Abstract
Students’ attitudes and anxieties about science were measured by responses to two self-report questionnaires. The cohorts were Danish and American students at the upper secondary- and university-levels. Relationships between and among science attitudes, science anxiety, gender, and nationality were examined. Particular attention was paid to constructivist attitudes about science. These fell into at least three broad conceptual categories: Negativity of Science Toward the Individual, Subjective Construction of Knowledge, and Inherent Bias Against Women. Multigroup confirmatory factor analyses revealed that these dimensions of constructivist attitudes were equally applicable and had the same meaning in both cultures. Gender differences in mean levels of constructivist attitudes were found; these varied across the two cultures. Constructivist beliefs were associated with science anxiety, but in different ways for females and males, and for Danes and Americans. In agreement with earlier studies, females in both the US and Danish cohorts were significantly more science anxious than males, and the gender differences for the Americans were larger than those for the Danes. Findings are discussed in terms of their implications for reducing science anxiety by changing constructivist beliefs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
See e.g., Brownlow et al. (2000).
Programme for International Student Assessment, a triennial world-wide test of 15-year-old schoolchildren’s scholastic performance.
There are many other variants of constructivism. It is alternately described as a theory of learning, of teaching, of education, of cognition, of personal knowledge, of scientific knowledge, of educational ethics and politics, and of a total worldview (Matthews 2002). We focus on what are usually designated philosophical and pedagogical constructivism, but clearly (and perhaps confusingly) they overlap a number of other items on the list.
This is somewhat misleading. Catholic universities and universities with large numbers of Catholic students such as those in heavily Hispanic areas, constitute a substantial fraction of American universities.
Given the wide range of courses that US students take, some students may have completed the questionnaire in two different courses, despite our admonitions not to do so. Constraints of anonymity prevent us from determining conclusively the degree to which this happened. Examining some of the more likely “overlap” courses, we estimate the number of participants who might have completed the survey twice to be very small: less than 2 % of the US cohort. Such a small proportion would be expected to have a negligible impact on the results of our statistical analyses. For the Danish cohort, there were unlikely to be any double-takers, since the Danish curriculum isolates students into different tracks.
Grosso motto we can say that the US and Denmark are “European” (although the US unlike Denmark has for a long time included southern Europeans). However, this is becoming further and further from the truth, as these societies (and others in Europe) become increasingly multi-cultural. Denmark has welcomed many immigrants in the last few decades; most have come from Muslim cultures. The demographics in the US are more diverse, with large numbers from Hispanic countries, Asia, and Eastern Europe, primarily Russia and Poland. (Chicago boasts the world’s second largest Polish population, exceeded only by Warsaw.) Given these demographics, we may hazard extrapolation to other cultures.
However, this is not always the case. Some of the CPS teachers in our study, all female, attested to their own science anxiety, yet had overcome it to become science teachers.
References
Aikenhead G, Ryan A, Fleming R (1992) The development of a new instrument: ‘Views on Science-Technology-Society’ VOSTS. Sci Education 76:477–492. Test available at http://www.usask.ca/education/people/aikenhead/vosts.pdf
Alvaro R (1978) The effectiveness of a science-therapy program on science-anxious undergraduates. Doctoral dissertation, Loyola University, Chicago
Babbie ER (1973) Survey research methods. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA
Bentler PM (1990) Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull 107:238–246
Bentler PM, Bonett DG (1980) Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol Bull 88:588–606
Beyer K (1991) Gender, science anxiety and learning style. Contributions to the sixth GASAT conference
Beyer K, Blegaa S, Olsen B, Reich J, Vedelsby M (1988) Piger og fysik (Females and physics. In Danish). IMFUFA Texts, Roskilde University Center, Roskilde, DK
Bollen KA (1989) Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley, New York
Breckler SJ (1984) Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinct components of attitude. J Pers Soc Psychol 47:1191–1205. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.47.6.1191
Brown TA (2006) Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford, New York
Browne MW, Cudeck R (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JS (eds) Testing structural equation models. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp 136–162
Brownlow S, Jacobi T, Rogers MI (2000) Science anxiety as a function of gender and experience. Sex Roles 42:119–131
