Students' science perceptions and enrollment decisions in differing learning cycle classrooms

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 38, NO. 9, PP. 1029±1062 (2001)

Students' Science Perceptions and Enrollment Decisions in Differing LearningCycle Classrooms

Ann M.L. Cavallo,1 Timothy A. Laubach2

1Science Education, College of Education Rm. 277, Wayne State University,

Detroit, Michigan, 48202

2Science Education Center, University of Oklahoma, 820 Van Vleet Oval, Norman, Oklahoma,

Norman, 73019

Received 7 July 1999; accepted 1 March 2001

Abstract: This investigation examined 10th-grade biology students' decisions to enroll in elective

science courses, and explored certain attitudinal perceptions of students that may be related to such

decisions. The student science perceptions were focused on student and classroom attitudes in the context

of differing learning cycle classrooms (high paradigmatic/high inquiry, and low paradigmatic/low inquiry).

The study also examined possible differences in enrollment decisions/intentions and attitudinal perceptions

among males and females in these course contexts. The speci®c purposes were to: (a) explore possible

differences in students' decisions, and in male and female students' decisions to enroll in elective science

courses in high versus low paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms; (b) describe patterns and examine

possible differences in male and female students' attitudinal perceptions of science in the two course

contexts; (c) investigate possible differences in students' science perceptions according to their decisions to

enroll in elective science courses, participation in high versus low paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms,

and the interaction between these two variables; and (d) examine students' explanations of their decisions to

enroll or not enroll in elective science courses. Questionnaire and observation data were collected from 119

students in the classrooms of six learning cycle biology teachers. Results indicated that in classrooms where

teachers most closely adhered to the ideal learning cycle, students had more positive attitudes than those in

classrooms where teachers deviated from the ideal model. Signi®cantly more females in high paradigmatic

learning cycle classrooms planned to continue taking science course work compared with females in low

paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms. Male students in low paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms had

more negative perceptions of science compared with males in high paradigmatic classrooms, and in some

cases, with all female students. It appears that using the model as it was originally designed may lead to

more positive attitudes and persistence in science among students. Implications include the need for science

educators to help teachers gain more thorough understanding of the learning cycle and its theoretical

underpinnings so they may better implement this procedure in classroom teaching.

ß 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 38: 1029±1062, 2001

Correspondence to: A.M.L. Cavallo; E-mail: [email protected]

ß 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

The science education community has long struggled with declining scienti®c literacy and

waning interest among students to pursue science-related careers. These issues have been so

pervasive that the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), American Association for the

Advancement of Science (AAAS), American Chemical Society (ACS), and National Committee

of Science Education Standards and Assessments (NCSESA) each developed initiatives

speci®cally directed toward promoting scienti®c literacy among all students and encouraging

more students to pursue science-related careers.

In the 1997 Digest of Education Statistics, the National Center for Education Stati-

stics reports a wavering number of earned postsecondary degrees in the physical sciences over

1959±1995. Sixteen thousand undergraduate degrees in the physical sciences were conferred

during the 1959±1960 academic year. These ®gures rose to 24,000 in the 1981±1982 academic

year. However, the number of earned undergraduate degrees in the physical sciences declined to

19,000 in 1994±1995. Of those degrees, 12,500 were earned by males and 6,500 degrees by

females. There is a particular de®cit among females pursuing science-related careers.

Therefore, it is well established that dual problems exist with declining scienti®c literacy

and decreasing interest among our students to pursue science-related ®elds. A possible precursor

to these problems is declining enrollment in upper-level secondary science courses. In recent

years, society is realizing an immense dependency upon scienti®c and technological knowledge.

However, many of today's students show a reluctance or aversion toward science and thus fail to

take elective science courses in high school. Failing to take science electives in high school may

lead to few students majoring in science in college or choosing to pursue science-related careers.

Educators must discover ways to improve scienti®c literacy and encourage more students to

pursue science-related careers, with one vehicle being high school science elective courses. This

study contributes to the discovery by exploring factors that may in¯uence students' decisions

to enroll in elective science courses, speci®cally, students' science perceptions and their

experiences in differing inquiry-oriented, learning cycle classrooms.

Theoretical Framework

Relatively few studies have addressed the issue of low enrollment in elective science

courses. Of the available research, investigators have attempted to classify certain variables or

factors which may contribute to students' decisions to enroll in elective science courses. Such

research has indicated several classi®cations of factors that may be related to students' decisions

to take more science (Fouts & Myers, 1992; Fraser, 1994; Gallagher, 1994; Haladyna &

Shaughnessy, 1982; Khoury, 1984). Some of these classi®cations of factors include, but are not

limited to, academic ability, home and school environments, attitudinal/motivational variables,

teacher characteristics, student characteristics, and learning environments.

This study focused on exploring factors relevant to students' perceptions and attitudes in

speci®c classroom contexts that may be related to persistence in future science course work. Part

of the intent of the study was to draw from the literature, previously researched attitudinal

constructs potentially within the classroom teachers' milieu and/or `̀ control'' relative to stud-

ents' persistence in science. This focus on students' attitudes and perceptions within the

classroom context may allow theory and research to better inform classroom practice.

Thus, it was necessary to conduct an extensive review of related attitudinal research. The

research was compiled and ®ndings examined to determine those factors that would best respond

to the research questions posed here. As a result of this process, several factors emerged as most

relevant to students' science elective decisions. These factors, termed student science per-

ceptions, comprised two categories: (a) students' attitudes toward science in their current course,

1030 CAVALLO AND LAUBACH

and (b) students' perceptions of classroom-related in¯uences or classroom impact. Student

attitudes toward science included several subcategories: self-concept of ability, science

enjoyment, lack of anxiety, usefulness of science class, student motivation in science, and

science as a male domain. Classroom impact included the following categories: student choice

of teaching style and curriculum, teacher enthusiasm, and teacher support.

In addition to these variables, gender differences in science enrollment patterns were also

prevalent in the literature. It is not known, however, how these variables, including gender, may

interact with instructional procedures, speci®cally the learning cycle, as potentially relating to

student enrollment in elective science courses. Each variable used in this study has been

examined and described as follows.

Student Attitudes toward Science

The development of positive attitudes toward school subjects is an important and desirable

educational outcome (Fouts & Myers, 1992). In an early study, Mager (1968) identi®ed reasons

why educators should focus on the development of positive attitudes toward subjects, with one

being that a positive attitude toward a subject may lead students to continue future study in the

®eld. Many other studies examining students' attitudes toward science (Koballa & Crawley,

1985; Lee & Burkam, 1996; Myers & Fouts, 1992; Piburn & Baker, 1993; Shrigley, Koballa, &

Simpson, 1998) have reported that attitudes toward science may be related to their science

course enrollment. However, these studies consistently report the need for more research that

will help clarify the nature of students' attitudes and relationships to students' enrollment

decisions. This study attempted to do so by using ®ndings of previous research to characterize

factors or variables that may be embedded in the complex construct known as student attitudes

toward science. These factors are described as follows.

Self-concept of Ability. Self-concept of ability as used in this study refers to the students'

perceptions of their ability to achieve in science (Woolfolk, 1998). The students' academic self-

concept in a subject such as science is a distinct part of a students' general self-concept

(Woolfolk, 1998). Freedman (1997) described student attitude toward science as students'

perception of their personal ability to achieve or self-concept of ability in science. Freedman's

study concluded that students' self-concept of ability was signi®cantly and positively related to

science achievement; therefore, this high science achievement may lead to persistence in

science, as evidenced through elective course enrollment. Other research has reported that as

students become less con®dent about their abilities in science, their attitude toward that subject is

adversely affected (Piburn & Baker, 1993).

Simpson and Oliver (1990) reported ®ndings from a longitudinal study that addressed

variables in¯uencing attitude and achievement. Their report found that science self-concept and

achievement motivation had modest positive relationships with both attitude and achievement.

Simpson and Oliver (1990) reported that self-concept at the 10th-grade level was a good

predictor of both number and type of science courses students will take during high school. From

the existing research, it is reasonable to posit that self-concept of ability, as a component of

student attitudes toward science, may be related to students' science course enrollment

decisions.

Science Enjoyment. Science enjoyment refers to the gladness or happiness students feel

resulting from their experiences in science. Several studies reported that the type of instruction

STUDENTS' SCIENCE PERCEPTIONS AND ENROLLMENT DECISIONS 1031

students experience was related to their science enjoyment (Fouts & Myers, 1992; Freedman,

1997; Gallagher, 1994; Ledbetter, 1993; Myers & Fouts, 1992). Classroom activities involving

laboratory instruction have been reported as positively affecting students' enjoyment of science

(Fraser, 1994; Freedman, 1997). Freedman (1997) conducted a study with two ninth-grade

student groups, an experimental and control. The experimental group was given laboratory

activities, whereas the control group was given a more traditional approach with no laboratory

activities. The research found that students involved in laboratory activities showed a higher

level of involvement and a general exuberance and enjoyment of science class over those

students who did not receive laboratory instruction (Freedman, 1997). This enjoyment of science

in laboratory-centered classrooms may contribute to students' decisions to enroll in additional

elective science courses.

Lack of Anxiety. Lack of anxiety, as used in this study, refers to students' positive comfort

level when pursuing science. Simpson and Oliver (1990) examined variables thought to affect

attitude and achievement in science among high school students. In this longitudinal study, lack

of anxiety was one of the strongest predictors of achievement in science. Atwater et al. (1995)

examined urban middle school students' high and low attitudes toward science. The research

found that students with high anxiety toward science also had low attitudes toward science.

Students who were less stressed or anxious about doing science were among the higher achievers

and were found to have more positive attitudes toward science. It follows, therefore, that students

who are less anxious toward science may also be more likely to continue taking elective science

courses.

Usefulness of Science Class. Usefulness of science refers to students' perceptions of how

science is personally applicable to them and to society. Khoury (1984) found that students'

attitude toward the usefulness of science class was crucial in determining their science elective

decisions, especially among females. Females also considered ®elds pertaining of life sciences,

such as biology, anatomy, physiology, and medicine, more useful for them than physical

sciences. This ®nding is consistent with other related studies [Haselhuhn & Andre, 1997; Lee &

Burkam, 1996; National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 1997b; Remick & Miller,

1978]. Students who perceive the study of science as being useful or relevant to them, presently

and in the future, may be more likely to continue in science and decide to enroll in elective

science courses.

