Validation of an adapted instrument to measure students’ attitude towards science

Science education is an area of national interest in many countries all around the world. One of the major concerns in science education is attitude towards science (ATS). It is because ATS plays an important role in determining students’ science achievement (Osborne, Simon, & Collin, 2003; Simpson & Oliver 1990; Zhang & Cambell, 2010). Therefore, many studies have been carried out to measure students’ ATS. Meanwhile, various ATS instruments have been developed based on different thereotical and cultural systems. However, there are two major limitations: (a) the concept of attitude is not well articulated and (b) the ATS measures often have poor psychometric quality (Munby, 1997; Francis & Greer, 1999; Kind, Jones, & Barmby, 2007; Reid, 2006). There has been a lack of clarity over the last few decades about “attitude” and “ATS” (Kind, Jones & Barmby, 2007; Osborne, Simon, & Collins, 2003). According to Wang and Berlin (2010), many definitions of ATS have been defined in variety ways. This is an problematic issue as poorly defined ATS makes what is being measured is ambiguous. Subsequently, this reduce the construct validity of the instrument, the degree to which instrument is able to measure constructs accurately (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2009). A good instrument should exhibit sufficient evidence of validity and reliability. ATS instrument with poor psychometric properties yields invalid information.

On the other hand, existing ATS instruments are developed based on different cultural systems and mainly involved students from western countries. Due to the different cultural systems, it is problematic to implement those ATS instruments directly in Malaysia, a country in Asian region (Pell & Manganye, 2007). To date, there appear to be no ATS instrument with sufficient psychometric properties that are appropriate to be used in the context of Malaysia. Therefore, it is important to have a valid instrument to measure students’ ATS that is relevance to the science education system in Malaysia. Thus, this study aims to validate an ATS instrument in the context of Malaysia.

Significant of the study

The findings of this study would bear significant implication to provide a valid and reliable ATS measure. As ATS is the cornerstone of science learning, it is important that valid and reliable instruments are available for revealing students’ ATS. A valid and reliable ATS measure provides valuable information about what actually students think and feel about science. This might help educators to pinpoint the attributes that contribute to the decreasing of the number of students studying in science. In turn, it might improve students’ ATS, increase their engagement in science related learning activities and their science achievement.

Literature Review

Attitude towards Science (ATS)
Attitude is a unique concept which has different domains (Zhang & Campbell, 2010) In general, it is defined based on three components: (a) cognitive, affective, and behavioral (Reid, 2006). These three components are closely linked together (Kind, Jones, & Barmby, 2007). For example, a person has the knowledge about science (cognitive), he/she has feeling about science (affective). This feeling triggers him/her to take some actions regarding science (behavioral). However, some researchers have argued that these three components should be assessed independently and attitude should be viewed as the basis for evaluative judgments (Ajzen, 2001; Crano & Prislin, 2006). When a person has the attitude towards something, he/she judges it with his/her feelings, such as good or bad, happy or unhappy. The one he/she judges is often called the attitude object (Crano & Prislin, 2006). On the other word, when he/she is asked about his/her attitude towards an object, he/she is actually asked to judge the object.

However, it is very hard to separate and distinguish affective and cognitive domains (George, 2000; Kind, Jones, & Barmby, 2007). This is because affective component is always linked to cognitive component which is the belief that a person holds (Klopfer, 1971). Hence, Kind, Jones, and Barmby (2007) had defined attitude as “the feelings that a person has about an object, based on his/her beliefs about the object” (p. 873). Meanwhile, according to Sax (1997), attitude is a preference for groups, institutions or objects. It is a tendency to think, feel or act towards objects in people surrounding, that can be positive or negative (Oluwatelure & Oloruntegbe, 2010; Salta & Tzougraki, 2004). In science education, ATS could refer science as an object. Thus, ATS could be defined as a person’s preference and belief about science that affect his/her tendency of thinking, feelings, and action towards science. In line with the previous studies, in this study, attitude is defined as “the tendency of thinking, feelings, and actions that a person has about science, based on his/her belief and preference about science that can be positive or negative.”