Bryant FB, Yarnold PR (1995) Principal-components analysis and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In: Grimm LG, Yarnold PR (eds) Reading and understanding multivariate statistics. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp 99–136
Cattell RB (1966) The scree test for the number of factors. Multivar Behav Res 1:245–276
Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ
Converse JM, Presser S (1986) Survey questions: handcrafting the standardized questionnaire. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
Costello AB, Osborne JW (2005) Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting more from your analysis. Pract Assess Res Evaluation 10(7):1–9. Available online: http://www.pareonline.net/pdf/v10n7.pdf
Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334
Egelund N (2010) PISA-2009-undersøgelsen: en sammenfatning (“Investigation: a summary.” In Danish). http://www.dpu.dk/fileadmin/www.dpu.dk/omdpu/centerforgrundskoleforskning/internationaleundersoegelser/andreundersoegelser/pisa/om-dpu_institutter_center-for-grundskoleforskning_20101207110437_pixi.pdf
Fensham P, Gunstone R, White R (eds) (1994) The content of science: a constructivist approach to its teaching and learning. Falmer Press, London
Fraser B (1981) TOSRA: Test of science- related attitudes. The Australian Council for Educational Research LTD. http://www.ecu.edu/ncspacegrant/docs/RESTEPdocs/TOSRA_BJF_paper.pdf
Fuller R, Agruso S, Mallow J, Nichols D, Sapp R, Strassenburg A, Allen G (1985) Developing student confidence in physics. AAPT, College Park, MD
Gautreau R, Novemsky L (1997) Concepts first—a small group approach to physics learning. Am J Phys 65:418–429
Hake R (1998) Interactive engagement vs. traditional methods: a six-thousand student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am J Phys 66:64–74
Hake R, Mallow JV (2008) Gender issues in science/math education (GISME). Over 700 annotated references and 1000 URL’s: *Part 1—All references in alphabetical order, online as an 8.6 MB pdf at <http://bit.ly/gXdrvR>, *Part 2—Some references in subject order, online as an 4.9 MB pdf at <http://bit.ly/fBTzqV>
Halloun I (2001) Student views about science: a comparative survey. Educational Research Center, Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon. Online at http://modeling.la.asu.edu/R&E/IHalloun/VASS-2001Monograph.pdf
Harding S (1991) Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Open University Press, London
Hayton JC, Allen DG, Scarpello V (2004) Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: a tutorial on parallel analysis. Organ Res Methods 7:191–205
Hu L-T, Bentler PM (1998) Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol Methods 3:424–453
Jaccard J, Wan CK (1996) LISREL approaches to interaction effects in multiple regression. Series: quantitative applications in social sciences. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA
Jöreskog K, Sörbom D (1996) LISREL 8: user’s reference guide. Scientific Software International, Chicago
Kastrup H, Mallow JV (2007) Science anxiety in the Danish gymnasium. Danish Ministry of Education report
Keller EF (1985) Reflections on gender and science. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT
Kline RB (2010) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 3rd edn. Guilford Press, New York
Lorenzo M, Crouch CH, Mazur E (2006) Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom. Am J Phys 74:118–122
Mallow J (1978) A science anxiety program. Am J Phys 46:862
Mallow J (1986) Science anxiety: fear of science and how to overcome it. Revised edition. H & H Publications, Clearwater, FL
Mallow J (1993) The science learning climate: Danish female and male students’ descriptions. Proc. GASAT 7, 1, 78. Available from author
Mallow J (1994) Gender-related science anxiety: a first binational study. J Sci Educ Technol 3:227
Mallow J (1995) Students’ confidence and teachers’ styles: a binational comparison. Am J Phys 63:1007–1011
Mallow J (1998) Student attitudes and enrolments in physics, with emphasis on gender, nationality, and science anxiety. In: Jensen JH, Niss M, Wedege T (eds) Justification and enrollment problems in education involving mathematics or physics. Roskilde University Press, Roskilde, DK, pp 237–258
Mallow J (2007) Constructivism in physics education—philosophically problematic, but pedagogically successful. AGORA J Res Dev Idea Exchange. Copenhagen. Online at http://www.cvustork.dk/filer/agora106constructivisminphysicseducation.pdf
Mallow J, Kastrup H, Bryant FB, Hislop N, Shefner R, Udo M (2010) Science anxiety, science attitudes, and gender: interviews from a binational study. J Sci Educ Technol 19:356–369
Matthews M (2002) Constructivism and science education: a further appraisal. J Sci Educ Technol 11:121–134
McDermott L, Redish E (1999) Resource letter: PER-1: physics education research. Am J Phys 67:755–767
Mejding J (ed) (2004) PISA 2003—Danske unge i en international sammenligning (Danish youth in an international comparison). DPU forlag, Copenhagen
Mosier CI (1943) On the reliability of a weighted composite. Psychometrika 8:161–168
Murphy KR, Davidshofer CO (1988) Psychological testing: principles and applications. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Nunnally JC (1967) Psychometric theory (1st edn). McGraw-Hill, New York