Student Motivation in Science. Student motivation in science, as used in this study, is

de®ned as the level of students' participation in science-related activities inside and outside of

the classroom, along with their objective to achieve in science. Simpson and Oliver (1990) found

that declines in student motivation in science were similar to declines in attitude toward science.

Motivation dropped both within each grade and across Grades 6±10, and by the 10th grade

student motivation in science was near neutral. In their study, motivation to achieve in science

was consistently higher among females (Simpson & Oliver, 1990). Students who are motivated

in science may be more likely to continue in science by enrolling in science electives.

Science as a Male Domain. Science as a male domain refers to the students' perceptions of

science as being male dominated. Ledbetter (1993) contended that students' science perceptions

are affected by gender bias; that is, science is viewed as a more masculine subject to take and


study. According to Kelly (1985), `̀ The masculinity of science is often the prime reason that

girls tend to avoid the subject at school'' (p. 133).

Other researchers have shown that the stereotyping of science as masculine affects

children's expressed interest in speci®c science topics and later in their science course selections

(Baker, 1990). If females do choose to take elective science courses they must overcome the

male scientist stereotype. Contrary to other studies, Green®eld (1996) found that male high

school science students expressed a more male-stereotyped view of science than females. The

view of science as a male domain may negatively affect science attitudes and science persistence

(Kahle & Meece, 1994). Thus, students with this view may be less likely to continue to enroll in

science courses.

Classroom Impact

Classroom impact is de®ned here as students' perceptions or attitudes toward classroom-

related variables, which may affect their science course enrollment decisions. Myers and Fouts

(1992) theorized that the variables primarily under the control of the teacher (teacher

characteristics and learning environment) have the most potential for affecting students'

attitudes because the teacher is seen as the main change agent in the school environment. This

belief coincides with other research reporting that variables af®liated with students' classroom

experience are strongly related to their attitudes toward science (Fraser, 1994; Simpson & Oliver,

1990). The examination of literature that preceded this study revealed several subcategories of

classroom-related variables posed to be related to science persistence, which are described as

follows.

Student Choice. Student choice is de®ned as the level of empowerment the student has on

the curriculum and teaching procedures implemented in the classroom. Piburn and Baker (1993)

performed a qualitative study of students' attitudes toward science, which used several interview

methods for eliciting responses from kindergarten through 12th-grade students. The study asked

students to discuss how they thought science should be taught. One pertinent ®nding was

that students who had less positive attitudes toward science indicated they were rarely consulted

in the construction of the curriculum or the choice of teaching strategies. It is theorized that

making such choices gives students more control of their own learning experiences. This feeling

of empowerment may encourage more students to continue taking science courses in high

school.

Teacher Support. Teacher support, as used in this study, is the students' perceptions of how

much personal interest and effort the teacher expends toward them in the classroom. Remick and

Miller (1978) addressed the importance of teacher support and found that it played an essential

role in encouraging students to continue taking science courses. Importantly, the authors contend

that high school teachers are `̀ in the key role'' to bring about improvements in patterns of

elective science enrollment (Remick & Miller, 1978).

Myers and Fouts (1992) reported that positive attitudes toward science were found in

classrooms with high levels of teacher support, involvement, order and organization, student-to-

student af®liation, and innovative teaching strategies. Similar ®ndings were reported by Fraser

(1994) in research on classroom environments. Thus, the support of the teacher may promote

more positive science attitudes among students and contribute to their decisions to continue

enrolling in science courses.


Teacher Enthusiasm. Teacher enthusiasm, as de®ned in this study, is the level of morale (or

excitement toward teaching science) the teacher conveys to the students. In a study designed to

qualitatively compare students' constructions of science, Ledbetter (1993) found that those

students whose views of science were positive also had favorable opinions of their science teachers.

Teachers who showed high enthusiasm and interest in science had more students reporting positive

attitudes toward science than teachers who did not maintain enthusiasm for the subject.

Gallagher (1994) contended that teachers make a difference in students' attitude and

persistence in science. Accordingly, students who perceive that their teacher enjoys science and

is skilled in instruction are more likely to continue in science than students in a more impersonal

classroom environment.

Gender Differences in Science and Related Enrollment Patterns

Issues related to gender and science have been intensely studied (Catsambis, 1995;

Green®eld, 1996; Farenga & Joyce, 1999; Hammrich, 1997; Jones & Wheatley, 1990; Kahle &

Lakes, 1983; Lee & Burkam, 1996; NCESs 1997a). These studies have generally reported wide

differences in science attitudes, achievement, and enrollment patterns between male and female

students.

During the past 20 years, efforts have been made to better understand and narrow the gender

gap in science education. Jones and Wheatley (1990) investigated gender differences in teacher±

student interactions in science classrooms. The results of their study showed that male students

received more of every type of classroom interactionÐfor example, teacher questions. This

®nding is believed to be a possible explanation of why women are underrepresented in high

school science elective classes (Jones & Wheatley, 1990).

Several studies have expressed that males exhibit signi®cantly more positive attitudes

toward science than females (Catsambis, 1995; Simpson & Oliver, 1985, 1990), especially

during the middle and high school years (Hammrich, 1997). Females participate in fewer

relevant extracurricular activities (Catsambis, 1995; Hammrich, 1997; Kahle & Lakes, 1985)

and aspire less often to pursue science careers than do males (Catsambis, 1995; Kahle & Lakes,

1985). Although attitudes have been found to be higher for males than females, several studies

have revealed that achievement in science has remained neutral (Catsambis, 1995; Green®eld,

1996). Catsambis (1995) found that in middle grade sciences, female students do not lag behind

their male classmates in science achievement tests, grades, and course enrollments. Green®eld

(1996) found no consistent differences in science achievement and very few in science attitudes

with respect to gender. Overall, there were no gender differences in self-perception of either

ability or achievement in science. In other research, female students were found to be

signi®cantly more motivated to achieve in science than their male counterparts (Simpson &

Oliver, 1985, 1990).

The NCES (1997b) produced informative data in a summary of women in mathematics and

science. In this summary, several areas were addressed: science achievement, attitudes toward

science, career expectations in science, and science course taking patterns in high school. The

statistics cited in the summary were taken from the previous National Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP) reports. Accordingly, a gender gap in science achievement of pro®ciency

begins to appear at age 13. Since 1970, 13-year-old boys have outperformed girls in science and

17-year-old females have consistently scored lower, on average, than 17-year-old males. Data

from the late 1980s and early 1990s indicated that 7th- and 10th-grade boys and girls are equally

likely to report that they enjoy science. Among 12th-graders, however, a gender gap has emerged

in their science enjoyment.


A gap in the career aspirations of boys and girls in science may exist as early as eighth

grade. Among the eighth-grade class of 1988, boys were more than twice as likely as girls to

aspire to be scientists or engineers. Whereas male and female high school seniors were equally

likely to expect careers in science, male seniors were much more likely than their female

counterparts to expect careers in engineering. Regarding course taking patterns, female students

were just as likely as male students to take advanced mathematics and science courses in high

school, with physics being the exception (NCES, 1997b).

There have been ®ndings that reveal gender differences throughout various science

disciplines. Lee and Burkam's (1996) study involving middle school science students discovered

that boys' achievement in science was greatest for physical science, whereas girls' achievement

in science was highest for life science. Notably, female achievement in physical science was

positively in¯uenced when laboratory experiences were implemented into the classroom.

Although the literature has reported much information on males' and females' differing science

attitudes and achievement, it is not yet known how males' and females' experience in laboratory-

centered science classrooms may be related to future science course enrollment.

Laboratory-Centered Teaching, Student Attitudes' and Science Course Enrollment

In laboratory-centered teaching, students' direct experiences and investigations with labor-

atory materials have a prominent role in the learning process. Students actively engage in

inquiry-based experiments, use science process skills, examine patterns in data, and draw

conclusions. Teachers generally foster such inquiry through open-ended questioning or exp-

eriences that create cognitive dissonance among students.

As discussed earlier, the study by Freedman (1997) explored relationships among laboratory

instruction, attitude toward science, and achievement in science. As mentioned, students in he

group who received laboratory instruction scored signi®cantly higher on various achievement

and attitudinal tests than those who did not. Ledbetter (1993) also found that inquiry-based

classes helped students learn and retain information and had a positive effect on the students'

attitudes toward doing science.

Thus, there is some understanding of how inquiry and noninquiry classrooms may relate to

student attitudes. Little is known, however, on how differing degrees of inquiry instruction may

translate to students' decisions to enroll in elective science courses. Given the results of prior

research, it is generally understood that laboratory-centered, inquiry-based classrooms may lead

students to later enrollment in higher levels of science (Gallagher, 1994). The foci of this study

are the laboratory-centered, inquiry-based classrooms that implement the learning cycle

paradigm and associated curricula; and, particularly, how the learning cycle paradigm may be

differentially implemented in classroom teaching.

The Learning Cycle Paradigm. The learning cycle model or paradigm was originally

developed by Robert Karplus in the late 1950s and early 1960s as a teaching procedure

consistent with the inquiry nature of science and with the way children naturally learn (as

described by Piaget, 1964). The word paradigm is used here because the learning cycle is a

model of science teaching and curriculum design. It was the foundation for several curriculum

programs of the 1960s, such as the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) and

Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS), with updated versions still in prevalent use. The

learning cycle also represents a general philosophy of teaching and learning with strong

constructivist underpinnings. The learning cycle consists of three phases, most currently named


exploration, term introduction, and concept application (Lawson, 1995; Abraham, & Renner,

1989; Marek & Cavallo, 1997). The phases comprising the learning cycle paradigm are brie¯y

described as follows.

In exploration, student groups engage in an investigation in which they gather their own

data, explore and observe phenomena, and attempt to make sense of observations. Students are

not informed ahead of time of the expected outcome of the investigation, which may be unknown

in certain experiments. The exploration is student-centered with the teacher acting as facilitator

by providing materials, giving directions, asking questions, and encouraging student discovery.

