Advertisement

Explicit and Implicit Measures of Teacher Attitudes Towards Science and Technology

  • Eddie Denessen
  • Nienke Vos
  • Tom Damen
  • Severine Koch
  • Monika Louws
  • Daniël Wigboldus
Part of the International Technology Education Studies book series (ITES, volume 9)

Abstract

In this chapter, teacher attitudes towards science and technology and the way these attitudes can be accessed in empirical research are discussed. The study of teacher attitudes towards science and technology is highly relevant, since teacher attitudes seem strong predictors of the quality of their teaching and of student attitudes and performance (Osborne, Simon, & Collins, 2003).

Keywords

Teaching Science Gender Stereotype Implicit Association Test Primary Teacher Questionnaire Rating 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Atwater, M.M., Gardner, C., & Kight, C.R. (1991). Beliefs and attitudes of urban primary teachers toward physical science and teaching physical science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 3, 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berliner, D.C. (2004). Describing the behavior and documenting the accomplishments of expert teachers. Technology & Society, 24, 200–212.Google Scholar
  3. Bitner, B. (1994). Revised Science Attitude Scale for preservice elementary teachers: re-examined. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Anaheim, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. Bleicher, R.E. (2007). Nurturing confidence in preservice elementary science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 841–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brandell, G., Nyström, P., Sundqvist, C. (2004). Mathematics – a Male Domain? Paper presented at ICME 10, Topic Study Group 26, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  6. Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1970). Teachers’ communication of differential expectations for children’s classroom performance - Some behavioral data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 365-374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coulson, R. (1992). Development of an instrument for measuring attitudes of early childhood educators towards science. Research in Science Education, 22, 101–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Donaghue, H. (2003). An instrument to elicit teachers’ beliefs and assumptions. ELT Journal, 57, 344– 351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Forgasz, H.J., Leder, G.C., and Gardner, P.L. (1999). The Fennema-Sherman Mathematics as a Male Domain scale re-examined. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 342–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gardner, P. (1995). Measuring attitudes to science: unidimensionality and internal consistency revisited. Research in Science Education, 25, 283–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gawronski, B., LeBel, E.P., & Peters, K.R. (2007). What do implicit measures tell us? Scrutinizing the validity of three common assumptions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 181–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hofmann, W., Gawronski, B., Gschwendner, T., Le, H., & Schmitt, M. (2005). A meta-analysis on the correlation between the Implicit Association Test and explicit self-report measures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1369–1385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jarvis, T., & Pell, A. (2004). Primary teachers' changing attitudes and cognition during a two-year science in-service programme and their effect on pupils. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1787–1811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnston, J., & Ahtee, M. (2006). Comparing primary student teachers' attitudes, subject knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge needs in a physics activity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 503–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jussim, L., & Harber, K. D. (2005). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies: Knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 131–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nosek, B.A. (2007). Implicit-explicit relations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 65–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nosek, B.A., Banaji, M.R., & Greenwald, A.G. (2002). Math = male, me = female. Therefore math ≠ me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 44–59.Google Scholar
  19. Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: II. Method variables and construct validity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 166–180.Google Scholar
  20. Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Sriram, N., Lindner, N. M., Devos, T., Ayala, A., et al. (2009). National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 10593–10597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. OECD. (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  22. Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1049–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2004). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity (unpublished manuscript). Yale University: New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
  24. Rosenthal, R. (1994). Interpersonal expectancy effects - a 30-year perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 176–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Education Review, 57, 1–22.Google Scholar
  26. Schwarz, N. (2008). Attitude measurement. In: W. D. Crano& R. Prislin (Eds.), Attitudes and attitude change (pp. 41–60). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  27. Shrigley, R. L. (1973). The correlation of science attitude and science knowledge of preservice elementary teachers. Paper presented at the Annual convention of the national science teachers association.Google Scholar
  28. Tiedemann, J. (2000). Gender-related beliefs of teachers in elementary school mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41, 191–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tosun, T. (2000). The beliefs of preservice elementary teachers toward science and science teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 100, 374–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Van Aalderen-Smeets, S.I., Walma van der Molen, J.H., & Asma, L.J.F. (2011). Primary teachers’ attitudes towards science: A new theoretical framework. Science Education. doi: 10.1002/sce.20467.Google Scholar
  31. Van den Bergh, L., Denessen, E., Hornstra, L., Voeten, M., & Holland, R. W. (2010). The implicit prejudiced attitudes of teachers: Relations to teacher expectations and the ethnic achievement gap. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 497–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Walma van der Molen, J. (2009). Wat vinden leraren basisonderwijs van wetenschap en techniek? [What do primary teachers think of science and technology?]. In H. van Keulen & J. Walma van der Molen (Eds.), Onderzoek naar wetenschap en techniek in het Nederlandse basisonderwijs [Research into science and technology in Dutch primary education] (pp. 157–163). The Hague, The Netherlands: Platform Bèta Techniek.Google Scholar
  33. Walma van der Molen, J., Lange, J. de, & Kok, J. (2009). Theoretische uitgangspunten bij de professionalisering van leraren basisonderwijs op het gebied van wetenschap en techniek [Theoretical considerations for the professionalisation of primary school teachers in science and technology]. In H. van Keulen & J. Walma van der Molen (Eds.), Onderzoek naar wetenschap en techniek in het Nederlandse basisonderwijs [Research into science and technology in Dutch primary education] (pp. 29-40). The Hague, The Netherlands: Platform Bèta TechniekGoogle Scholar
  34. Wigboldus, D. (2003). A Single Target IAT: Method. Retrieved 15 september 2010 fromhttp://www.unibielefeld.de/psychologie/ae/AE05/LEHRE/SS2004/Urteilsbildung/WigboldusSTIAT.pdf

Copyright information

© Sense Publishers 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eddie Denessen
  • Nienke Vos
    • 1
  • Tom Damen
    • 2
  • Severine Koch
    • 3
  • Monika Louws
    • 4
  • Daniël Wigboldus
    • 5
  1. 1.Radboud University NijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Radboud University NijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Radboud University NijmegenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Radboud University NijmegenThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Radboud University NijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations