This instrument consists of three factors—“enjoyment ofscience,” “appreciation of the importance of science,” and “perceived ability to doscience.” These factors were confirmed by principal component analysis (PCA).However, no data were reported on reliability or face validity.

Murphy, Ambusaidi, and Beggs (2006) used the same instrument with 9- to 12-year-old children in Oman. The reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) for the entire instru-ment was 0.79, but no reliabilities were reported for the following three subscales:enjoyment of science, appreciation of the importance of science, and perceivedability to do science.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

3:01

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14


More recently, Scantlebury et al. (2007) developed an instrument to measurestudents’ performance and attitudes toward science from elementary school tocollege. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the scale of attitudes toward sciencewas 0.94. The validity was verified by only one expert panel in science education.Sorge (2007) designed a 10-item attitudes toward science scale to investigate theassociation of age and gender with science attitudes from elementary to middleschool. The Cronbach’s alpha for the instrument is 0.96, but again, no validity datawere reported.

The minimum level of alpha coefficient of a good test is 0.7, which has beensuggested in Nunnally (1978), Gable and Wolf (1993), and Kline (2000). Applyingthis criterion to these instruments suggests that some of the subscales of the recentinstruments developed by Jones et al. (2000) and Pell and Jarvis (2001) are unac-ceptable. Murphy et al. (2006) reported an acceptable Cronbach’s alpha value forthe total scale, but no reliabilities were reported for each subscale.

Using empirical validity evidence as a criterion, the use of face validity by panels ofjudges constitutes a very weak argument for an instrument’s validity (DeVellis,2003; Munby, 1980). Jones et al. (2000) and Scantlebury et al. (2007) used onlyface validity and did not appear to have conducted sufficient psychometric analysisto support the validity of their instruments.

Over the years, science educators have identified many variables influencingattitudes toward science (Gardner, 1975b; Koballa, 1995; Osborne et al., 2003;Schibeci, 1984). In particular, reviews by Gardner (1975b) and Schibeci (1984)identified the following variables related to science attitudes: gender, personality,grade level, geographic location, socioeconomic status, cultural background, teach-ing strategies, and curriculum materials. Gardner (1975b) states that gender is likelythe most crucial variable related to student attitudes toward science, and Schibeci(1984) suggested that of all the variables, gender has generally been shown to have aconsistent influence.

Many studies found that boys hold consistently more positive attitudes towardscience than girls (Simpson & Oliver, 1985; Weinburgh, 1995). Some studies foundno statistically significant gender differences in attitudes toward science (Dhindsa &Chung, 2003; Greenfield, 1997; Ibrahim, 1984; Scantlebury et al., 2007; Shaw &Doan, 1990; Stables, 1990). Some studies showed that girls were more positive intheir attitudes than boys (Boone, 1997; Murphy & Beggs, 2003). Other studiesshowed that boys displayed significantly more positive attitudes than girls for certainattitudinal subscales while gender differences were not significant for other subscales(Francis & Greer, 1999; Fraser, 1978; Salta & Tzougraki, 2004). Furthermore,some studies that examined specific disciplines of science indicate a differencebetween genders. These studies suggest that boys show more positive attitudestoward physical sciences, whereas girls show more positive attitudes toward biologi-cal sciences (Koballa, 1995; Osborne et al., 2003; Schibeci, 1983, 1984).

Steinkamp (1982) examined variables related to gender differences in attitudestoward science of students from various countries. He reported that relatively largerdifferences in science attitudes in favor of boys occurred in developed countries,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

3:01

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14


especially Japan, Australia/New Zealand, Sweden, and the USA. In Israel, however,girls’ attitudes toward science were more positive compared with boys. Variations inthe magnitude and direction of differences in boys’ and girls’ attitudes towardscience across countries suggest that there may be a cultural explanation for genderdifferences in attitudes toward science.

There is much less agreement with regard to the relationship between grade leveland attitudes toward science (Francis & Greer, 1999). Many studies have indicatedthat students’ attitudes toward science decline as they move from elementary schoolto middle school to high school (Francis & Greer, 1999; Greenfield, 1997; Koballa,1995; Murphy et al., 2006; Murphy & Beggs, 2003). Other studies report thatstudents’ attitudes toward science did not decline as they advanced to higher grades(Aiken, 1979; Hobbs & Erickson, 1980; Krajkovich, 1978; Maddock, 1978, 1982).However, a few studies reported a more positive attitude toward science for olderstudents (Breakwell & Beardsell, 1992; Hassan, 2008).

ASATSCS—A New Instrument

The Asian Student Attitudes Toward Science Class Survey (ASATSCS) is an instru-ment designed to measure students’ attitudes toward science class. An examinationof existing science attitude instruments revealed a variety of subscales, many of whichwere similar but named differently. We chose to start with the subscales mostcommonly reported in the literature: science enjoyment, science confidence, andimportance of science, which were adapted from the work by Dhindsa and Chung(2003). The “attitudes toward science class” were defined as the positive or negativefeelings students have about various aspects of the science class. In particular, thedefinition of the three dimensions of attitudes toward science developed by Dhindsaand Chung were modified as the following: (1) science enjoyment—the extent towhich a student enjoys science class, (2) science confidence—the extent to which astudent is confident and feels successful in science class, and (3) importance ofscience – the extent to which a student thinks their science class to be an importantand worthwhile class.

Based on the hypothesis that the three science attitude scales contribute to thewhole construct, we then collected a pool of items from existing instruments corre-sponding to the three dimensions (Boone, 1997; Germann, 1988; Hassan, 2008;Kind et al., 2007; Pell & Jarvis, 2001). After deleting repetitions and balancing thedirection (positive or negative) of the question statements, an initial version of 32items was assembled and subsequently modified to make them suitable for use withelementary school students in Taiwan. The modifications were done to align theitems to the Taiwanese science education curriculum and to make them relevant toscience educators studying student attitudes in an Asian school culture and to theteaching materials and teaching strategies commonly used in the elementary schoolscience classroom in Taiwan. Relevant teaching materials included materials such asthe textbook, workbook, DVD film, and poster. Teaching strategies included the useof experiments, lectures, learning groups, and field trips.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

3:01

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14


The first draft of the ASATSCS instrument contained 16 positive and 16 negativestatements. These 32 statements were categorized into the three hypothesizedscience attitude scales—science enjoyment, science confidence, and importance ofscience. The detailed distribution of positive and negative items by scales is reportedin Table 1.

To reorder the 32 items randomly, each item was assigned a unique number from1 to 32 through a random number generator. Table 2 lists the three hypothesizedscience attitude scales, together with sample items from each scale and an indicationrepresenting a positive statement (+) or negative statement (–).

The initial version of the ASATSCS was written in English and then translatedinto Chinese. The researcher translated the English version of the survey intoChinese and then it was back-translated by a bilingual professional translator. Inaddition, an expert panel of two science educators, two science teachers, and onedoctoral student in science education evaluated the instrument for content or facevalidity. The panel members were asked to evaluate how well each item repre-sented what it was intended to measure based upon the definition of the specificconstructs of science enjoyment, science confidence, and importance of science. Inaddition, the panel members were asked to verify that the reading level wasappropriate for fourth- and fifth-grade students and subsequently confirmed byinterviewing three fourth-grade and three fifth-grade students. The panel members’and students’ feedback was collected and then used to refine the Chinese transla-tion of the items. An item would be accepted when all panel members reached aconsensus. This evaluation and refining process was repeated to develop the finalform of the instrument for study.

Table 2. Sample items for the three hypothesized science attitude scales

Hypothesized science attitude scales

Positive (+) or negative (−) Sample items

Science enjoyment + During science class, I like to read science posters.− In science class, watching a science film on TV is boring.

Science confidence + I usually get good scores in science class.− The material in the science textbook is hard for me.

Importance of science + The experiments I do in science class are useful.− In science class, field trips do not help me to learn science.

Table 1. Distribution of positive and negative items by hypothesized science attitude scales

Hypothesized science attitude scales

Items Science enjoyment Science confidence Importance of science Total

Positive 7 4 5 16Negative 7 4 5 16Total 14 8 10 32

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

3:01

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14


All items in the ASATSCS use a five-point Likert-type response format. Thevalues recorded for the positive items are 1 = “strongly disagree,” 2 = “disagree,” 3= “undecided,” 4 = “agree,” and 5 = “strongly agree,” whereas the values recordedfor the negative items are in reverse order, 5 = “strongly disagree,” 4 = “disagree,” 3= “undecided,” 2 = “agree,” and 1 = “strongly agree.” The higher the total score,the more positive is the attitude. There are advantages in the use of five-point Likertscales. Likert scales have been successfully adapted to measure opinions, attitudes,and many psychometric phenomena (Gable & Wolf, 1993; Nunnally, 1978). More-over, they can relatively be easy to construct with high reliability (Gable & Wolf,1993; Kline, 2000; Nunnally, 1978). Furthermore, a five-point scale was found tobe highly reliable for Likert surveys (McKelvie, 1978).

Sample

The initial ASATSCS was administered to 265 fourth- and fifth-grade students (135males and 130 females) from three elementary schools in Taiwan. School A islocated in an urban area; School B and School C are located in suburban areas.Students were between 9 and 11 years old, and they represented a variety ofsocioeconomic backgrounds and science achievement levels. The School A parentsof participating students were mainly managers and professionals with relativelyhigh-socioeconomic status. The parents from School B were mostly white-collarworkers with middle-socioeconomic status. The parents from School C were mostlyblue-collar workers with lower-socioeconomic status.

School A is an exemplary and widely recognized school for teaching and learningin Taiwan with rich resources from the community and government. However,Schools B and C are schools with limited community resources.

Four classes (two fourth grade and two fifth grade) were selected from School Aand two classes (one fourth grade and one fifth grade) each were chosen from SchoolsB and C. More classes were selected from School A to reflect the larger studentpopulation. The eight classes were taught by one science teacher.

Factor Analysis and Reliability

To determine the smallest number of underlying factors that can be used to bestdescribe the interrelations among the items, a PCA (Principal Components Analysis)was first performed on the 32 items to identify clusters of items that have variance incommon. PCA resulted in seven components with eigenvalues >1, which togetherexplain 59.98% of the variance. If Kaiser’s criterion (Kaiser, 1960) is used, then onlyfactors with an eigenvalue of 1.0 or more are retained for further investigation. Thiscriterion, however, has been criticized as resulting in the retention of too many factorsin some situations (Giles, 2002; Nunnally, 1978; Rust & Golombok, 1989). For thisreason, Cattell’s scree test has been recommended as the best solution to determinethe number of underlying factors in Stevens (1992) and Kline (2000). Moreover,Zwick and Velicer (1986) and Hubbard and Allen (1987) have shown that the parallel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

3:01

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14


analysis can accurately identify the correct number of components to retain. There-fore, instead of Kaiser’s method, Cattell’s (1966) scree test and Horn’s (1965) parallelanalysis were applied for the determination of factor number in this study.

Examination of the scree plot suggested that an extraction of one componentaccounted for 32.91% of the variance (see Figure 1). To confirm the resultsuggested by the scree test, Horn’s parallel analysis was conducted. The data inTable 3 were obtained through the parallel analysis program developed by Watkins

Figure 1. Scree plot from the factor analysis of 32 items on the ASATSCS

Table 3. Comparison of eigenvalues from PCA and criterion values from parallel analysis

Component numberActual eigenvalue

from PCACriterion value from

parallel analysis p

1 10.53 1.73 0.000*2 2.19 1.62 0.1773 1.75 1.54 0.2544 1.37 1.48 0.3525 1.20 1.42 0.4016 1.13 1.37 0.4127 1.02 1.33 0.441

*p < 0.001

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

3:01

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14


(2000). There was only one factor with an eigenvalue that was statistically signifi-cant. The results of the parallel analysis support the decision from the scree plot toretain only one factor for further investigation.Figure 1. Scree plot from the factor analysis of 32 items on the ASATSCSSince only one factor was extracted, rotation was not necessary for further investi-gation. There were two items—(in science class, the teacher’s lectures do not help me tolearn science) and (I do not like group work in science class)—with the correspondingfactor loading 0.13 and 0.28, which did not reach the criterion of 0.33 and wereconsequently deleted (Ho, 2006). Table 4 shows the other 30 items and theirrespective loadings and item-whole correlations for the ASATSCS. The loadings ofthe 30 items ranged from 0.34 to 0.74 and therefore met the criteria for adequateloadings. In addition, the item-whole correlations are all substantial, varyingbetween 0.31 and 0.70. Consequently, the 30 items were retained in the finalversion of the ASATSCS.

