Elementary School Students Perceptions of the New Science and Technology

Curriculum by Gender
Mehmet Nuri Gmleksiz
Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Education, Firat University, Elazig, Turkey //
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to explore students perceptions of science and technology classes
by gender in a
Turkish elementary school context. Data for the study were collected through a 20-item, five-
point Likert scale
from a total of 1558 sixth-grade students at 20 different elementary schools in Turkey. The
independent groups
t-test and Mann-Whitney U test were used to analyze the data. Statistically significant
differences were observed
in the gender of the students. Male students considered learning science and technology more
necessary and
important than female students did. They also found learning environment and teaching
strategies more
sufficient and effective than females did. Findings revealed that male students were not satisfied
with what the
teachers practised in science classrooms. Additionally, some useful implications are discussed
based on the
research findings to construct and conduct science and technology classes effectively.
Keywords
Elementary schools, gender, science teaching, science curriculum, Science education, technology
education
Theoretical framework and background of study
In Turkey, curriculum development activities started with the foundation of the Modern Turkish
Republic in 1923.
Reforms of many curricula have been developed and implemented at schools so far (Gozutok,
2003; Basar, 2004;
Babadogan & Olkun, 2006). Turkey has always made major reforms in the area of curriculum
development at the
elementary school level to improve the quality of education, and a new elementary school
curriculum, including
science and technology, has been completely changed and implemented nationwide starting with
the 20052006
academic year. These changes included both the name and the content of the science courses,
and science
education was changed to science education and technology (Turkmen, 2006).
The aim of the new science and technology curriculum is to provide a student-centered learning
environment based
on a cognitive and constructivist learning approach instead of on a rigid and strict behavioral
approach. The
principles of multiple intelligences and active learning based on individual differences have also
been adopted with
the new science and technology curriculum. Students are expected to gain the following skills
that they previously
lacked: critical and creative thinking, communication, scientific research, problem solving, using
information
technologies, and entrepreneurship. Students are also expected to become science and
technology literate with the
new science and technology curriculum. They are required to understand the basic concepts of
science and
technology and to relate technological and scientific knowledge to each other and to the world
outside the school.
The increasingly complex changes in the nature and amount of knowledge and demands in the
field of science and
technology necessitate an understanding of how students perceive science and technology classes
in terms of their
gender. Differences in perceptions of science and technology between boys and girls have been
examined by many
scholars (Kahle, 1983; Raat & de Vries, 1985; Baker, 1987; Collis & Williams, 1987; Kurth,
1987; Piburn & Baker,
1989; Bame, Dugger, de Vries & McBee, 1993; Weinburgh, 1995; Speering & Rennie, 1996;
Baker, 1998; Francis &
Greer, 1999; Udo, Ramsey, & Mallow, 2005; Ogunjuyigbe, Ojofeitimi, & Akinlo, 2006). The
studies have reported
that male students have greater interest and achievement than female students in science and
technology.
Specifically, Boser, Palmer, and Daugherty, (1998) reported that female students consistently
perceived technology
to be less interesting than male students did. In other related studies, Jewett (1996) and
Silverman and Pritchard
(1993) found that technology, mathematics, and science are still considered nontraditional areas
for females and that
some societal perceptions and expectations contribute to womens reduced interest in these
fields. In fact, the most
striking difference between males and females in science is not in achievement or in
opportunities to learn, but in
confidence. Even when females have similar exposure to courses and a similar achievement
level, they are less
confident in their ability, feel less prepared, and lack interest in science and technology
(Lundeberg, Fox, &
Puncochar, 1994; Sax, 1995; Seymour & Hewitt, 1997).The results of several studies show that
the overall trend for
male students perceptions about the utility, necessity, and importance of science and technology
is positive (Kahle
& Lakes, 1983; Erickson & Erickson, 1984; Johnson, 1987; Meyer & Koehler, 1990; Erickson &
Farkas, 1991;
Greenfield, 1997; Jovanovich & King, 1998; Spall, Barrett, Stanistreet, Dickson & Boyles,
2003). This means that
117
male students have positive perceptions about science and technology classes. However, there
are some other studies
indicating that female students perceive the biology learning environment more favorably than
male students do
(Waxman & Huang; 1998; Dawson, 2000; Jones, Howe & Rua, 2000; Prokop, Tuncer & Chuda,
2007). Popham
(1994) suggests that even affective behaviors are acceptable to undergo far more sudden
transformations than
cognitive behaviors. It is also possible that if students have a tendency to act positively toward a
subject, for
example, science and technology, then students will have a greater interest in those subjects
(Krathwohl, Bloom, &
Bertram, 1964).