Redish E, Steinberg R, Saul J (1998) Student expectations in introductory physics. Am J Phys 66:212–224. See also http://www.physics.umd.edu/perg/expects/index.html
Schuman H (2008) Method and meaning in polls and surveys. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Solomon J (1994) Constructivism and quality in science education. In: Poulsen AC (ed) Naturfagenes pædagogik (Pedagogy of the natural sciences). Gyldendal Press, Copenhagen, DK, pp 17–29
Steiger JH (1990) Structural model evaluation and modification: an interval estimation approach. Multivar Behav Res 25:173–180
Tucker LR, Lewis C (1973) A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika 38:1–10
Ucar S, Sanalan V (2011) How has reform in science teacher education programs changed preservice teachers’ views about science? J Sci Educ Technol 20:435–446
Udo MK, Ramsey GP, Reynolds-Alpert S, Mallow JV (2001) Does physics teaching affect gender-based science anxiety? J Sci Educ Technol 10:237–247
Udo MK, Ramsey GP, Reynolds-Alpert S, Mallow JV (2004) Science anxiety and gender in students taking general education science courses. J Sci Educ Technol 13:435–446
UN Division for the Advancement of Women & UNESCO, Paris (2010). Online at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/gst_2010/index.html
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1: Science Anxiety Questionnaire
The items in the questionnaire refer to things and experiences that may cause fear or apprehension. After each item, place a number that describes how much YOU ARE FRIGHTENED BY IT NOWADAYS.
Not at all | A little | A fair amount | Much | Very much |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
1. Learning how to convert Celsius to Fahrenheit degrees as you travel in Canada | ||||
2. In a Philosophy discussion group, reading a chapter on the Categorical Imperative and being asked to answer questions | ||||
3. Asking a question in a science class | ||||
4. Converting kilometers to miles | ||||
5. Studying for a midterm exam in Chemistry, Physics, or Biology | ||||
6. Planning a well balanced diet | ||||
7. Converting American dollars to English pounds as you travel in the British Isles | ||||
8. Cooling down a hot tub of water to an appropriate temperature for a bath | ||||
9. Planning the electrical circuit or pathway for a simple “light bulb” experiment | ||||
10. Replacing a bulb on a movie projector | ||||
11. Focusing the lens on your camera | ||||
12. Changing the eyepiece on a microscope | ||||
13. Using a thermometer in order to record the boiling point of a heating solution | ||||
14. You want to vote on an upcoming referendum on student activities fees, and you are reading about it so that you might make an informed choice | ||||
15. Having a fellow student watch you perform an experiment in the lab | ||||
16. Visiting the Museum of Science and Industry and being asked to explain atomic energy to a 12-year old | ||||
17. Studying for a final exam in English, History, or Philosophy | ||||
18. Mixing the proper amount of baking soda and water to put on a bee sting | ||||
19. Igniting a Coleman stove in preparation for cooking outdoors | ||||
20. Tuning your guitar to a piano or some other musical instrument | ||||
21. Filling your bicycle tires with the right amount of air | ||||
22. Memorizing a chart of historical dates | ||||
23. In a Physics discussion group, reading a chapter on Quantum Systems and being asked to answer some questions | ||||
24. Having a fellow student listen to you read in a foreign language | ||||
25. Reading signs on buildings in a foreign country | ||||
26. Memorizing the names of elements in the periodic table | ||||
27. Having your music teacher listen to you as you play an instrument | ||||
28. Reading the Theater page of Time magazine and having one of your friends ask your opinion on what you have read | ||||
29. Adding minute quantities of acid to a base solution in order to neutralize it | ||||
30. Precisely inflating a balloon to be used as apparatus in a Physics experiment | ||||
31. Lighting a Bunsen burner in the preparation of an experiment | ||||
32. A vote is coming up on the issue of nuclear power plants, and you are reading background material in order to decide how to vote | ||||
33. Using a tuning fork in an acoustical experiment | ||||
34. Mixing boiling water and ice to get water at 0 degrees Fahrenheit | ||||
35. Studying for a midterm in a History course | ||||
36. Having your professor watch you perform an experiment in the lab | ||||
37. Having a teaching assistant watch you perform an experiment in the lab | ||||
38. Focusing a microscope | ||||
39. Using a meat thermometer for the first time, and checking the temperature periodically till the meat reaches the desired “doneness” | ||||
40. Having a teaching assistant watch you draw in Art class | ||||
41. Reading the Science page of Time magazine and having one of your friends ask your opinion on what you have read | ||||
42. Studying for a final exam in Chemistry, Physics, or Biology | ||||
43. Being asked to explain the artistic quality of pop art to a third grader on a visit to the Art Museum | ||||
44. Asking a question in an English Literature class | ||||
Appendix 2: Science Attitudes Questionnaire
We refer to this in the text as the Constructivism Questionnaire, but did not do so here, since this is the version administered to the students.