The results of the factor analysis support the claim that the 30 items in theASATSCS measure one general factor. A Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for internalconsistency revealed an overall instrument reliability estimate of 0.93. These resultssuggest that the instrument can justifiably be used as a single measure of generalattitudes toward science class.

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics were calculated on the responses of boys (n = 135) and girls (n= 130) to the ASATSCS. Means and standard deviations for the entire instrumentby gender and grade level are reported in Table 5. The boys’ mean was slightlyhigher than the girls’ mean. Similarly, Grade 5 students’ mean (n = 131) was slightlyhigher than Grade 4 students’ mean (n = 134).

Two-Way Analysis of Variance

Based upon the factor analysis, it is reasonable to add the scores of all items togetherto generate a single score as the overall score of students’ attitudes toward scienceclass. A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to investigate differ-ences in overall attitudes toward science class by gender and grade level. TheANOVA results presented in Table 6 reveal no significant interaction effect betweengender and grade level. There was no evidence from this research that supportseither gender or grade-level differences in Taiwanese students’ attitudes towardscience class.

Discussion of Results

This study provides empirical evidence that the ASATSCS is a valid and reliableinstrument for assessing Taiwanese elementary students’ general attitudes towardscience class and, to the extent Taiwan represents a typical Asian school and socialculture, Asian students’ attitudes toward science class as well. The rigorous

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

3:01

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Table 4. Items on the ASATSCS, corrected item-whole correlations, and loadings based upon the PCA

ItemCorrected item-

whole correlation Loading

1. In science class, doing experiments is boring. 0.47 0.512. In science class, experiments are difficult. 0.48 0.523. In science class, listening to lectures from the teacher is

interesting.0.66 0.69

4. I usually understand what is taught in my science class. 0.47 0.495. The experiments I do in science class are useful. 0.56 0.596. The questions in the science workbook are easy for me. 0.39 0.417. In science class, I learn more science when I work in a group. 0.51 0.558. I enjoy reading the science textbook. 0.51 0.559. I do not like answering the questions in my science workbook. 0.50 0.5410. The material in the science textbook is hard for me. 0.50 0.5311. I would enjoy school more if there was no science class. 0.60 0.6512. I like when the teacher teaches our science class outside. 0.31 0.3413. I am afraid to answer questions in science class. 0.47 0.5014. During science class, I like to read science posters. 0.46 0.5015. My science class is interesting. 0.70 0.7416. Science class is hard for me. 0.58 0.6217. In science class, watching a science film on TV is boring. 0.46 0.5118. Science class is a waste of time. 0.69 0.7419. Science class provides me with knowledge to use in my daily life. 0.56 0.6020. I usually get good scores in science class. 0.54 0.5721. In science class, science posters do not help me to learn science. 0.53 0.5822. I like to do experiments in science class. 0.63 0.6723. I don’t like science class. 0.66 0.7124. The material in the science textbook helps me to learn science. 0.59 0.6325. The questions in the science workbook do not help me to learn

science.0.55 0.60

26. In science class, watching a science film on TV helps me to learn science.

0.70 0.74

27. I do not like field trips in my science class. 0.52 0.5728. In my science class, field trips do not help me to learn science. 0.59 0.6429. It is easy for me to understand the teacher’s lectures in science

class.0.48 0.51

30. I look forward to science class. 0.66 0.70

Table 5. Means and standard deviations for the ASATSCS by gender and grade level

Boys (n = 135) Girls (n = 130) Grade 4 (n = 134) Grade 5 (n = 131)

Variables M SD M SD M SD M SD

ASATSCS 120.33 17.44 118.90 20.35 118.87 19.44 120.40 18.38

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

3:01

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14


instrument analysis indicates that the entire instrument possessed satisfactory inter-nal consistency (reliability), face validity, content validity, and construct validity.However, unlike the instrument developed by Dhindsa and Chung (2003),ASATSCS is based on a single composite scale of attitudes toward science class, notthree independent factors.