The studies have often investigated associations between student outcomes and the nature of the
classroom
environment and showed that the conditions of learning environment affect students beliefs and
success in science
and technology classes (Hofstein, Scherz, & Yager, 1986; Talton & Simpson, 1987). Educational
environments
enhance students learning and improve academic achievement (Massachusetts Department of
Education, 2006). A
well-designed learning environment aimed at providing effective instruction enriches learning
experiences as well.
Students should be aware of what they really need and what they should know. Just as learning
environment refers
to the factors that can affect a persons learning, social environment, which includes family
members and friends
in a wider context, affects the learner and shapes his/her learning. Therefore, students should be
provided a rich and
supportive learning environment. Effective teaching requires a combination of many factors,
including aspects of the
teachers background, and ways of interacting with others, as well as specific teaching practices.
Effective teachers
care about their students and demonstrate this care in such a way that their students are aware of
it. This care creates
a warm and supportive classroom environment (Stronge, 2002). Teachers have a profound effect
on student learning.
They can bring the real world to students through technology and can facilitate teaching
(Schroder, Scott, Tolson,
Huang, & Lee, 2007).
One of the primary reasons students fail in science is because they often have learning styles
significantly different
from those emphasized by most science courses (Felder, 1993). As individuals have different
preferences in giving
meanings and acquiring information, the ways in taking and processing information may vary
(Ylmaz-Soylu &
Akkoyunlu, 2009). While some prefer to work with concrete information, others are more
comfortable with
abstractions. Some learn better by visual presentations such as diagrams, flowcharts, and
schematics; others learn
more from verbal explanations (Felder & Spurlin, 2005). If students learning styles match the
teaching style of the
teacher, students will keep information longer and apply it more effectively (Felder, 1993).
Cooperative learning is one of the teaching strategies used effectively in science and technology
classes. In previous
studies, females rated cooperative school activities more positively than did males (Shwalb,
Shwalb, & Nakazawa,
1995; Ferreira, 2003). Owens and Straton (1980) found that girls prefer cooperation, open-ended,
and organized
activities, while boys prefer competition and individualism. By using cooperative learning
practices, learning is
maximized and both positive and productive interactions are provided between students of
different backgrounds
(Cabrera, Crissman, Bernal, Nora, & Pascarella, 2002). All these studies prove the importance of
designing effective
learning environments and using teaching strategies that will enhance students improvement in
science and
technology classes. Creating a student-centered, creative, and effective learning environment
allows students to
express themselves better and gives them the opportunity to understand themselves in terms of
strengths and
weaknesses when they study science and technology.
In brief, the educational contexts or curricular programs in which elementary school students
enroll play an
important role in their perceptions of learning science and technology. With the current study, it
was aimed to
determine how sixth-grade elementary school students perceived science and technology courses
and whether there
were any differences between their perceptions based on gender. This study outlines a
framework to describe the
variations of the perceptions of learning science and technology, consisting of the following
features: the need to see
science and technology as necessary and important, the learning environment involved, and
teaching strategies
employed. How to construct and conduct science and technology courses effectively and
sufficiently at the
elementary school level was also discussed.
Method
Purpose of study
The present study was an attempt to explore sixth-grade elementary school students opinions
about science and
technology courses implemented at 20 elementary schools in Elazig, Turkey. We aimed to see
whether there were
118
any statistically significant differences among elementary students views toward importance,
necessity, learning
environment of science and technology classes and teaching strategies of their science teachers
in terms of the gender
variable.
Population and sampling
The population of this study comprised sixth-grade students from 20 elementary schools in
Elazig, Turkey. The
stratified proportional random sampling procedure was used to select the schools. There are five
education zones in
the city. The schools were stratified on the basis of education zones and their socioeconomic
conditions. Then four
schools from each education zone were selected with three levels of socioeconomic status
reported by the National
Education Office. The sample consisted of 1,558 (925 male and 633 female) sixth-grade students
selected randomly
from those elementary schools. The simple random sampling procedure was used to select 318
students from each
elementary school. A total of 1,590 students participated in the study. However, out of these
1,590 students, 1,582
completed questionnaires. Of this total number, 24 were incomplete and were thus eliminated,
leaving a sample of
1,558 students. The gender composition of the respondents is 59.4 % male and 40.6% female.
Data collection and analysis
Data was generated from a questionnaire in which a five-point Likert scale was used. Students
were asked to rate
their opinions about the science and technology courses they were taking (Appendix A). The
survey, administered in
the classroom, included 20 items derived from the review of the relevant literature. In some
classes the researcher
administered the survey himself and in others, classroom teachers were trained to administer the
survey. In all cases,
the same procedures were followed. Students were reminded that their answers would remain
anonymous, and they
were asked to read the items carefully and answer honestly.