Klopfer (1971) had made notable contribution in ATS related studies. He had categorized a ATS classification which consists of six subcategories:

(a) The manifestation of favorable ATS and scientist.
(b) The acceptance of scientific enquiry as a way of thought.
(c) The adoption of scientific attitudes.
(d) The enjoyment of science learning experiences.
(e) The development of interests in science and science-related activities.
(f) The development of an interest in pursuing a career in science or science-related work.

Although this classification does not pretend to be a complete taxonomy of the affective domain, it would be desirable to have such taxonomy as it concerns students’s learning in science (Klopfer, 1971). Based on Klopfer’s classification, Fraser (1981) had developed a a Test of Science-Related Attitude (TOSRA), which consists of seven constructs, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Constructs of TOSRA based on Klopfer’s Classification

Scale Name	Klopfer’s Classification (1971)
Social Implications of Science (S)	H.1: Manifestation of favorable attitude towards science and scientists.
Normality of Scientist (N)
Attitude to Scientific Inquiry (I)	H.2: Acceptance of scientific inquiry as a way of thought.
Adoption of Scientific Attitude (A)	H.3: Adoption of “scientific attitude”.
Enjoyment of Science Lessons (E)	H.4: Enjoyment of science learning experiences.
Leisure Interest in Science (L)	H.5: Development of interest in science and science-related activities.
Career Interest in Science (C)	H.6: Development of interest in pursuing a career in science.

On the other hand, Osborne, Simon, and Collins (2003) proposed several ATS dimensions: the perception of the science teacher; anxiety toward science; the value of science; self-esteem at science; motivation towards science, enjoyment of science; attitudes of peers and friends towards science; attitudes of parents towards science; the nature of the classroom environment; achievement in science; and fear of failure on course. Besides, Kind, Jones, and Barmby (2007) had categorized ATS into seven constructs, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. ATS Framework by Kind, Jones, and Barmby (2007)

Construct	Scope
(1) Learning science in school	ATS learning activities inside the classroom
(2) Practical work in science	ATS learning activities inside the practical classroom
(3) Science outside of school	ATS learning activities outside the classroom
(4) Importance of science	Belief in value of science in a wider social context
(5) Self-concept in science	Self-concept which based on beliefs about one’s own ability to master school science
(6) Future participation in science	Attitude towards involving more with science in the future career
(7) Combined interest in science	Combination of (1) learning science in school, (3) science outside of school, and (6) future participation in science.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework of this study begins with Krathwohl’s taxonomy that encompasses behaviors characterized by feelings and emotions (Hopkins, 1998; Sax, 1997). Krathwohl’s taxonomy has been published by Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom, and Bertram Masia in 1964 (Sax, 1997). According to Hopkins (1998), Krathwohl’s taxonomy is a useful general framework that is helpful in organizing assessment of affective educational objectives. Affective domain encompasses those behaviors characterized by feelings, emotions, or value that might be positive or negative (Sax, 1997). Affective domain measures students’ attitudes, values, interests, and feelings (Popham, 2000). Five levels in Krathwohl’s taxonomy are: (1) Receiving , (2) Responding, (3) Valuing, (4) Organization, and (5) Characterization by a value (Lynch et al., 2009; Olubor & Ogonor, 2007).

Receiving is the lowest level in Krathwohl’s taxonomy. This level is concerning about students’ sensitivity to a particular phenomenon and stimulus (Popham, 2000). As supported by Pang and Lajium (2008), it is a level when student is willing to receive or attend to the existence of certain phenomena and stimuli. This level is divided into three subdivisions that indicate different levels of attending, which are awareness, willingness to receive, and controlled or selected attention (Hopkins, 1998). Awareness, the lowest subdivision under receiving, presumes minimum consciousness or knowledge (Hopkins, 1998). For example, a student has consciousness about the advantages of science. The second subdivision is willingness to receive. It means that instead of simply being aware of the object, willing to tolerate and does not avoid (Pang & Lajium, 2008). If a student is willing to attend science-related activities, or at least not to avoid actively it, the student has achieved the level of willingness to receive. If the student expresses a preference of science-related activity, it indicates that he has achieved the level of controlled or selected attention.