Additional analyses did not reveal any significant differences in gender or grade-level responses. The lack of difference in results between boys and girls does notagree with the commonly held belief that boys hold more positive attitudes towardscience than girls (Simpson & Oliver, 1985; Weinburgh, 1995). But this belief hasbeen based on studies conducted mainly in schools in western cultures. Resultsusing the ASATSCS on Taiwanese students are consistent with the findings of thestudies conducted in Asian countries (Dhindsa & Chung, 2003; Ibrahim, 1984;Scantlebury et al., 2007). The results found in China even indicate that girls havemore positive attitudes toward science than boys (Boone, 1997).

Years ago, Steinkamp (1982) recognized that the pattern of more positive atti-tudes among male students toward science and mathematics appeared to be lessstark in Asian cultures than in western cultures, but he offered no solid explanationfor the difference. Now, more than 25 years later, we observed similarly no genderdifferences in attitudes in our Taiwan sample. Though it was not the purpose of ourstudy to test explanations for the observed lack of gender pattern differences in oursample, we briefly explore two for which data are available: time on task and model-ing. Regarding time on task, elementary school students in Taiwan receive an aver-age of 120 minutes of science instruction per week (Ministry of Education, 2006),almost the same (110 minutes per week) as in the USA (Banilower, Fulp, & Warren,2008). So classroom time on task is likely not the explanation for the lack of genderdifferences in attitudes.

What about the impact of modeling? In Taiwan, in 1982, as in other Asiancountries, men dominated the positions in science, technology, engineering, andmathematics (STEM); the same is true now, though by a slightly smaller plurality.However, as in the USA and most western countries, women in Taiwan dominateelementary school teaching. In both Taiwan and the USA, elementary school teach-ing “generalists” also receive about the same six semester hours of science coursepreparation.1 But elementary “science teaching specialists” in Taiwan are held to amuch higher standard of preparation in science than their US counterparts. InTaiwan elementary school, science specialists must complete a minimum of 80semester hours of science content course work, whereas that number is 24 semester

Table 6. Two-way ANOVA for dependent variable by gender and grade level

Source df MS F p

Gender 1 125.25 0.35 0.556Grade level 1 146.84 0.41 0.524Gender × grade level 1 0.61 0.00 0.967Error 261 360.24

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

3:01

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14


hours or less in the USA (see Note 1). It may be that the more demanding teacherpreparation in STEM-related coursework simply makes the female elementaryschool teachers in Taiwan more competent and confident in the science classroomand thus better able to project a more positive image of women in STEM-relatedareas than in the USA.

The findings from the present study did not show any significant differencesbetween fourth-grade and fifth-grade students’ overall attitudes toward science class.These results do not concur with the commonly observed patterns in students’ atti-tudes toward science that show a decline as students move from lower to uppergrades (Francis & Greer, 1999; Greenfield, 1997; Koballa, 1995; Murphy et al.,2006; Murphy & Beggs, 2003). However, the results of this study focusing onstudents in two contiguous grade levels agree with the recent findings in Scantleburyet al. (2007) and Sorge (2007) that show no grade-level differences in students’ atti-tudes toward science when samples are studies within the elementary school grades.Therefore, additional research with a larger sample of students across a greater rangeof grade levels is suggested to further explore changes in attitudes toward scienceclass for different grade levels.

Concluding Remarks

The ASATSCS is offered as a valid and reliable instrument that is sensitive tocultural factors specific to Taiwan and possibly to other Asian countries with little orno modifications as the teaching resources and strategies are somewhat common.Perhaps more importantly, the framework and design of this research may beadapted to develop additional instruments to investigate adolescent students’ atti-tudes toward science class in middle and high school classes in Taiwan and otherAsian countries.

Note

1. Based upon an examination of 20 teacher certification programs in Taiwan and the USA.

References

Aiken, L. R. (1979). Attitudes towards mathematics and science in Iranian middle schools. SchoolScience and Mathematics, 79(3), 229–234.

Banilower, E. R., Fulp, S. L., & Warren, C. L. (2008). Science: It’s elementary—Year two evaluationreport executive summary. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.

Blalock, C., Lichtenstein, M., Owen, S., Pruski, L., Marshall, C., & Toepperwein, M. (2008). Inpursuit of validity: A comprehensive review of science attitude instruments 1935–2005.International Journal of Science Education, 30(7), 961–977.