Instructions. Please circle the number that best describes the degree with which you agree or disagree with each item below, using the following scale:
Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
1. Science reflects the social and political values, philosophical assumptions, and intellectual norms of the culture in which it is practiced | ||||
2. Science is a “level playing-field” in which men and women have equal status and opportunity | ||||
3. Tomorrow’s truths in science will be different from those of today | ||||
4. It is possible for two scientists to carefully perform the same experiment and get very different results, each of which is correct | ||||
5. Science has nothing to do with my life | ||||
6. Scientists agree on fundamental subjects like global warming, disposal of nuclear waste, and the use of stem cells | ||||
7. Science is by its nature hostile to women | ||||
8. Newton’s laws of motion may eventually be modified | ||||
9. Scientists’ ideas apply to some physical objects in the universe but not others | ||||
10. The difference in number of men and women scientists is primarily due to biological differences | ||||
11. The choice of topics for scientific research is affected by the views of the culture in which scientists work | ||||
12. There are no such things as objective facts | ||||
13. Science is boring | ||||
14. The difference in number of men and women scientists is primarily due to differences in opportunity | ||||
15. Science is inherently cold and unfriendly | ||||
16. Science is a conspiracy between governments and scientific agencies formed to keep ordinary people from taking part in the democratic process | ||||
17. Although interpretations can be ambiguous in things like personal relationships or poetry, in science the facts speak for themselves | ||||
18. Newer scientific theories build on their predecessors | ||||
19. Scientific experiments do not really discover “the laws of nature,” but instead let scientists find whatever they expect or want to find | ||||
20. Women have a harder time succeeding in science than men do | ||||
21. Modern scientists are responsible for most of the dangers in our world | ||||
22. Science is a mental representation constructed by the individual | ||||
23. When it comes to controversial topics such as which foods cause cancer, there’s no way for scientists to evaluate which scientific studies are the best: everything’s just a matter of opinion | ||||
24. Every scientific theory is eventually proved completely wrong, and must be discarded | ||||
25. The scientific view of the world is just an agreement among scientists | ||||
26. Despite what scientists would have us believe, science is actually subjective | ||||
27. Science transcends national, political, and cultural boundaries | ||||
28. Scientists don’t understand normal people | ||||
29. The natural world can best be explained through a combination of perspectives, including science, paranormal phenomena, and astrological horoscopes | ||||
30. The difference in number of men and women scientists is primarily due to individual choice | ||||
31. The scientific knowledge in use today may be obsolete tomorrow | ||||
32. Scientific laws work well in some situations but not in others | ||||
33. Current ideas about particles that make up the atom will always be maintained as they are | ||||
34. Objective facts are an illusion | ||||
35. I cannot fulfill my need for creativity within the closed framework of the natural sciences | ||||
36. Science is a naturally male field | ||||
37. Scientific theories are simply agreements among scientists | ||||
38. Current ideas about particles that make up the atom apply to physical objects everywhere in the universe | ||||
39. The reason fewer females than males choose careers in science is that women don’t want to be restricted to the narrow scientific way of understanding the world | ||||
40. The results of scientific research experiments are affected by the views of the culture in which scientists work | ||||
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bryant, F.B., Kastrup, H., Udo, M. et al. Science Anxiety, Science Attitudes, and Constructivism: A Binational Study. J Sci Educ Technol 22, 432–448 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9404-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9404-x