In term introduction, the teacher establishes a discussion environment. The teacher asks

students to report their data to the class and interpret the collective ®ndings. Importantly, student

must formulate a statement of the concept or main idea in their own words. After all students

have constructed and expressed understanding of the concept, the teacher or students may

introduce related scienti®c terminology (Marek & Cavallo, 1997).

In concept application, the teacher facilitates the use of the concept in different contexts.

These applications help extend and expand students' understandings and apply the concept to

everyday experiences. Different concept application or expansion activities may include, but

are not limited to, additional laboratory investigations, selected readings, relevant problems,

computer applications, ®eld trips, ®lms, audiovisuals, and demonstrations. The purpose of the

application activities is to provide students with experiences that help them organize the concept

they have constructed with other ideas that relate to it (Marek & Cavallo, 1997).

As mentioned, several current, published learning cycle-based curricula are available to

teachers, such as Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS-3), Full Option Science System

(FOSS), and, at the secondary level, Investigations in Natural Science: Biology (Renner, Cate,

Grzybowski, Surber, Atkinson, & Marek, 1996). However, although teachers may use a

common, published learning cycle curriculum, they may not implement the learning cycle in the

manner intended by the model and its originators (Karplus & Their, 1967; Lawson, Renner, &

Abraham, 1989). Marek, Eubanks, and Gallaher (1990), found that science teachers displayed

varying degrees of understanding of the learning cycle which ranged from sound understanding

to misunderstanding. During each phase of the learning cycle, teaching behaviors differed

according to the teachers' understanding of this teaching procedure. Teachers with sound

understandings implemented the learning cycle consistent with the ideal paradigm, whereas

those with misunderstandings were often inconsistent with the ideal paradigm.

In addition to implementing the three phases in the order and manner described, teachers

who have deep understandings of the learning cycle use students' data in helping them construct

the concept. These teachers question and challenge students to construct the idea without

providing answers, thereby elevating the level of inquiry in the classroom. Teachers who

misunderstand, misinterpret, or misuse the learning cycle model often fail to use students' data in

constructing the concept, turn questions and discussion leading to the concept into lectures, or

provide answers to the investigation before students have collected data themselves (veri®cation)

(Marek & Cavallo, 1995, 1997). In doing so, these teachers lower the level of inquiry of the

laboratory-centered classroom. In this study, teaching that is more consistent with the high-

inquiry, ideal learning cycle model and its philosophy is considered high paradigmatic or high

inquiry. Teaching that shows inconsistencies with the ideal learning cycle model as previously

described, is called low paradigmatic or low inquiry.

Students Attitudes and the Learning Cycle. Research has found that students in classrooms

using the learning cycle had more positive attitudes toward science and science instruction than


other approaches usually identi®ed as traditional (Lawson, Abraham, & Renner, 1989).

Campbell (1977) found that students in a learning cycle group, as opposed to a traditional

approach, had more positive attitudes towards laboratory work, scored somewhat higher on a

laboratory ®nal exam, and were not likely to withdraw from the course.

Although prior research found differences in students' attitudes in inquiry versus expository

science classrooms (favoring inquiry), little is known about such patterns in differing learning

cycle classrooms, both of which use the inquiry model but perhaps to different degrees. Renner,

Abraham, and Birnie (1985) compared teachers' implementation of the ideal learning cycle

model with a deviation of the ideal learning cycle where the students did not experience a

laboratory investigation. It was found that students expressed greater interest and enjoyment of

science in the ideal learning cycle as opposed to the deviated model.

From reports of research on the learning cycle, it is postulated that because this high inquiry

procedure yields positive student attitudes, students in such classrooms may be likely to continue

taking elective science courses. However, are students in high paradigmatic learning cycle

classrooms (those which closely adhere to the model) more likely to continue taking elective

science courses than those in low paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms (those which do not

adhere to the model)? Do students in high paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms have more

positive science perceptions (student attitudes and classroom impact) compared with those in

low paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms? Do males and females differ in their perceptions of

science and the classroom in the different learning cycle course contexts? These and related

questions were explored in this study.

Purpose

The purposes of this investigation were to: (a) explore possible differences in students'

decisions and in male and female students' decisions to enroll in elective science courses in high

versus low paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms; (b) describe patterns and examine possible

differences in male and female students' attitudinal perceptions of science in the two course

contexts; (c) investigate possible differences in students' science perceptions according to their

decisions to enroll in elective science courses, participation in high versus low paradigmatic

learning cycle classrooms, and the interaction between these two variables; and (d) examine

students' explanations of their decisions to enroll or not enroll in elective science courses.

Method

Sample

The students of this study were enrolled in 10th-grade Biology in a large suburban high

school in a Midwestern state (N� 119; 59 males, 60 females). The reported ethnicity of the

students was approximately 77% white, 7% African American, 7% Hispanic, 1% Asian

American, and 8% Native American. The total enrollment in Grades 9±12 at this school was

approximately 1,900 students. This study took place in spring semester.

Six classroom biology teachers of these students also participated in this study (3 males, 3

females). The average years of teaching experience for all teachers were between 6 and 10 years.

All teachers reported education beyond the undergraduate level. One teacher had a master's

degree along with doctorate-level coursework, and one teacher had completed master's course

work and was working on the thesis.


The students and teachers were selected for this study because general biology is typically

the last high school science course required in this state. Normally, students take physical

science in ninth grade and biology in 10th grade. In addition, for over 2 decades the selected

school district has worked collaboratively with the University of Oklahoma in developing,

designing, and implementing inquiry-based, learning cycle science curricula for all science

subjects (e.g., Investigations in Natural Science: Biology, Renner et al., 1996).

All teachers in this school district were graduates of the university's science education

program, which is centered on the learning cycle teaching procedure and its theory base, and/or

they attended intensive in-service seminars on the learning cycle before teaching, and as a

condition of their hire in the district. The use of the learning cycle teaching procedure and

published curricula is expected and highly valued in this school district. However, once hired, it

is unknown to what extent teachers implement the learning cycle model in their classrooms (the

level of inquiry and constructivist practice).

Instrumentation

Science Attitude Questionnaire (SAQ). The SAQ was used to measure students' science

perceptions and consisted of subscales on student- and classroom-related attitudes. The

constructs and items of this instrument were compiled from the literature as previously described

(Fraser, 1994; Khoury, 1984; Simpson & Oliver, 1984, 1990). The SAQ used in this study

consisted of 49 items with three parts. The ®rst part asked students to report their gender,

age, ethnicity (optional), and decisions/intentions to enroll in an elective science course in high

school (four items). The second part of the questionnaire was adapted primarily from Khoury

(1984) and contained items measuring students' attitudes and perceptions toward science and

classroom teaching (42 items). The majority of these items were adapted and modi®ed

slightly from the affective items of the NAEP. The items measured nine identi®ed factors: self-

concept of ability, science enjoyment, lack of anxiety, usefulness of science class, student

motivation in science, science as a male domain, student choice, teacher support, and teacher

enthusiasm.

From these nine factors, the two main subscales were: (a) student attitude toward science

(STUATT), and (b) classroom impact on learning (CLRMIMP). The subscale, student attitude

toward science, contained 29 items measuring these six factors: (a) self-concept of ability, (b)

science enjoyment, (c) lack of anxiety, (d) usefulness of science class, (e) student motivation in

science, and (f) science as a male domain. The subscale, classroom impact, contained 13 items

measuring these three factors: (a) student choice, (b) teacher support, and (c) teacher enthusiasm.

The questionnaire used in this study appears in Laubach (1998).

The items of the two subscales were assessed using a Likert scale. There were two types of

®ve response choices: (a) `̀ strongly agree,'' `̀ agree,'' `̀ no opinion,'' `̀ disagree,'' and `̀ strongly

disagree,'' or (b) `̀ always,'' `̀ often,'' `̀ seldom,'' and `̀ never.'' Each response was given a score

from 0 to 4, with the weight of 4 corresponding to the response re¯ecting highly positive

perceptions or attitudes toward science. Mean scores for the total SAQ and for the two main

subscales were computed for each student and used in the data analyses.

For the current study, internal consistency was determined on the 42 attitudinal items in the

Total Science Attitude Questionnaire (TOTSAQ), representing students' overall science

perceptions. The Cronbach alpha reliability coef®cient on the TOTSAQ was reported as

r� .87. The Cronbach alpha coef®cients for the grouped items used in this particular study were

as follows: self-concept of ability, r� .94; science enjoyment, r� .90; lack of anxiety, r� .76;


usefulness of science class, r� .66; student motivation in science, r� .88; science as a male

domain, r� .92; student choice, r� .82; teacher support, r� .84; and teacher enthusiasm,

r� .86. The reliabilities for the two subscales were as follows: STUATT, r� .87 and CLRMIMP,

r� .85.

In support of reliability and construct validity the SAQ was found to correlate with the

questionnaire upon which it was largely based (Khoury, 1984): self-concept (.77), science

enjoyment (.85), lack of anxiety (.75), usefulness of science class (.77), student motivation in

science (.86), science as a male domain (.78), student choice (.65), teacher support (.68), and

teacher enthusiasm (.78). In addition, the instrument was reviewed by three professors of science

education and a classroom science teacher. The reviewers assessed construct validity of the

instruments' items and subscales. The review determined that the SAQ was valid with respect to

the constructs measured.

The third part of the student questionnaire (three items) asked students to rank and explain

three reasons why they are or are not planning to enroll in an elective science class in high

school. The open-ended question was used to reveal more detailed explanations of factors that

may be related to science elective enrollment intentions.

Science Teaching Approach Questionnaire. The Science Teaching Approach Questionnaire

was used to reveal the extent to which teachers' classroom practice was consistent with the

inquiry model known as the learning cycle in their classroom instruction. The teacher

questionnaire consisted of four parts that addressed background information and instructional

emphases (Laubach, 1998). The ®rst part asked teachers to respond to questions such as gender,

years of teaching experience, years of teaching experience in this particular school district, place

of postsecondary education, and highest academic degree earned. The second and third parts of

the questionnaire were adapted from a previous study (Cavallo, Reap, Saunders, & Gerber,

1995). The teachers were asked to rank their use of listed teaching techniques (lecture,

laboratory, discussion, demonstration, text or nontext reading) in order of implementation and to

report how often they use each technique. The fourth part of the questionnaire was also adapted

from a previous study (Gallagher, 1994). The teachers were asked to check the classroom

experiences that they emphasize, such as developing students' problem-solving skills, reading,

giving information and note taking, and experimental logic and design. The Science Teaching

Approach Questionnaire appears in Laubach (1998).

Each part of the Science Teaching Approach Questionnaire had been assessed for

construct validity in prior studies. The Science Teaching Approach Questionnaire was also

assessed for construct validity by three science educators who determined it to be a valid

instrument. The data taken from the Science Teaching Approach Questionnaire were used as one

source of information regarding the extent to which teachers use the learning cycle in their

teaching.

Identifying Teachers' Use of the Learning Cycle Model

As mentioned, all teachers in this particular school district are required to use the learning

cycle paradigm and published curricula in their teaching. The teachers of this study used the

secondary biology learning cycle curricula, Investigations in Natural Science: Biology (Renner

et al., 1996). All teachers had been prepared to use the learning cycle through their teacher

education program at the University of Oklahoma and/or through special inservice programs

regularly implemented in the selected school district. The teachers received full support from the

administration, and necessary resources and supplies for implementing the learning cycle


curriculum. The teachers coordinated their teaching of the curriculum with respect to scheduling

and sharing of materials. However, although the curriculum and materials were shared, the

extent to which the biology teachers adhered to the learning cycle paradigm in their classrooms

was not known. Thus, this phase of the study sought to identify how teachers may implement the

learning cycle model in their classrooms.

Qualitative methods were used to identify the extent to which biology teachers used the

ideal learning cycle model in the selected high school. Consistent with the qualitative method of

triangulation, data were collected from these sources: usage of a key informant (Bogden &

Biklen, 1982) who was a teacher in the school's biology department, the Science Teaching

Approach Questionnaire administered to the six teachers, and classroom observations.

The key informant revealed information regarding the extent to which each teacher used

the learning cycle model. The informant teacher had observed each of the other teachers and all

had worked together on many curriculum-related issues. Data gathered from discussions with

this teacher centered on topics such as teachers' use of questioning, group work, lecture, and

whether the teachers tended to reveal the concept to students or allow students to construct it

themselves. The key informant was familiar with research and understood the elements of

research. The information obtained from the key informant was the initial step in collecting

teacher data.

The Science Teaching Approach Questionnaire was administered to the six teacher-

participants of this study. The teacher questionnaire elicited self-reported evidence of the

teachers' primary teaching procedures. Analyses of these data provided information on

the teachers' general teaching philosophy and use of the learning cycle model. For example,

some teachers stated they rarely or sometimes lectured and always or frequently implemented

laboratory activities. These teachers also reported placing a strong emphasis on developing

problem-solving/inquiry skills. These data indicated that teachers' implementation of the

learning cycle curricula was more consistent with the paradigm. Other teachers reported usage of

lecture frequently or always and laboratory usage sometimes or rarely. These teachers also

reported placing a strong emphasis on giving information and taking notes. These data indicate

low consistency with the learning cycle paradigm.

Classroom observations of the six teachers in this study were conducted as each

implemented the same learning cycle investigation. Field notes on classroom activities,

interactions, and dialogues for the six biology teachers were recorded in a journal. Teaching

behaviors observed to be highly consistent with the learning cycle paradigm included the

following: (a) In the exploration phase, teachers asked students who had dif®culties or

inconsistent results in the laboratory to continue working on their laboratory investigations (by

doing so, students were encouraged to use thinking skills and hypothesize why the experiment

turned out the way it did); (b) in the term introduction phase, teachers used strategic questioning

patterns of leading the students toward constructing the concept.

Teaching behaviors observed to be less consistent or contradict the learning cycle paradigm

included the following: (a) in the exploration phase, some teachers allowed students to end their

laboratory investigations when they had dif®culties or inconsistent results in their laboratory

procedures; (b) in the term introduction phase, discussion turned into lectures, teachers gave

students answers to questions, and told students the concept they should have discovered. Thus,

the analyses of observation data revealed patterns in questioning, group work, students'

construction of the concept, and teachers' overall adherence to the philosophical premise of the

inquiry-based learning cycle model.

Analyses of all three sources of data revealed two distinct patterns in teachers' use of the

learning cycle model. The contrasting uses that emerged were: (a) teachers who used the


learning cycle model as it was designed and employed a highly student-centered, inquiry

teaching approach; and (b) teachers who deviated from the model and employed a more teacher-

centered approach as described above. Teaching that was more consistent with the learning cycle

model was termed high paradigmatic or high inquiry. Teaching that was less consistent with the

learning cycle model was termed low paradigmatic, or low inquiry. Analysis of teacher-related

data resulted in three classrooms identi®ed as high paradigmatic (1�male and 2� female

teachers) and three classrooms identi®ed as low paradigmatic (2�male and 1� female teacher)

with respect to teachers' implementation of the learning cycle model. The teachers in each group

had comparable years of teaching experience, with the high paradigmatic group having an

average of 9 years' teaching experience, and the low paradigmatic group having an average of

8.5 years of teaching experience. All teachers had reported that their only teaching experience

was in this school district.

Procedures

Each teacher selected one of his or her general biology classes to participate in taking the

SAQ as part of this study. Over a 2-day period, one investigator administered the student

questionnaire to students in the six general biology classes. The investigator used a written

protocol in administering the student questionnaire, ensuring that the same instructions were

given to all students. The researcher emphasized that the items on the questionnaire were to be

addressed according to the science class that the students were presently taking. Also, careful

attention was given when referring to the open-ended part of the questionnaire. The researcher

stressed that the reasons given in Part III of the TOTSAQ were in response to how the students

answered Question 4 on the questionnaire, `̀ Do you plan to enroll in an elective science course

next year or before you graduate?''

The study took place in the spring semester because the students would have been with the

same teacher all year and attitudes toward their classes would have been developed over this time

period. In addition, students were starting to think about and plan their next year of course

enrollment. The school's advisement and course selection process had begun. The next course to

be elected in the sequence by these students would be chemistry.

Results

Data were analyzed according to the questions guiding this research. All analyses were

conducted on the categories of learning cycle teaching procedure (high paradigmatic/high

inquiry or low paradigmatic/low inquiry), enrollment intentions or decisions (to enroll in elective

science courses or not enroll in elective science courses), gender, and/or the interaction of these

variables. The dependent variables consisted of total Science Attitude Questionnaire scores

(TOTSAQ), the two subscales (STUATT, CLRMIMP) and/or the individual factors comprising

these subscales.

Differences in Students' and in Male and Female Students' Decisions to Enroll in Elective

Science Courses in High and Low Paradigmatic Learning Cycle Classrooms

Chi-square analyses were conducted to determine possible differences between the

frequencies of students in high paradigmatic and low paradigmatic classes and their science

elective enrollment decisions. These results are shown in Table 1. No signi®cant differences


were found between the number of students in high paradigmatic and low paradigmatic learning

cycle classes and their enrollment decisions.

Chi-square analyses were also used to determine possible differences between elective

science enrollment decisions in high paradigmatic and low paradigmatic learning cycle classes

among male and female students. These results are shown in Table 2. No differences were found

between males and their elective science enrollment decisions according to extent teachers

adhered to the learning cycle in their classrooms. Signi®cant differences were found, however,

between females and their elective science enrollment decisions according to the extent the

Table 1

Chi-square analyses of students' elective science enrollment decision

by level of learning cycle teaching approach experienced

Enrollment DecisionLearning CycleApproach Not Enrolling Enrolling Total

High paradigmatic n 8 48 56high inquiry % 6.7 40.3

Low paradigmatic/ n 15 48 63low inquiry % 12.6 40.3Total N 23 96 119

�2 (1, N� 119)� 1.73 NS

Note. Percentages do not equal 100 owing to rounding.

Table 2

Chi-square analyses of male and female students' elective science enrollment decision by level of learning

cycle teaching approach experienced

Enrollment DecisionLearning CycleApproach Not Enrolling Enrolling Total

Male studentsHigh paradigmatic/ n 7 23 30

high inquiry % 11.9 39.0Low paradigmatic/ n 5 24 29

low inquiry % 8.5 40.7Total N 12 47 59

�2 (1, N� 59)� .34, NSFemale studentsHigh paradigmatic/ n 1 25 26

high inquiry % 1.7 41.7Low paradigmatic/ n 10 24 34

low inquiry % 16.7 40.0Total N 11 49 60

�2 (1, N� 60)� 6.43, p� .011

Note. Percentages do not equal 100 owing to rounding.


paradigm or level of inquiry was experienced in their learning cycle classrooms. As shown in

Table 2, signi®cantly more females who experienced high inquiry learning cycle classrooms

were planning to enroll in elective science courses in high school than females who were in low

inquiry learning cycle classrooms.

Descriptive Patterns and Differences in Males' and Females' Attitudinal Perceptions of

Science in High and Low Paradigmatic Learning Cycle Classrooms

Descriptive data were calculated for male and female students in low and high paradigmatic

learning cycle classrooms for each variable comprising the SAQ, the TOTSAQ, and the two

subscales (STUATT, CLRMIMP). These data are shown in Table 3. To facilitate interpretation,

data are presented graphically in Figures 1±12. As observed in Table 3 and Figures 1±12, unique

patterns emerged from the descriptive data. For several variables, it appears that mean scores

among males in the low paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms were numerically lower than

other students. The exceptions were science self-concept of ability (indicating high self-

concept), lack of anxiety (indicating high lack of anxiety), and motivation toward science

(indicating high motivation) among males in low paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms. In

some of these instances, the males' mean scores in the different classroom settings were similar

(e.g., science self-concept); in others, the means appear to be dissimilar (e.g., motivation toward

science). Other observations include higher numerical mean scores in student enjoyment, and in

the subscales, STUATT (science attitudes) and CLRMIMP (classroom impact), and the

TOTSAQ for both males and females in the high paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms

compared with those in low paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms.

The descriptive data were subjected to statistical analyses to determine whether observed

numerical differences were signi®cant. The results of t-tests between males and females in high

and low paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms are shown in Table 4. Equal variances were

not assumed in these analyses and presentation of results. As shown in Table 4 and interpreted by

observing the means shown in Table 3, male students in high paradigmatic learning cycle

classrooms had signi®cantly higher science enjoyment and more positive perceptions of

teacher support and teacher enthusiasm compared with males in low paradigmatic learning cycle

classrooms. Thus although motivation and the other variables investigated were equivalent

among males in both classes, male students in the low paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms

did not express enjoyment of science as much, and viewed their teachers as less supportive and

exuberant toward teaching science. Males in the low paradigmatic classrooms also had

signi®cantly lower perceptions of their teachers' enthusiasm compared with the females in

these same classrooms. Males in the low paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms had a

signi®cantly stronger view of science as a male domain compared with female students in these

same classrooms. The mean for the classroom impact (CLRMIMP) subscale was also

signi®cantly higher among males in the high paradigmatic classrooms (p< .01) and higher

among females in the low paradigmatic classrooms (p< .05) compared with males in low

paradigmatic classrooms.

Differences in Attitudinal Perceptions of Science According to Enrollment in High

Paradigmatic or Low Paradigmatic Learning Cycle Classes, Students' Decisions to Enroll

in Elective Science Courses, and the Interaction of These Variables

Descriptive statistics were produced for the students' mean scores on the TOTSAQ and the

mean score for each subscale, STUATT and CLRMIMP. These data are presented in Table 5. The


Table 3

Descriptive statistics of SAQ variables among male and female students in high and low paradigmatic

learning cycle classrooms

Learning CycleVariable Approach Gender Mean SD

Science High paradigmatic Male (n� 30) 15.7 3.9enjoyment Female (n� 26) 15.0 4.4

Low paradigmatic Male (n� 29) 12.9 3.6Female (n� 34) 13.0 4.9

Self-concept High paradigmatic Male 4.4 1.6of ability Female 4.0 1.6in science Low paradigmatic Male 4.4 2.1

Female 3.9 1.8Lack of anxiety High paradigmatic Male 17.8 3.0

Female 17.3 4.6Low paradigmatic Male 18.3 2.7

Female 17.0 3.8Student choice High paradigmatic Male 4.6 2.6


Female 4.7 3.2Teacher support High paradigmatic Male 5.2 2.1


Female 4.6 2.7Teacher High paradigmatic Male 14.8 3.3

enthusiasm Female 14.8 4.3Low paradigmatic Male 12.1 3.8

Female 14.4 3.4Usefulness of High paradigmatic Male 13.2 2.3

science Female 13.7 2.5Low paradigmatic Male 12.2 2.8

Female 13.2 2.6Science as High paradigmatic Male 6.8 1.5

male domain Female 7.3 1.1Low paradigmatic Male 6.4 1.9

Female 7.4 1.0Student High paradigmatic Male 12.0 5.5

motivation Female 12.1 6.8Low paradigmatic Male 13.1 5.9

Female 11.9 6.5Total High paradigmatic Male 94.7 15.7

Science Female 94.7 20.0Attitude Low paradigmatic Male 87.4 15.7(TOTSAQ) Female 90.2 17.6

Attitude High paradigmatic Male 70.0 12.3Toward Female 69.5 12.9Science Low paradigmatic Male 67.4 11.6(STUATT) Female 66.5 14.4

Classroom High paradigmatic Male 24.7 6.1Impact Female 25.2 9.6

(CLRMIMP) Low paradigmatic Male 20.0 7.0Female 23.7 7.3


numerical differences observed in Table 5 were analyzed for signi®cance using general linear

models analyses of variance. The general linear models procedure controls for unbalanced or

uneven subsamples, and thus was most appropriate for these analyses. In addition, O'Briens'

(1981) test of homogeneity of variance was conducted on TOTSAQ, STUATT, and CLRMIMP

scores before all analyses. The tests were conducted according to learning cycle approach,

enrollment decision, and learning cycle approach� enrollment decision as independent vari-

ables. The results indicated that the assumption of homogeneity of variance among the

subsamples was not violated for any of the questionnaire scores (p> .05).

A general linear models, two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to examine

possible differences in students' overall science perceptions according to learning cycle ap-

proach (high paradigmatic, low paradigmatic) and students' enrollment intentions. These results

are shown in Table 6.

The test revealed statistically signi®cant main effects for each independent variable and a

signi®cant interaction. Examination of the means (Table 5) and Student±Newman±Keuls post

hoc analyses determined the sources of these differences. Students in high paradigmatic/high

inquiry classes had higher mean scores on the TOTSAQ than students in low paradigmatic/low

inquiry classes. Students planning to take elective science courses in high school had a

considerably higher mean score than students not planning to enroll in elective science courses.

However, these differences in main effects can be interpreted only by analyzing the interaction

(Huck & Cormier, 1996). Therefore, the signi®cant interaction is represented in graphic form in

Figure 13.

Figure 2. Science self-concept, gender, and learning cycle approach.

Figure 1. Science enjoyment, gender, and learning cycle approach.


According to Figure 13, students in high paradigmatic classes who were not planning to

enroll in elective science courses had lower attitudes than those planning to take elective science

courses in these same classes. Students who were in high paradigmatic classes and planning to

enroll in elective science had particularly high attitudes. Among students not planning to enroll,

those in low paradigmatic classes had higher overall attitudes than those in high paradigmatic

classes. These differences are likely the source of the interaction.

Teacher effect analyses were also conducted to determine whether teacher gender in¯ue-

nced students' science perceptions or elective science enrollment intentions. No signi®cance

was found with teacher gender in high or low paradigmatic science classes and their students'

science perceptions and enrollment intentions, which suggests that teacher gender did not

in¯uence students' attitudes towards science or students' willingness to continue taking science

courses.

STUATT. A general linear models, two-way ANOVA was conducted to determine possible

differences in students' scores on the subscale STUATT. Student scores on the STUATT subscale

served as the dependent variable, whereas learning cycle approach, students' enrollment

intentions, and the interactions of learning cycle approach � students' enrollment intentions

were the independent variables. Results are reported in Table 7.

Figure 4. Student choice, gender, and learning cycle approach.

Figure 3. Lack of anxiety, gender, and learning cycle approach.


No signi®cant main effects were found in the STUATT subscale scores according to the

learning cycle approach or the interaction. However, a signi®cant main effect was observed on

STUATT scores according to students' plans to enroll in elective science courses in high school.

Examination of the subscale means in Table 5 and Student±Newman±Keuls post hoc

analyses on the signi®cant main effect of student enrollment intention revealed the direction of

the observed difference. Students planning to continue science course enrollment had higher

student attitudes that those not intending to enroll.

CLRMIMP. A general linear models, two-way ANOVA was conducted to determine

possible differences in students' scores on the subscale CLRMIMP according to learning cycle

approach, enrollment intention, and the interaction of these variables. Results are reported in

Table 8.

The results revealed signi®cant main effects in students' perceptions of their classroom

according to learning cycle approach and the interaction between learning cycle approach and

enrollment intention (p< .05). No signi®cant differences were found in students' CLRMIMP

scores according to their decision to enroll in elective science in the future.

Examination of the means in Table 5 and Student±Newman±Keuls post hoc analyses

indicated that students in high paradigmatic classes had signi®cantly higher scores on

CLRMIMP than students in low paradigmatic classes. Again, differences in main effects can be

Figure 6. Teacher enthusiasm, gender, and learning cycle approach.

Figure 5. Teacher support, gender, and learning cycle approach.


interpreted only by analyzing the interaction (Huck & Cormier, 1996). Therefore, for

interpretation the signi®cant interaction of learning cycle approach � enrollment intention for

the CLRMIMP subscale is represented in Figure 14.

As shown in Figure 14, students in high paradigmatic classes who did not plan to enroll in

future high school science courses had relatively low attitudes in classroom-related areas,

whereas those who planned to enroll had relatively high attitudes. The means of CLRMIMP

among students in low paradigmatic classes were nearly equal for students who did and did not

plan to enroll in more science courses. This discrepancy is likely the source of the interaction.

Patterns in Students' Explanations of Their Intentions to Enroll in an

Elective Science Course

To explore patterns in students' explanations for taking or not taking elective science

courses, their open-ended responses were ®rst grouped according to their decision to enroll in

future science elective classes. Ninety-six students answered `̀ yes'' to Question 4 on the SAQ,

indicating plans to enroll in an elective science class in high school, whereas 23 students

indicated they were not planning to enroll in elective science classes. Because students were

asked to give three reasons for planning or not planning to enroll, a total of 288 positive

Figure 8. Science as male domain, gender, and learning cycle approach.

Figure 7. Usefulness of science, gender, and learning cycle approach.


responses and a total of 69 negative responses were expected. However, several students gave

no response or provided statements that were irrelevant to their enrollment decisions. These

responses were considered not valid and were excluded from examination. Of the 288 possible

total responses of those students planning to enroll, 35 responses were not valid. Of the 69

possible total responses of students not planning to enroll, 37 responses were not valid.

Therefore, the focus of this particular analysis was on relevant responses that could be

interpreted in light of the students' enrollment decisions. Each response was examined and

similar responses were placed in common categories. All categories that emerged from the

student responses are shown in Tables 9 and 10.

As shown in Table 9, the most frequent reason given for planning to enroll in elective

science was that the students' future careers were related to science. This reason was followed by

comments that the students wanted to learn more about science. Need for college was the third

most important reason for planning to enroll in elective science courses.

As shown in Table 10, the most frequent reason given for not planning to enroll in elective

science was that the students' future careers were not related to science. This reason was

followed by comments that the students did not need any more science credits. That science is

not interesting was the third most important reason given for not planning to enroll in elective

science courses.