Boone, W. J. (1997). Science attitudes of selected middle school students in China: A preliminaryinvestigation of similarities and differences as a function of gender. School Science andMathematics, 97(2), 96–103.

Breakwell, G. M., & Beardsell, S. (1992). Gender, parental and peer influences upon scienceattitudes and activities. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 183–197.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

3:01

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1,245–276.

DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Dhindsa, H. S., & Chung, G. (2003). Attitudes and achievement of Bruneian science students.

International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 907–922.Francis, L. J., & Greer, J. E. (1999). Attitude toward science among secondary school pupils in

Northern Ireland: Relationship with sex, age and religion. Research in Science & TechnologicalEducation, 17(1), 67–74.

Fraser, B. J. (1978). Some attitude scales for ninth grade science. School Science and Mathematics,78(5), 379–384.

Freedman, M. P. (1997). Relationship among laboratory instruction, attitude toward science,and achievement in science knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(4),343–357.

Gable, R. K., & Wolf, M. B. (1993). Instrument development in the affective domain: Measuringattitudes and values in corporate and school settings. Boston: Kluwer Academic.

Gardner, P. L. (1975a). Attitude measurement: A critique of some recent research. EducationalResearch, 17(2), 101–109.

Gardner, P. L. (1975b). Attitudes to science: A review. Studies in Science Education, 2, 1–41.Gardner, P. L. (1996). The dimensionality of attitude scales: A widely misunderstood idea.

International Journal of Science Education, 18(8), 913–919.Germann, P. (1988). Development of the attitude toward science in school assessment and its use

to investigate the relationship between science achievement and attitude toward science inschool. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(8), 689–703.

Giles, D. C. (2002). Advanced research methods in psychology. New York: Routledge.Greenfield, T. A. (1997). Gender- and grade-level differences in science interest and participation.

Science Education, 81(3), 259–275.Hadden, R. A., & Johnstone, A. H. (1983). Secondary school pupils’ attitudes to science: The year

of erosion. European Journal of Science Education, 5(3), 309–318.Haladyna, T., & Shaughnessy, J. (1982). Attitudes toward science: A quantitative synthesis.

Science Education, 66(4), 547–563.Hassan, G. (2008). Attitudes toward science among Australian tertiary and secondary school

students. Research in Science & Technological Education, 26(2), 129–147.Ho, R. (2006). Handbook of univariate and multivariate data analysis and interpretation with SPSS.

Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Hobbs, E. D., & Erickson, G. L. (1980). Results of the 1978 British Columbia science assessment.

Canadian Journal of Education, 5(2), 63–80.Horn, J. L. (1965). An empirical comparison of various methods for estimating common factor

scores. Educational and Psychological Measurements, 25, 313–322.Hubbard, R., & Allen, S. J. (1987). An empirical comparison of alternative methods for principal

component extraction. Journal of Business Research, 15, 173–190.Ibrahim, A. (1984). Attitudes to science of pupils in Sarawak. Journal of Science and Mathematics

Education in Southeast Asia, 7(1), 10–14.Jones, M. G., Howe, A., & Rua, M. J. (2000). Gender differences in students’ experiences, inter-

ests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education, 84(2), 180–192.Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and

Psychological Measurements, 20, 141–151.Kind, P., Jones, K., & Barmby, P. (2007). Developing attitudes towards science measures. Interna-

tional Journal of Science Education, 29(7), 871–893.Kline, P. (2000). The handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Koballa, T. R. (1995). Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice. In S. M.

Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Children’s attitudes toward learning science (pp. 59–84). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

3:01

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Koballa, T. R., & Glynn, S. M. (2006). Attitudinal and motivational constructs in sciencelearning. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education(pp. 75–102). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kotte, D. (1992). Gender differences in science achievement in 10 countries: 1970/71 to 1983/84. NewYork: Peter Lang.

Krajkovich, J. G. (1978). Pupils’ attitudes on scientists surveyed. Chemical and Engineering News,56, 7–8.

Maddock, M. N. (1978). An exploratory study in school assessment: The relationship betweenachievement and attitude scale. Research in Science Education, 8(1), 127–134.

Maddock, M. N. (1982). Evaluation of achievement and attitudes in science: A three year study.Australian Science Teachers Journal, 28(3), 49–56.

McKelvie, S. G. (1978). Graphic rating scales: How many categories? British Journal of Psychology,62(2), 185–202.

Ministry of Education. (2006). General guidelines of grade 1–9 curriculum of elementary and juniorhigh school education. Taipei: Ministry of Education.

Mordi, C. (1991). Factors associated with pupils’ attitudes towards science in Nigerian primaryschools. Research in Science & Technological Education, 9(1), 39–49.

Munby, H. (1980). An evaluation of instruments which measure attitudes to science. In C. P.McFadden (Ed.), World trends in science education (pp. 266–275). Halifax, Nova Scotia:Atlantic Institute of Education.

Munby, H. (1997). Issues of validity in science attitude measurement. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 34(4), 337–341.

Murphy, C., Ambusaidi, A., & Beggs, J. (2006). Middle East meets West: Comparing children’sattitudes to school science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(4), 405–422.

Murphy, C., & Beggs, J. (2003). Children’s perceptions of school science. School Science Review,84(308), 109–116.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Osborne, J., 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.Papanastasiou, C., & Papanastasiou, E. C. (2002). The process of science achievement. Science

Education International, 13(2), 12–24.Papanastasiou, C., & Papanastasiou, E. C. (2004). Major influences on attitudes toward science.

Educational Research and Evaluation, 10(3), 239–257.Papanastasiou, E. C., & Zembylas, M. (2002). The effect of attitudes on science achievement: A

study conducted among high school students in Cyprus. International Review of Education,48(6), 469–484.

Pell, A. W., & Manganye, H. T. (2007). South African primary children’s attitudes to science.Evaluation & Research in Education, 20(3), 121–143.

Pell, T., & Jarvis, T. (2001). Developing attitude to science scales for use with children of agesfrom five to eleven years. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 847–862.

Rust, J., & Golombok, S. (1989). Modern psychometrics: The science of psychological assessment. NewYork: Routledge.

Salta, K., & Tzougraki, C. (2004). Attitudes toward chemistry among 11th grade students in highschools in Greece. Science Education, 88(4), 535–547.

Scantlebury, K., Baker, D., Sugi, A., Yoshida, A., & Uysal, S. (2007). Avoiding the issue of genderin Japanese science education. International Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 5(3),415–438.

Schibeci, R. A. (1983). Selecting appropriate attitudinal objectives for school science. ScienceEducation, 67(5), 595–603.

Schibeci, R. A. (1984). Attitudes to science: An update. Studies in Science Education, 11, 26–59.Shaw, Jr., E. L., & Doan, R. L. (1990). Attitudes and achievement between male and female second and

fifth grade science students (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED326442).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

3:01

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Simpson, R. D., & Oliver, J. S. (1985). Attitude toward science and achievement motivationprofiles of male and female science students in grades six through ten. Science Education,69(4), 511–526.

Sorge, C. (2007). What happens? Relationship of age and gender with science attitudes fromelementary to middle school. Science Educator, 16(2), 33–37.

Stables, A. (1990). Differences between pupils from mixed and single-sex schools in their enjoy-ment of school subjects and in their attitudes to science and to school. Educational Review,42(3), 221–230.

Steinkamp, M. W. (1982). Sex-related differences in attitude toward science: A quantitative synthesis ofresearch (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED220285).

Stevens, J. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

van Rensburg, S., Ankiewicz, P., & Myburgh, C. (1999). Assessing South Africa learners’ attitudestowards technology by using the PATT (Pupils’ Attitudes Towards Technology) Questionnaire.International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 9(2), 137–151.

Watkins, M. W. (2000). Monte Carlo PCA for parallel analysis [computer software]. State College,PA: ED & Psych Associates.

Weinburgh, M. (1995). Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: A meta-analysis ofthe literature from 1970 to 1991. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 387–398.

Yu, F.-Y. (1998). The effects of cooperation with inter-group competition on performance andattitudes in a computer-assisted science instruction. Journal of Computers in Mathematics andScience Teaching, 17(4), 381–395.

Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number ofcomponents to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 432–442.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

3:01

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Documents

Construction and Validation of an Instrument to Measure Taiwanese Elementary Students’ Attitudes toward Their Science Class