The survey, with responses of strongly agree, agree, partly agree, disagree, and strongly disagree,
was first piloted on
415 students for the factor-analysis process. The pilot participants were similar to the target
population in terms of
background. Factor analysis was used to examine the correlation between the items of each
subscale. Factor analysis
revealed four subscales, namely: importance, necessity, learning environment, and teaching
strategy.
Table 1.Cronbachs alpha reliability scores for each subscale
Subscales Item No
Importance 1, 3, 7, 11, 18 0.94
Necessity 2, 9, 10, 13, 14 0.94
Learning environment 4,5, 12, 15, 17 0.93
Teaching strategy 6, 8, 16, 19, 20 0.94
The internal reliability of the scale was calculated by using Cronbachs alpha formula, the
Spearman-Brown
reliability coefficient, and Guttmanns split-half technique. Cronbachs alpha for the importance
subscale ( = 0.94),
necessity subscale ( = 0.94), learning-environment subscale ( = 0.93), teaching-strategy
subscale ( = 0.94), and
overall scale ( = 0.98) showed satisfactory reliability because a Cronbachs alpha scale greater
than 0.70 was
considered acceptable for the internal reliability of the items associated with each proposed
factor (Hair, Anderson,
Tatham, & Black, 1995). For the whole sample, the Spearman-Brown reliability coefficient for
unequal lengths was
calculated to be 0.96, and Guttmanns split-half technique revealed a reliability coefficient of
0.96. The Kaiser-
MeyerOlkin measure of sampling adequacy of the scale was measured to be 0.97, and Bartletts
test was calculated
to be 37,063.668 (p < 0.05). According to the results obtained from the factor-analysis process,
the scale was found
to be valid and reliable. In a prior examination, when the distribution of the data was found to be
non-normal, the
non-parametric statistical technique Mann-Whitney U was used for testing gender differences.
When the distribution
of the data was found normal, the parametric statistical technique, the independent groups t-test,
was used. Results
with p < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
119
Results
The first analysis was to determine if any significant differences between the students views
existed on the
importance subscale.
Table 2. t-test results for gender on the importance subscale
Subscale Gender n X sd df t p
Importance Male 925 3.91 0.81 Female 633 3.66 0.76 1556 6.029* 0.000
*Significant at the 0.05 level
As shown in Table 2, statistically significant differences were found in terms of gender of the
students [t(1556) = 6.029,
p < 0.05]. A higher mean rating suggested that male students were more in agreement with the
importance of science
and technology courses than the female students were.
Table 3. Mann-Whitney U results for gender on the necessity subscale
Subscale Gender n Mean rank Sum of ranks MWU p
Necessity FMemaalele 693235 780331..6422 474659309638..0000 244732.0* 0.000
*Significant at the 0.05 level; Levene: 10.802, p < 0.05
Table 3 presents the summary of analysis Mann-Whitney U comparing the mean scores of the
male and female
students in terms of necessity of the science and technology classes. With regard to gender
differences, it appears
from the data that there was significant gender difference on the necessity to learn science and
technology (MWU =
244732.0, p < 0.05). The statistically significant difference between gender groups suggests that
male students had
higher mean scores than did female students. Male participants accepted the necessity of science
and technology
more than female students did.
Table 4. Mann-Whitney U results for gender on the learning environment subscale
Subscale Gender n Mean rank Sum of ranks MWU p
Learning
environment
Male 925 834.21 771644.50 242155.5* 0.000 Female 633 699.55 442816.50
*Significant at the 0.05 level Levene: 4.925, p < 0.05
Mann-Whitney U results in Table 3 revealed statistically significant differences between the
student groups in gender
(MWU = 242155.5, p < 0.05). The significant MWU value obtained for gender demonstrated
that female students
found the learning environment in science and technology classes less sufficient and effective
than did male students.
Table 5. t-test results for gender on the teaching strategy subscale
Subscale Gender n X sd df t p
Teaching strategy FMeamlea le 962353 33..8684 00..8706 1556 5.919* 0.000
*Significant at the 0.05 level
As illustrated in Table 5, t-test results revealed significant differences between male and female
students in terms of
teaching strategy of the science and technology teachers [t(1556) = 5.919, p < 0.05]. Female
participants tended to
adopt teaching strategies used in science and technology classes less efficiently and effectively
than did male
students.
Discussion
The quality of learning has always been one of the most important concerns in an educational
setting. Learning is a
complex activity, and several factors such as students perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes;
teaching resources;
teachers skill; curriculum; physical condition; and the design of the school facility should be
taken into
120
consideration in an educational setting. They all play a vital role in providing effective education
(Lyons, 2001). The
quality of learning experience can be understood through an investigation of how key factors of
the experience are
related. Key factors associated with the quality of the learning experience are how students
approach their learning
and what they think they actually learn from the experience (Ellis, 2004).
The present research evaluated and compared sixth-grade students perceptions of science and
technology classes at
20 different elementary schools in Turkey. The results of the present study show that six graders
perceptions of
science and technology classes differed significantly by gender. One of the most significant
conclusions to be drawn
from the findings was that male students were interested in science and technology classes more
than female students
were. The result derived from the findings of the current study is consistent with results from
previous research
(Erickson & Erickson, 1984; Johnson & Murphy, 1984; Simpson & Oliver, 1985; Johnson, 1987;
Becker, 1989;
Engstrom & Noonan, 1990; Greenfield, 1996; Lee & Burkam, 1996; Ding & Harskamp, 2006).
Statistically significant differences were found between male and female students toward the
importance of science
and technology classes. It means that the data supports the significance difference between male
and female students
perceptions toward the importance of science and technology. Male students considered science
and technology
classes more important and had a more positive tendency toward learning science and
technology than the female
students did. Gender issues have long been a topic of discussion and research in the field of
science and technology
education. Numerous studies have been conducted to explain gender differences in participation
and achievement in
science and technology. Studies show that many instructors base their expectations of student
performance on gender
factor as well as language proficiency, socioeconomic status, and prior achievement (Green,
1989). Leder (1989) in
particular has claimed that academic success in mathematics is associated mostly with males.
The results of other
studies clearly showed that male students consistently showed a higher interest and achievement
than females
(Johnson, 1987, Tobin & Garnett, 1987; Norman, 1988; Otto 1991; Meece & Holt 1993;
Trumper, 2006). Taking
these results into consideration, many science education programs have recently been developed
to increase girls
participation in science (Yanowitz & Vanderpool, 2004).
There was statistically significant difference between gender groups toward the necessity of
science and technology
classes. This finding indicates that male students found science and technology classes more
necessary than female
students did. This result is consistent with the findings by James & Smith (1985), Eccles (1989),
Linn & Hyde
(1989), Kahle & Meece (1994), and Catsambis (1995), who found that gender differences begin
to appear in the
middle grades and that the gender gap in science achievement increases between ages 9 and 13.
This result also
supports Yager & Yager (1985), Schibeci (1984), Greenfield (1996), Jovanovich & King (1998),
and Stake & Mares
(2001), who found that students begin to show differences for science in elementary and middle
school, and that girls
exhibit lower science achievement scores than boys do at the middle-school level.
Statistically significant differences were found between gender groups toward their perceptions
of learning
environment in science and technology classes. Female students found the learning environment
less sufficient and
effective than did male students. The quality of the learning environment is important to realize
effective learning,
and a well-designed learning environment both enhances students learning and leads to higher
learning
achievement. It not only depends on the design but also on how effectively it is delivered and
used because the
learning experience is directly influenced by the way the learning resource is delivered. To do
this, the learning
environment should be designed to promote relevant interaction between learner and learning
resources to achieve
the stated learning outcomes and to provide timely feedback to learners regarding their progress,
and should be
consistent with the most efficient and effective method to meet learning outcomes.
The findings of the present study imply that it is important to design learning environments in
such a way as to
facilitate and enhance science and technology learning. These are in line with the ideas of
contemporary learning
theorists such as Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989); Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobsen, and Coulson,
(1991); and Bereiter
and Scardamalia (1996). They believe that one of the key goals of instruction is to provide
opportunities for learners
to develop mastery in the areas they are each involved in. School facilities have also an effect on
student
performance. Recent studies that evaluated the relationship between school buildings and student
achievement found
higher test scores for students learning in better buildings and lower scores for students learning
in substandard
buildings. A recent report evaluating school facilities showed a difference in student test scores
ranging from 5 to 17
percentage points (Lyons, 2001).
121
A significant difference was found between the gender groups in terms of teaching strategy used
in science and
technology classes. Male students found teaching strategies more effective and sufficient while
female students
found them insufficient. Teaching strategy used in the classroom has a direct influence on how a
teacher manages the
classroom. Teachers must design teaching and learning strategies around students interest to
improve the quality of
the learning environment. For instance, the use of inquiry-based approaches in a science
classroom leads students to
understand the way science is authentically carried out. Many studies have proved that inquiry-
based science
activities have positive effects on student achievement, cognitive development, laboratory skills,
and the
understanding of science content when compared with traditional approaches (Burkam, Lee, &
Smerdon, 1997;
Freedman, 1997).
Effective use of teaching strategies encourages students in a positive and supportive manner and
helps them
participate actively in the teaching-learning environment. Both a growing student population and
student diversity
require changes in how students are taught. As Labudde, Herzog, Neuenschwander, Violi, &
Gerber (2000) stressed,
strategies should include opportunities to integrate different pre-existing knowledge and the
variation of teaching
methods to enhance cooperation and communication in the classroom. Because each student
learns in different way
and has his/her own learning style, an approach that is appropriate for one student may be
inappropriate for another.
While some students learn better in a group through interaction with both the teacher and other
students, others may
find interaction difficult and use the group sessions for gathering information. They learn only
when they are on their
own. Some learn by reading and listening, while others learn through the application of the
knowledge gained.
Teachers should concentrate on such differences and enrich the learning environment by
providing a variety of
learning activities so that students can learn in a manner appropriate to themselves (Reece &
Walker, 1997).
Therefore, it is vital that teachers guide their students to actively participate in the learning
environment.
Conclusion and recommendations
The findings of this study are subject to two limitations. First, the data apply only to the 1,558
sixth graders who
attended 20 different elementary schools in Turkey. Second, the findings cannot be generalized
to evaluate the
overall effectiveness of the science and technology classes in elementary schools throughout
Turkey. This is not
because this particular region in Turkey is extremely different from other regions. The particular
research region was
chosen because the researcher works there. Because the sample was selected by stratified
proportional random
sampling procedure, it represents the city that was investigated. Despite limited generalizability,
this study represents
an attempt to understand student perceptions of their science and technology classes in terms of
the gender variable.
The results from this study identified areas of strengths and weaknesses within elementary
schools science and
technology classes from students perspectives.
Science teachers should concentrate on authentic activities. The learning subject taught in the
activity must suit
students ages, interests, expectations, and environment. Students must be able to use what they
learned in science
classes. Teachers should not be dependent on the textbooks strictly to provide a more flexible
learning environment.
They should sometimes feel free to adapt textbook activities and avoid mechanical activities. To
achieve this,
diversity of activities is needed. The activities should be performed in pair or group work so that
the students can
build a cooperative learning environment. Research results have shown that cooperative
activities facilitated more
active roles and enhanced students learning (Baker, 1990; Meyer, 1998; Bilgin & Geban, 2004,
Akgz & Gven,
2007). Students learn better in a group through interaction with both the teacher and other
students. Grouping for
cooperative learning activities based on gender may lead students to learn better and promote
positive attitudes.
Mixed-gender groups in particular show better achievement and improvement. So, the different
learning and
motivational styles of males and females should be taken into consideration (Kemp, 2005).
Research studies have
confirmed that females focus on completing a task correctly whereas males are often more
motivated to be better
than everyone else at completing a task (Rogers et al., as cited in Kemp, 2005). Females may
have a fear of making
mistake under the pressure of a difficult task and may withdraw from the activity. But
performing a difficult task
may motivate males (Dai, 2000).
In determining the design of the learning environment, the importance of a variety of learning
activities for students
should be taken into consideration. The teachers should implement learning strategies that will
encourage female
students to engage in science and technology classes and to narrow the gap between male and
female students for
participating in teaching-learning activities. Previous studies showed that psychosocial climate
and physical
122
conditions of a learning environment have an important effect on students outcomes (Fraser,
Williamson, & Tobin,
1987; Lawrenz, 1987; Talton & Simpson, 1987; Schibeci, Rideng & Fraser, 1987; Fraser, 1998;
Panagiotopoulou,
Christoulas, Papanckolaou, & Mandroukas, 2004). The teaching-learning activities in science
and technology classes
should be purposeful and meaningful. Students should be given convincing reasons for doing the
activity, and they
should know what they would have achieved upon completion of the activity. Students should
not only be physically
active but also mentally active in the learning process (Babadogan & Olkun, 2006).
The findings of this research reveal that science and technology teaching in Turkish elementary
schools needs a
radical overhaul to attract students interest and increase participation in science and technology
classes. The results
of the current study confirm the earlier findings that there are gender differences in science and
technology
achievement. Understanding some of the concerns of elementary school students with regard to
science and
technology teaching might help curriculum designers and teachers, as practitioners, modify or
change existing
programs to meet the requirements of the students and of the content area. Although the results
of this study provide
information about the perceptions of students on science and technology classes, additional
research is needed to
better understand how the science and technology curriculum is implemented and whether it is
conducted effectively
and sufficiently.
References
Akgz, K. ., & Gven, H. (2007). The effects of cooperative learning and concept mapping
on learning strategy use.
Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 7(1), 95127.
Babadogan, C., & Olkun, S. (2006). Program development models and reform in Turkish
primary school mathematics curriculum.
International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Retrieved December 17, 2006,
from
http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal/default.htm
Baker, D. R. (1987). Sex differences in classroom interactions in secondary science. The Journal
of Classroom Interaction, 22(2),
612.
Baker, D. R. (1990, April). Gender differences in science: Where they start and where they go
(part II). Paper presented at the
Meeting of the National Association for Science Teaching and Research, Atlanta, GA.
Baker, D. R. (1998). Equity issues in science education. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.),
International handbook of research in
science education (pp. 869896). Amsterdam: Kluwer.
Bame, A. E., Dugger, W. E., de Vries, M., & McBee, J. (1993). Pupils attitudes toward
technology, PATT-USA. Journal of
Technology Studies, 19(1), 4048.
Basar, E. (2004). Milli egitim bakanlarnn egitim faaliyetleri (19201960). (Educational
activities of ministries of national
education). Istanbul, Turkey: Devlet Kitaplari Mudurlugu.
Becker, B. J. (1989). Gender and science achievement: A reanalysis of studies from two
metaanalyses. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 26(2), 141169.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1996). Rethinking learning. In D. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.),
Handbook of education and
human development: New models of learning, teaching and schooling (485513). Cambridge,
MA: Basil Blackwell.
Bilgin, ., & Geban, . (2004). Investigating the effects of cooperative learning strategy and
gender on pre-service elementary
teacher students attitude toward science and achievement of science teaching class I. Hacettepe
University Journal of Education,
26, 918.
Boser, R. A., Palmer, J. D., & Daugherty, M. K. (1998). Students attitudes toward technology in
selected technology education
programs. Journal of Technology Education, 10(1), 426.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-
42.
Burkam, D. T., Lee, V. T., & Smerdon, B.A. (1997). Gender and science learning early in high
school: Subject matter and
laboratory experiences. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 297331.
Cabrera, A.F., Crissman, J.L., Bernal, E.M., Nora, A.P.T., & Pascarella, E.T. (2002).
Collaborative learning: Its impact on college
students development and diversity. Journal of College Student Development, 43(2), 2034.
Catsambis, S. (1995). Gender, race, ethnicity, and science education in the middle grades.
Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 32(3), 243257.
Collis, B., & Williams, R. (1987). Cross-cultural comparison of gender differences in
adolescents attitudes toward computers and
selected school subjects. The Journal of Educational Research, 81(1), 1727.
123
Dai, D. Y. (2000). To be or not to be (challenged), That is the question: Task and ego
orientations among high-ability, highachieving
adolescents. The Journal of Experimental Education, 68(4), 311330.
Dawson, C. (2000). Upper primary boys and girls interests in science: Have they changed since
1980? International Journal of
Science Education, 22(6), 557570.
Ding, N., & Harskamp, E. (2006). How partner gender influences female students problem
solving in physics education. Journal
of Science Education and Technology, 15(56), 331343.
Eccles, J. (1989). Bringing young women to math and science. In M. Crawford & M. Gentry
(Eds.), Gender and thought:
Psychological perspectives (pp. 36 58). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Ellis, R. A. (2004). University student approaches to learning science through writing.
International Journal of Science
Education, 26(15), 18351853.
Engstrom, J., & Noonan, R. (1990). Science achievement and attitudes in Swedish schools.
Studies in Educational Evaluation, 16,
443456.
Erickson, G., & Erickson, L. (1984). Females and science achievement: Evidence, explanations
and implications. Science
Education, 68(2), 6389.
Erickson, G., & Farkas, S. (1991). Prior experience and gender differences in science
achievement. The Alberta Journal of
Educational Research, 37, 225239.
Felder, R. M. (1993). Reaching the second tier: Learning and teaching styles in college science
education. Journal of College
Science Teaching, 23(5), 286290.
Felder, R. M., & Spurlin, J. (2005). Applications, reliability and validity of the index of learning
styles. International Journal of
Engineering Education, 21(1), 103112.
Ferreira, M. M. (2003). Gender issues related to graduate student attrition in two science
departments. International Journal of
Science Education, 25(8), 969989.
Francis, L. J., & Greer, J. E. (1999). Attitude toward science among secondary school pupils in
Northern Ireland: Relationship
with sex, age and religion. Research in Science and Technological Education, 17(1), 6774.
Fraser, B. J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and
applications. Learning Environment
Research, 1(1), 733.
Fraser, B. J., Williamson, J. C., & Tobin, K. (1987). Use of classroom and school climate scales
in evaluating alternative high
schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 219231.
Freedman, M. P. (1997). Relationships among laboratory instruction, attitudes toward science,
and achievement in science
knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(4), 343357.
Gozutok, F. D. (2003). Trkiyede program gelitirme almalar (Curriculum development
studies in Turkey). Milli Egitim, 160.
Green, M. F. (Ed.). (1989). Minorities on campus: A handbook for enriching diversity,
Washington, DC: American Council on
Education.
Greenfield, T. A. (1996). Gender, ethnicity, science achievement, and attitudes. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 33(8),
901933.
Greenfield, T. A. (1997). Gender-and grade-level differences in science interest and
participation. Science Education, 81(3), 259
276.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis
with readings. New York: Prentice-
Hall.
Hofstein, A., Scherz, Z., & Yager, R. E. (1986). What students say about science teaching,
science teachers and science classes in
Israel and the U.S. Science Education, 70, 2130.
James, R. K., & Smith, S. (1985). Alienation of students from science in grades 412. Science
Education, 69(1), 3945.
Jewett, T. (1996). And they is us: Gender issues in the instruction of science. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED
402202).
Johnson, S. (1987). Gender differences in science: Parallels in interest, experience and
performance. International Journal of
Science Education, 9(4), 467481.
Johnson, S., & Murphy, P. (1984). The underachievement of girls in physics: Toward
explanations. European Journal of Science
Education, 4(4), 399409.
Jones, M. G., Howe, A., & Rua, M. J. (2000). Gender differences in students experiences,
interests, and attitudes toward science
and scientists. Science Education, 84(2), 180192.
Jovanovic, J., & King, S.S. (1998). Boys and girls in the performance-based science classroom:
Whos doing the performing?
American Educational Research Journal, 35, 477496.
124
Kahle, J. B. (1983). The disadvantaged majority: Science education for women. Association for
the Education of Teachers in
Science, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 242 561).
Kahle, J. B., & Lakes, M. K. (1983). The myth of equality in science classrooms. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 20,
131140.
Kahle, J.B., & Meece, J. (1994). Research on gender issues in the classroom. In D. Gable (Ed.),
Handbook of research on science
teaching (pp.542557). New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
Kemp, R. L. (2005). The impact of gender-specific and mixed-gender cooperative groups on
female gifted students using
computer-assisted, problem-based learning. Action Research Exchange, 4(1). Retrieved
November 12, 2010, from
http://teach.valdosta.edu/are/vol4no1/pdf/KempRArticle.pdf
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Bertram, B. M. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives:
Handbook II affective domain.
New York: David McKay Company, Inc.
Kurth, K. (1987). Factors which influence a females decision to remain in science (Exit Project
S 591). Indiana University, South
Bend, IN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 288 739).
Labudde, P., Herzog, W., Neuenschwander, M. P., Violi, E., & Gerber, C. (2000). Girls and
physics: Teaching and learning
strategies tested by classroom interventions in grade 11. International Journal of Science
Education, 22(2), 143157.
Lawrenz, F. (1987). Gender effects for student perception of the classroom psychosocial
environment. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 24(8), 689697.
Leder, G. C. (1989). Mathematics learning and socialisation processes. In L. Burton (Ed.), Girls
into maths can go, (pp. 7789).
London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Lee, V. E., & Burkam, D. T. (1996). Gender differences in middle grade science achievement:
Subject domain, ability level, and
course emphasis. Science Education, 80(6), 613650.
Linn, M., & Hyde, J. (1989). Gender mathematics and science. Educational Researcher, 18(8),
1727.
Lundeberg, M., Fox, P. & Puncochar, J. (1994). Highly confidant but wrong: Gender differences
and similarities in confidence
judgements. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 114121.
Lyons, J. B. (2001). Do school facilities really affect a childs education? Retrieved December
15, 2006, from
http://www.cefpi.org/pdf/issue14.pdf
Massachusetts Department of Education (2006). Massachusetts Science and
Technology/Engineering Curriculum Framework.
Retrieved December 18, 2006, from http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/scitech/1006.pdf
Meece, J. L., & Holt, K. (1993). A pattern analysis of students achievement goals. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 85(4),
582590.
Meyer, K. (1998). Reflections on being female in school science: Toward a praxis of teaching
science. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 35(4), 463471.
Meyer, M., & Koehler, M. S. (1990). Internal influences on gender differences in mathematics.
In E. Fennema & G. Leder (Eds.),
Mathematics and gender (pp. 6095). New York: Teachers College Press.
Norman, C. (1988). Math education: A mixed picture. Science, 241(4864), 408409.
Ogunjuyigbe, P. O., Ojofeitimi, E. O., & Akinlo, A. (2006). Science education in Nigeria: An
examination of peoples perceptions
about female participation in science, mathematics and technology. Journal of Science Education
and Technology, 15(34), 277
284.
Otto, P. B. (1991). One science. One sex? School Science and Mathematics, 91(8), 367372.
Owens, L., & Straton, R. (1980). The development of a cooperative, competitive, and
individualized learning preference scale for
students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 50, 14763.
Panagiotopoulou, G., Christoulas, K., Papanckolaou, A., & Mandroukas, K. (2004). Classroom
furniture dimensions and
anthropometric measures in primary school. Applied Ergonomics, 35(2), 121128.
Piburn, M., & Baker, D. (1989). Sex differences in formal reasoning ability: Task and
interviewer effects. Science Education, 73,
101113.
Popham, W. (1994). Educational assessment's lurking lacuna: The measure of affect. Education
and Urban Society, 26 (4), 404
416.
Prokop, P., Tuncer, G., & Chuda, J. (2007). Slovakian students attitudes toward biology.
Euroasia Journal of Mathematics,
Science & Technology Education, 3(4), 287295.
Raat, J. H., & de Vries, M. (1985). What do 13-year old students think about technology? The
conception of and the attitude
towards technology of 13-year old girls and boys. Eindhoven University of Technology, The
Netherlands. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 262998).
125
Reece, I., & Walker, S. (1997). Teaching, training and learning: A practical guide (3rd ed.).
Sunderland, England: Business
Education Publishers.
Sax, L. J. (1995). Predicting gender and major-field differences in mathematical self-concept
during college. Journal of Women
and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 1, 291307.
Schibeci, R. A. (1984). Attitudes to science: An update. Studies in Science Education, 11, 2659.
Schibeci, R. A., Rideng, I. M., & Fraser, B. J. (1987). Effects of classroom environment on
science attitudes: A cross-cultural
replication in Indonesia, International Journal of Science Education, 9, 169186.
Schroeder, C. M., Scott, T. P., Tolson, H., Huang, T. Y., & Lee, Y. H. (2007). A metaanalysis of
national research: Effects of
teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 44(10),
14361460.
Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the
sciences. Colorado: Westview Press.
Shwalb, D. W., Shwalb, B. J., & Nakazawa, J. (1995). Competitive and cooperative attitudes: A
longitudinal survey of Japanese
adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15(1), 145168.
Silverman, S., & Pritchard, A. (1993). Guidance, gender equity and technology education.
(ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 362-651).
Simpson, R.D., & Oliver, J.S. (1985). Attitude toward science and achievement motivation
profiles of male and female science
students in grade six through ten. Science Education, 69, 511526.
Spall, K., Barrett, S., Stanistreet, M, Dickson, D., & Boyles, E. (2003). Undergraduates views
about biology and physics.
Research in Science and Technological Education, 21(2), 193208
Speering, W., & Rennie, L. (1996). Students perceptions about science: the impact of transition
from primary to secondary
school. Research in Science Education, 26(3), 283298.
Spiro, R, J., Feltovich, P., Jacobsen, M., & Coulson, R. L. (1991). Cognitive flexibility,
constructivism, and hypertext: Random
access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational
Technology, 31(5), 2433.
Stake, J.E., & Mares, K.R. (2001). Science enrichment programs for gifted high school girls and
boys: Predictors of program
impact on science confidence and motivation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(10),
1065-1088.
Stronge, J. H. (2002). Qualities of effective teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Talton, E. L., & Simpson, R. D. (1987). Relationships of attitude toward classroom environment
with attitude toward and
achievement in science among tenth-grade biology students. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 24(6), 507525.
Tobin, K., & Garnett, P. (1987). Gender related differences in science activities. Science
Education, 71(1), 91103.
Trumper, R. (2006). Factors affecting junior high school students interest in physics. Journal of
Science Education and
Technology, 15(1), 4758.
Turkmen, H. (2006). Exploring Turkish science education faculties understanding of
educational technology and use.
International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 2(2), 6981.
Udo, M. K., Ramsey, G. P., & Mallow, J. V. (2005). Science anxiety and gender in students
taking general education science
courses. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(4), 435446.
Waxman, H. C., & Huang, S. L. (1998). Classroom learning environments in urban elementary
middle and high schools. Learning
Environments Research, 1(1), 95113.
Weinburgh, M. (1995). Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: A metaanalysis of
the literature from 1970 to
1991. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 387398.
Yager, R. E., & Yager, S. O. (1985). Changes in perceptions of science for third, seventh, and
eleventh grade students. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 22(4), 347358.
Yanowitz, K. L., & Vanderpool, S. S. (2004). Assessing girls reactions to science workshops.
Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 13(3), 353359.
Ylmaz-Soylu, M., & Akkoyunlu, B. (2009). The effect of learning styles on achievement in
different learning environments. The
Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 8(4), 4350.