Figure 10. Total Student Attitudes (TOTSAQ), gender, and learning cycle approach.

Figure 9. Student science motivation, gender, and learning cycle approach.


Discussion

The ®rst question of this research was to explore differences in students' science enrollment

decisions according to participation in high paradigmatic/high inquiry and low paradigmatic/low

inquiry learning cycle classrooms. Results indicated equal distribution in both high paradigmatic

and low paradigmatic classes of students who did or did not plan to enroll in elective science

courses. Perhaps this similar desire to take more science courses is due to the use of learning

cycle curricula through every grade level of this school district, which, despite differences in

actual implementation, is a distinctly constructivist, inquiry-based teaching procedure (Myers &

Fouts, 1992). Alternatively, students at this school may continue taking science courses

regardless of variations in teaching procedures because of future plans for college. Because the

school is situated in a university community where its in¯uence is strong, the likelihood that

students will go on to college may be greater here than in some other communities. There may be

outside factors not examined in this study that in¯uence students' decisions to continue enrolling

in elective science courses.

No known studies have yet addressed the issue of gender enrollment in elective science

courses by the extent of inquiry teaching used in classrooms particularly, by teachers' differing

use of the learning cycle paradigm. In this study, no differences were observed in the frequency

of males choosing to take or not take elective science courses according to the extent teachers

implemented the inquiry-based learning cycle paradigm. However, a signi®cant difference was

found in intentions to enroll among females in these learning cycle classrooms. More females in

Figure 11. Student Science Attitudes (STUATT), gender, and learning cycle approach.

Figure 12. Classroom Impact (CLRMIMP), gender, and learning cycle approach.


Table 4

t-test analyses between male and female students in high and low learning cycle paradigm classrooms on

variables examined in this study

Variable Groups tested L df p

Science enjoyment Males high/males low 2.89 57 .006Females high/females low 1.68 57 .098Males high/females high 0.618 51 .540Males low/females low 0.096 60 .924

Self-concept Males high/males low 0.100 53 .921of ability Females high/females low 0.046 56 .963in science Males high/females high 1.02 53 .314

Males low/females low 1.04 56 .304Lack of anxiety Males high/males low 0.695 57 .490

in science Females high/females low 0.287 48 .775Males high/females high 0.465 42 .644Males low/females low 1.61 59 .112

Student choice Males high/males low 0.723 49 .473Females high/females low 0.185 46 .854Males high/females high 0.269 42 .789Males low/females low 0.775 54 .442

Teacher support Males high/males low 2.12 55 .039Females high/females low 1.11 48 .271Males high/females high 0.449 41 .655Males low/females low 1.09 61 .281

Teacher enthusiasm Males high/males low 2.96 55 .004Females high/females low 0.375 47 .709Males high/females high 0.062 47 .951Males low/females low 2.50 57 .015

Usefulness of Males high/males low 1.48 54 .144science Females high/females low 0.748 54 .458

Males high/females high 0.771 51 .444Males low/females low 1.45 57 .152

Science as Males high/males low 0.997 53 .323male domain Females high/females low 0.134 50 .894


Student science Males high/males low 0.765 56 .448motivation Females high/females low 0.134 53 .894


Total Science Males high/males low 1.77 57 .082Attitudes Females high/females low 0.914 50 .365(TOTSAQ) Males high/females high 0.006 47 .995

Males low/females low 0.657 61 .513Attitude Males high/male low 0.831 57 .410

Toward Females high/females low 0.865 56 .391Science Males highly/females high 0.146 52 .884(STUATT) Males low/females low 0.298 61 .767

Classroom Males high/males low 2.72 55 .009Impact Females high/females low 0.647 45 .521(CLRMIMP) Males high/females high 0.241 41 .811

Males low/females low 2.07 60 .043


high paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms were planning to further their science education

than were females in low paradigmatic learning cycle science classrooms. The ®nding coincides

with other research reporting that females who are subject to a higher level of inquiry tend to

aspire for a continuance in science (Lee & Burkam, 1996). Furthermore, females tend to prefer

collaboration and high levels of small-group interaction (Kahle & Meece, 1994). The

collaborative groups that are an essential component of the learning cycle may be a positive

experience for females in particular and may lead to continued science course enrollment. The

ideal learning cycle also allows substantial opportunity for students to express thoughts and ideas

Table 5

Descriptive statistics of the variables used in this study for the total group

TOTSAQ STUATT CLRMIMP

n M SD Range M SD Range M SD Range

Total group 119 91.7 17.3 49±124 68.3 12.9 36±92 23.4 7.7 4±38High paradigmatic 56 94.7 17.7 49±124 69.8 12.5 36±90 24.9 7.8 5±38Low paradigmatic 63 88.9 16.7 54±117 66.9 13.1 40±92 22.0 7.3 4±37

Enrolling 96 94.8 16.2 50±124 71.0 11.7 40±92 23.9 7.5 4±38Not enrolling 23 78.3 15.7 49±117 57.0 11.2 36±80 21.3 8.1 7±37

High paradigmatic 48 98.6 15.4 50±123 72.6 10.8 42±90 26.0 7.6 5±38� enrolling

High paradigmatic 8 71.6 12.1 49±83 53.3 8.7 36±63 18.4 6.6 7±25� not enrolling

Low paradigmatic 48 91.1 16.3 54±117 69.4 12.5 40±92 21.7 7.0 4±36� enrolling

Low paradigmatic 15 81.9 16.5 56±117 59.0 12.1 41±80 22.9 8.6 12±37� not enrolling

Note. TOTSAQ�Total Science Attitude Questionnaire; STUATT�Student Attitude toward Science (subscale of the

TOTSAQ); CLRMIMP�Classroom Impact (subscale of the TOTSAQ).

Table 6

Two-way analysis of variance with Total Science Attitudes (TOTSAQ)

as dependent variable

Source SS df MS F

Learning cycle 989.70 1 989.70 4.00*approach

Enrollment 4,591.70 1 4,591.70 18.55**decision

Learning cycle 1,349.63 1 1,349.63 5.45*approach�enrollmentdecision

Error 28,461.87 115 247.49Corrected total 35,192.87 118

*p< .05; **p< .001.


in oral and written forms. Perhaps such an atmosphere particularly appeals to females and

capitalizes on their strengths in verbal expression (Cavallo, 1994). In essence, the learning cycle

may provide a social context in which female students are comfortable and successful in their

learning. More research is needed on this topic to clarify these prospects.

Analyses of differences in students' attitude variables relative to gender and experience in

high and low paradigmatic classrooms revealed some unexpected ®ndings. It appears that males

in the low paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms had more negative views of their classroom

environments, particularly teacher support and enthusiasm, and lower science enjoyment

compared with males in the high paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms. Thus, although

considerable research has been conducted on the impact of inquiry and collaborative group

learning among females, little is known about the impact of such curricula on males. Males in the

low paradigmatic classrooms were planning to continue enrolling in science courses in high

school at an equivalent rate with males in high paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms.

However, males in the low paradigmatic classrooms held lower perceptions of their science

instruction/environment compared with those in the high paradigmatic learning cycle

classrooms. Might there be long-term effects of the more negative perceptions among these

Figure 13. Signi®cant interaction of approach � enrollment decision on TOTSAQ.

Table 7

Two-way analysis of variance with Student Science Attitudes (STUATT) as dependent variable

Source SS df MS F

Learning cycle 246.41 1 246.41 1.83approach

Enrollment 3,451.91 1 3,451.91 25.69*decision

Learning cycle 340.74 1 340.74 2.54approach �enrollmentdecision


*p< .001.


male students, and if so, what might be the nature of such effects? Future research should

investigate this possibility.

Furthermore, the male students in the low paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms had more

stereotypical views of science as a male domain compared with the females in these same

classrooms. There were no differences in views of science as a male domain between the males

and females in the high paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms. The ®nding that males in the

low paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms had more stereotypical views of science as a male

domain corroborates ®ndings of research cited earlier (Green®eld, 1996). However, that science

as a male domain was viewed equivalently among the males and females in the high para-

digmatic learning cycle classrooms contradicts this earlier research. Two male teachers and one

female teacher were the instructors in the low paradigmatic classrooms, whereas two female

teachers and one male teacher were the instructors in the high paradigmatic learning cycle

classrooms. It was thought possible that the 2:1 ratio of male teachers in the low paradigmatic

classrooms contributed to the male students' view of science as a male domain, although the

presence of male teachers did not effect the female students in these same classrooms (or had the

opposite effect). Statistical analyses of teacher effect on this variable (science as male domain)

revealed no differences between males and females according to gender of the teacher. It is not

conclusive from the current study whether these ®ndings are due to differences in the high versus

Table 8

Two-way analysis of variance with Classroom Impact (CLRMIMP) as dependent variable

Source SS df MS F

Learning cycle 248.45 1 248.45 4.53*approach

Enrollment 81.16 1 81.16 1.48decision

Learning cycle 334.09 1 334.09 6.09*approach �

Enrollmentdecision


*p< .05.

Figure 14. Signi®cant interaction of approach � enrollment decision on CLRMIMP.


low inquiry nature of two classroom situations, or an alternative explanation. The question of

why these results were found would be important for future research.

The third research question focused on differences in students' science perceptions (student

attitudes and classroom impact) according to teacher use of the learning cycle model, intentions

to enroll in elective science courses, and the interaction between these variables. One important

®nding was that in classrooms where teachers used a more student-centered, high paradigmatic

learning cycle model, students had more positive overall science perceptions than students in

Table 9

Patterns of responses from students who are planning to enroll in elective sciences (N� 96)

Reasons Frequency %

Career related to science 48 50.0Want to learn more 35 36.5Need for college 29 30.2Enjoy/like science 22 22.9Looks good on transcript 20 20.8Science is interesting 18 18.8Science is helpful in life 18 18.8Need the credits to graduate 14 14.6Science is fun 13 13.5

The following responses each had a frequency lower than 7 and %lower than 10.0

Friends are taking scienceHelp me to understand science betterPersonal goalsSomething to doScience is better than other subjectsTo score higher on ACT/SATWant toScience is importantGood at science

Table 10

Patterns of responses from students who are not planning to enroll in

elective sciences (N� 23)

Reason Frequency %

Does not apply to career 8 34.8No more science credit needed 6 26.1Science is not interesting 5 21.7Does not like science 3 13.0No time in schedule 3 13.0Lowers grade point average 2 8.7Does not enjoy 2 8.7Takes time and hard work 1 4.3Science is not fun 1 4.3Lacks motivation 1 4.3


classrooms where teachers did not adhere as closely to the model. The signi®cant interaction

reveals that this ®nding is only relevant among those students planning to continue taking

science. Thus, a higher level of inquiry in the learning cycle relates to more positive perceptions

of science, particularly among students who plan to enroll in science elective course work. This

®nding may imply that these high inquiry classrooms have great appeal to students planning to

continue enrolling in science because they engage students in activities that more closely re¯ect

the true nature of the scienti®c discipline.

As could be expected, students planning to enroll in elective science courses had more

positive overall perceptions of science than those not planning to enroll. However, students in

the high paradigmatic classes who were not planning to enroll had lower overall science

perceptions than their counterparts in the low paradigmatic classes (Figure 13). Students in low

paradigmatic/low inquiry classes showed relatively equivalent attitudes whether or not they

intended to enroll in more science courses, as evidenced by the essentially horizontal line in

Figure 13. Perhaps students who do not plan to continue enrolling in science classes have more

negative attitudes in high paradigmatic/high inquiry learning cycle classes, because they are

forced to engage in investigations and think autonomously, compared with the science

classrooms with fewer of these experiences and challenges. Those students in high paradigmatic

classrooms who are not planning to take more science may not want to be challenged with the

thinking processes required in the learning cycle. As found in other research, although most

students would rather ®nd the answer to a question than be told it and value teachers who

encourage them to think for themselves, some are uncomfortable with questions they cannot

answer (Ward, 1979).

In addition, Hueftle, Rakow, and Welch (1983) implied that students may feel more

comfortable with assessment at lower rather than higher cognitive levels. These high inquiry

classes demand students to struggle with ideas and use autonomous thinking in constructing the

concept. Students who do not plan to take more science may be uncomfortable or unwilling to

expend such effort; thus, being forced to do so may translate to more negative attitudes toward

science and classroom-related issues in these high inquiry classrooms.

Another possible explanation for the discrepancy of student attitudes in the high

paradigmatic classes may be that some students prefer working individually as opposed to

working in collaborative groups. The high paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms require

considerable collaborative groups efforts. Students who do not plan to enroll in future science

coursework may not wish to engage in such collaboration, and may develop negative attitudes

toward science and science teaching. It is not known whether these students are among the lower

achievers in science, which could also explain the more negative science perceptions, and hence

their decisions not to enroll. Future research should incorporate measures of student effort, group

work preferences, and achievement to help clarify ®ndings of this study. The challenge then lies

in ®nding ways to help these students develop more positive science attitudes in high inquiry

classrooms.

Results of analyses on the subscale of attitudes toward science showed a difference with

respect to students' enrollment intentions. Students who plan to enroll in elective science courses

in high school have more positive attitudes than those not planning to enroll. This ®nding

coincides with previous studies on this topic (Crawley & Coe, 1990; Haselhuhn & Andre;

Khoury, 1984). Students' attitudes toward science did not differ according to the extent teachers

adhered to the learning cycle model and the interaction between learning cycle approach and

students' enrollment intentions. As in other research, this ®nding may indicate that variables

other than teaching approach may in¯uence students' personal attitudes toward science (Fouts &

Myers, 1992; Gallagher, 1994; Ledbetter, 1993; Myers & Fouts, 1992). Students' personal


attitudes seem to be most linked to their decisions to continue taking science courses. Perhaps

those students who do not see personal meaning or relevance in science may discontinue their

pursuit of additional science-related courses.

An interesting discovery of this study was that the students' classroom-related attitudes

did not differ according to their enrollment intentions. This ®nding contradicts several studies

(Myers & Fouts, 1994; Piburn & Baker, 1993; Remick & Miller, 1978; Simpson & Oliver, 1990)

which state that the impact of the classroom environment is the primary in¯uence on increased

science attitude, achievement, and future enrollment. Unique to this study, the extent to which

teachers use the ideal learning cycle model revealed different classroom-related attitudes among

students, especially those planing to enroll in elective science courses. In classrooms where

teachers use high levels of inquiry and closely emulate the learning cycle model, those students

who plan to continue in science have more positive views of their science classroom in areas

of teacher support, involvement, order and organization, student-to-student af®liation, and

innovative teaching strategies than in classrooms where the model is not as closely emulated. In

these high paradigmatic classrooms, students are more likely to experience science in the

manner the discipline is structuredÐas a constructivist, high inquiry, laboratory-centered

process (Lawson, Abraham, & Renner, 1989). As the current study shows, these experiences

seem to translate to highly positive perceptions of the science classroom among students who

plan to enroll in elective science courses. However, the experiences may also have a negative

impact on those not planning to enroll in elective science courses.

Interpretations of students' open-ended responses may be facilitated by examining The

Digest of Education Statistics (1997), which reported several reasons 12th-graders gave in

response to choosing science classes. In this document, the following statistics were given

as a percentage of 12th-graders who answered somewhat important or very important to the

following categories: interested in science, 79; do well in science, 81; need it for college, 83;

need it for career, 47; need it for advanced placement, 50; advised to take by: teacher, 59;

guidance counselor, 59; parent, 66; friend, 44; and sibling, 29.

Fiegel (1970) conducted a similar study involving tenth grade biology students, high school

counselors, and chemistry teachers. Each group was asked to list several factors that were

involved in the students' decisions regarding their enrollment in chemistry. The researcher

ranked the groups' responses in order importance why students decided to elect chemistry. These

factors were: college preparatory, interest, major sequence, vocational goals, family in¯uence,

counselor in¯uence, peer in¯uence, and good science grades. The factors responsible for

students not to elect chemistry were also ranked. The ®rst nine factors considered important in

the decision not to elect chemistry were nonscience goals and dif®culty (tie), disinterest, lack of

ability, poor science grades, noncollege preparatory, poor math grades, and nonscience sequence

and peer in¯uence (tie).

After analyzing the qualitative data for the current study, comparisons were made with

these similar studies (Fiegel, 1970; NCES, 1997). Several reasons for future science elective

enrollment given in the current study were also given in the other studies. These reasons

include: need science credit for college purposes, need science for future career, and need

science credit for advance placement. These similar responses may be due to the increased

educational emphasis placed on future careers and the societal emphasis placed on being

successful.

However, several reasons for future science elective enrollment given in the current study

did not match those given in the other studies. These reasons include: the student wants to learn

more science, the student enjoys or likes science, science is helpful to the student, and science is

fun for the student. One possible explanation for the inclusion of these factors in students'


explanations may be the exclusive learning cycle science instruction they receive throughout

their education in this school district (Grades K±12). Again, the ®ndings support the notion that

more positive attitudes toward science exist in inquiry-based classrooms where students

thoroughly experience science, as opposed to more noninquiry programs where students do not

experience the nature of science.

The most frequent reasons given for why students were not planning to enroll in elective

science courses were congruent with similar studies (Fiegel, 1970). These reasons include: non±

science career, non±college preparatory, and disinterest in science. It seems that these students

do not consider the study of science applicable to their everyday or future needs. This perception

is unfortunate since science is so closely linked to everyday experience. Teachers must work

toward making science relevant and applicable to students' everyday lives.

Limitations

This study was exploratory in nature and thus used a design to assess the extant attitudes,

perceptions, and enrollment decisions of students in biology classrooms at the time this study

was conducted. The investigation serves as a springboard for more in-depth, future research.

Such future research will use a pre- and posttest design among the students to gauge possible

shifts in science attitudes, perceptions, and enrollment decisions from the beginning to the end

of the school year. Additional research would further analyze previous science experiences of the

students, and follow students through subsequent years of high school to determine whether and

why students chose to pursue further science coursework, or chose not to do so. Qualitative

techniques would be invaluable and necessary in future research on questions raised in this study.

From a statistical perspective, one limitation of this study was uneven subsample sizes,

particularly the low numbers of high paradigmatic and low paradigmatic students not planning

to enroll in elective science courses. Statistical procedures that controlled for uneven subsample

sizes were used to account for the diversi®ed distribution of subjects among the groups.

However, results af®liated with the smaller subsamples should be interpreted with caution.

Such caution is particularly warranted in interpreting Table 2, where 1 cell frequency was <5.

In addition, a large number of statistical tests were conducted in this study, which increases

the likelihood of ®nding statistical signi®cance by chance. The probability level of p< .05 was

used in this study owing to its exploratory nature. However, results related to ®ndings at p< .01

would be more robust. Thus, signi®cant ®ndings > p � :01 should be interpreted with know-

ledge of this possibility of error in ®ndings.

In this study, two major categories of variables were examined, student-related and

classroom-related variables. The study did not examine other factors, mainly related to

achievement and home variables, which may be associated with the ®ndings. Such factors

include: cognitive ability, socioeconomic status, parental education, parental in¯uence, and

family climate. Future investigations may extend the research of the current study by exploring

students' achievement and home-related variables in addition to those used here as related to

science enrollment patterns.

Educational Implications

Many studies have addressed relationships among laboratory instruction, attitudes toward

science, and achievement in science (Freedman, 1997; Lawson, Abraham, & Renner, 1989;

Ledbetter, 1993; Gallagher, 1994; Fouts & Myers, 1992). The ®ndings of this study coincide

with the previous studies, in that students who experience a higher level of inquiry do possess


more positive attitudes toward science and the science classroom. Importantly, this study extends

previous work with the ®nding that students in high paradigmatic, learning cycle classrooms

have more positive attitudes and also choose to continue their studies in science through

additional courses.

Unique to previous research, this study did not compare student attitudes in laboratory-

oriented versus lecture-oriented classrooms. Instead, comparisons were made between

teachers' use of the inquiry-based, laboratory-centered teaching procedure known as the

learning cycle and, especially, their adherence to the ideal model. The information obtained in

this study may be useful to school administrators and teachers in relation to curricula decisions

and enrollment issues. Science courses in many school systems typically do not promote

positive attitudes toward science or eagerness among students to continue taking science

courses in high school and college (Simpson & Oliver, 1985). As observed in this study,

students in high paradigmatic learning cycle classes did have positive attitudes toward science

and their science classroom environments. Those planning to enroll in elective sciences in high

school also had highly positive attitudes. Thus, administrators and teachers may encourage and

facilitate the implementation of laboratory-centered teaching procedures in their science

classrooms.

This study revealed that perhaps one way to decrease gender discrepancies in science

education is to increase laboratory-type experiences included in science curricula. Females must

be given the same type of experiences and opportunities as males in the classroom when

performing laboratory activities (Kahle & Lakes, 1983). Such experiences are more likely to

occur in classrooms that emphasize group work and student construction of concepts as in model

learning cycle classrooms. Research consistently shows that most girls prefer and take a more

active role in cooperative or collaborative learning activities, as is emphasized in the learning

cycle, rather than those learning activities which are competitive (Baker, 1990).

Furthermore, in traditional classrooms, females tend to feel more comfortable with student-

to-student interactions than direct teacher-to-student interactions. This study showed that

females in high paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms, where the teacher-to-student inter-

actions were very high, were more likely to continue their science course taking as opposed to

their counterparts in low paradigmatic classrooms. This ®nding corroborates with Kahle (1985),

in that teachers who had a high proportion of girls continuing to enroll in elective science courses

used speci®c teaching strategies; these teachers emphasized laboratory work and discussion

groups, stressed creativity and basic skills, and used other resources rather than relying solely on

a textbook. Thus, teachers should conscientiously implement such teaching procedures that may

promote females' interest and science coursework persistence.

This research unexpectedly revealed the need to rethink and refocus our attention on the

science education of male students. It is not clear how the more negative perceptions of the

attitudinal variables among males in low inquiry classrooms may play out in the future of their

education. However, these revelations are worthy of further inquiry and research. Science

education needs to address the needs of all students, and in doing so strive to increase interest and

persistence of both male and female students in science.

With the new century upon us, educators must be cognizant of the possible factors that may

in¯uence student enrollment in elective secondary science courses. Attention must also be

directed to the teaching procedures used in science. If our educational goals are to achieve

scienti®c literacy and promote student pursuit of science careers, changes in particular school

curricula must take place. Experiences that provide an atmosphere conducive for learning must

be offered to all students so that we can continue to promote the worldwide quest for scienti®c

knowledge.


References

Atwater, M.M., Gardner, C.M., & Wiggins, J. (1995). A study of urban middle school

students with high and low attitudes toward science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

32, 665±677.

Baker, D. (1990, April). Gender differences in science: Where they start and where they go.

Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching,

Atlanta, GA.

Bogden, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to

theory and applied methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Catsambis, S. (1995). Gender, race, ethnicity, and science education in the middle grades.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 243±257.

Cavallo, A.M.L., Reap, M.A., Saunders, G., & Gerber, B. (1995) EARTHSTORM project

evaluation: A report to the National Science Foundation. NSF Project No. TPE 9155306.

University of Oklahoma Printing Services, Norman, OK.

Campbell T.C. (1997). An evaluation of a learning cycle intervention strategy for enhan-

cing the use of formal operational thought by beginning college physics students. Doctoral

dissertation, University of Oklahoma. Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 3903A.

Crawley, F.E., & Coe, A.S. (1990). Determinants of middle school students' intention to

enroll in a high school science courses: An application of the Theory of Reasoned Action.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 461±476.

Eisenhower National Clearinghouse. (1996). A perspective on reform in mathematics and

science education. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.

Farenga, S.J. & Joyce, B.A. (1999). Intentions of young students to enroll in science courses

in the future: An examination of gender differences. Science Education, 83, 55±76.

Fiegel, M.J. (1970). Elements which in¯uence the selection of `̀ chemistry.'' Doctoral

dissertation, State University of New York of Buffalo. Dissertation Abstracts International, 31,

1643A.

Fouts, J.T., & Myers, R.E. (1992). Classroom environments and middle school students'

views of science. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 356±361.

Freedman, M.P. (1997). Relationship among laboratory instruction, attitude toward science,

and achievement in science knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 343±357.

Fraser, B. (1994). Research on classroom and school climate. In D.L. Gabel (Ed.),

Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 493±541). New York: National

Science Teachers Association.

Full option science system (FOSS). (1993). Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica

Educational Corporation.

Gallagher, S.A. (1994). Middle school classroom predictors of science persistence. Journal

of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 721±734.

Glass, L.W. (1990). Secondary science enrollment trends and the recent national reports.

School Science and Mathematics, 90, 245±253.

Green®eld, T.A. (1996). Gender, ethnicity, science achievement, and attitudes. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 33, 901±933.

Haladyna, T., & Shaughnessy, J. (1982). Attitudes toward science: A quantitative synthesis.

Science Education, 66, 547±563.

Hammrich, P.L. (1997). Yes, daughter, you can. Science and Children, 34, 20±24.

Haselhuhn, C.W., & Andre, T. (1997, March). Relationships of gender, science self-ef®cacy,

attitude, and subjective norm to intended enrollment in high school biology, chemistry, and


physics. Paper presented at the meeting of National Association for Research in Science

Teaching, Oak Brook, IL.

Huck, S.H., & Cormier, W.H. (1996). Reading statistics and research. New York:

HarperCollins.

Hueftle, S.J., Rakow, S.J., & Welch, W.W. (1983). Images of science: A summary of results

from the 1981±82 National Assessment in Science. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Research and

Evaluation Center.

Jones, M.G., & Wheatley, J. (1990). Gender differences in teacher-student interactions in

science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 861±874.

Kahle, J.B. (1985). Retention of girls in science: Case studies of secondary teachers. In

J.B. Kahle (Ed.), Women in science: A report from the ®eld. Philadelphia, PA: Farmer.

Kahle, J.B., & Lakes, M.K. (1983). The myth of equality in science classrooms. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 20, 131±140.

Kahle, J.B., & Meece, J. (1994). Research on gender issues in the classroom. In D.L. Gabel

(Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 542±557). New York:

National Science Teachers Association.

Karplus, R., & Their, H.D. (1967). A new look at elementary school science. Chicago: Rand

McNally.

Kelly, A. (1985). The construction of masculine science. British Journal of Sociology of

Education, 6, 133±153.

Khoury, G.A. (1984). A model identifying selected factors in¯uencing science enrollment

patterns of high school students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann

Arbor.

Koballa, T.R., & Crawley, F.E. (1985). The in¯uence of attitude on science teaching and

learning. School Science and Mathematics, 85, 222±232.

Laubach, T. (1998). Tenth grade biology students' intentions to enroll in elective science

courses: A comparison of science perceptions in differing learning cycle classrooms.

Unpublished masters thesis, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK.

Lawson, A.E. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth.

Lawson, A.E., Abraham, M.R., & Renner, J.W. (1989). A theory of instruction: Using the

learning cycle to teach science concepts and thinking skill. National Association of Research in

Science Teaching, Monograph No. 1.

Ledbetter, C.E. (1993). Qualitative comparison of students' constructions of science.

Science Education, 77, 611±624.

Lee, V.E., & Burkam, D.T. (1996). Gender differences in middle grade science achievement:

subject domain, ability level, and course emphasis. Science Education, 80, 613±650.

Mager, R. (1968). Developing attitude toward learning. Palo Alto, CA: Fearon.

Marek, E.A., & Cavallo, A.M.L. (1995). Passkeys to learning science in the elementary

schools: The data and language of science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 80, 613±

650.

Marek, E.A., & Cavallo, A.M.L. (1997). The learning cycle: Elementary school science and

beyond (rev. ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Marek, E.A., Eubanks, C., & Gallaher, T.H. (1990). Teachers' understanding and the use of

the learning cycle. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 821±834.

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, 929±

937.


National Center for Education Statistics. (1996). Report in brief: NAEP 1994 trends in

academic progress. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1997a). Digest of education statistics.

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1997b). Findings from the condition of education:

Women in mathematics and science. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press.

O'Brien, R. (1981). A simple test for variance effect in experimental designs. Psychological

Bulletin, 89, 570±574.

Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2,

176±186.

Piburn, M.D., & Baker, D.R. (1993). If I were the teacher: Qualitative study of attitude

toward science. Science Education, 77, 393±406.

Remick, H., & Miller, K. (1978). Participation rates in high school mathematics and science.

Physics Teacher, 5, 280±282.

Renner, J.W., Abraham, M.R., & Birnie, H.H. (1985). Secondary school students' beliefs

about the physics laboratory. Science Education, 69, 649±663.

Renner, J.W., Cate, J., Grzybowski, E., Surber, C., Atkinson, L., & Marek, E.A. (1996).

Investigations in natural science: Biology. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.

Science curriculum improvement study (SCIS-3). (1992). Hudson, NH: Delta Education.

Shrigley, R.L., Koballa, T.R., Jr., & Simpson, R.D. (1988). De®ning attitude for science

educators. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 659±678.

Simpson, R.D., Koballa, T.R., Oliver, J.S., & Crawley, F.E. (1994). Research on the affective

dimension of science learning. In D.L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching

and learning (pp. 221±234). New York: National Science Teachers Association.

Simpson, R.D., & Oliver, J.S. (1984). Attitude toward science and achievement motivation

pro®les of male and female science students in grades six through ten. Science Education, 69,

511±526.

Simpson, R.D., & Oliver, J.S. (1990). A summary of major in¯uences on attitude toward and

achievement in science among adolescent students. Science Education, 74, 1±18.

Ward, B. (1979). Attitudes toward science: A summary of results from the 1976±77

National Assessment of Science. Report 08-S-01. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the

State.

Woolfolk, A. (1998). Educational psychology, Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Yale, F.G. (1966). Avoiding the physical sciences. Science Education, 50, 325±328.


Documents

Students' science perceptions and enrollment decisions in differing learning cycle classrooms