Responding is a level in which the student is not only willing to receive, but is actively attending or participating (King, 1971; Olubor & Ogonor, 2007). He does more than merely receiving or attending to a stimulus. For example, a student is actively engaging in a science class activity. Three subdivisions indicate different levels of responding: acquiescence in responding, willingness to respond, and satisfaction in response (Lynch et al., 2009). Acquiescence in responding indicates obedience and compliance (Sax, 1997). A student participates in an activity because of requirement, if choices are given, he might select other alternatives. For example, a student joins a science activity because his teacher requires him to do so. If the student responds voluntarily without force, he has achieved the second subdivision, willingness to respond (Pang & Lajium, 2008). He engages in an activity not because of requirement, instead it is because of his own interest. For example, a student does extra science exercises that are not required by his/her teacher. If the student is not only does extra science exercises but he/she enjoys in it, he/she has achieved the third subdivision, which is satisfaction in response. This is the highest subdivision in level of responding (Hopkins, 1998).

Valuing refers to the attachment of value to a particular object, phenomenon or activity (Savickiene, 2010). In this level, a student is not just participating actively as in the level of responding, but he/she recognizes the values and knows the meaning of the activity which he is involved in. The student not only accepts the value but shows commitment to comply with it. There are three subdivisions of valuing: acceptance of a value, preference for a value, and commitment (Hopkins, 1998). Acceptance of a value indicates ability to set value for a particular object, phenomenon, attitude, and others (Pang & Lajium, 2008). At this subdivision, a student only has a tentative commitment towards some values that they consider as important. For example, a student joins science-related activity when possible because he/she thinks that practical work could improve his/her knowledge of science. The second subdivision, preference for a value indicates higher degree of commitment than in the first subdivision, but not as strong as moral pledge (Sax, 1997). A student who achieves this level is willing to devote greater time and effort to pursue his/her values than those who just merely achieves the first subdivision. For example, a student may volunteer his/her time to offer help in the laboratory. If the student is very convinced that his/her value is correct, he/she is loyal to it and he/she will not only pursue his/her values but also driven to do so, the student has achieved the third subdivision, commitment (Pang & Lajium, 2008).

The fourth level is organization. In this level, the student is able to organize values into system, know the interrelationships among values and able to establish the dominant value and pervasive value (King, 1971). This is supported by Boyd, Dooley, and Felton (2006) that student demonstrates internalization of a value system. Two subdivisions in this level: conceptualization of a value and organization of a value system (Lynch et al., 2009). Conceptualization of a value indicates the ability to form abstract concept for particular value (Sax, 1997). This enables a student to see how the value relates to those he/she already holds or to new ones that he/she is coming to hold. Organization of a value system indicates ability to group values and form a system (Pang & Lajium, 2008). For example, a student is able to form his/her philosophy of experiment practicing after he/she considers the strength and weakness of values.

The last level is the highest level in Krathwohl’s taxonomy, which is characterization by a value. In this level, student shows internally consistent system of values that controls his/her behaviour and it is unchangeable (Pang & Lajium, 2008). Internalization has taken place in the student’s value hierarchy (Popham, 2000). He/she is not only having an organized value system as in level of organization, but he/she has consistent philosophy. Two subdivisions in this level: generalized set and characterization (Lynch et al., 2009). Generalized set means a student is ready to generalize his values into new problems/situation (Sax, 1997). At this subdivision, the major concern is student’s mode of approach to a problem. If the student acts in accordance with his/her philosophy strictly and the philosophy had become internally consistent (unchangeable), he/she has achieved characterization, the second subdivision in the level of characterization by a value (Pang & Lajium, 2008). According to Sax, only few individuals have reached this level, such as Mahatma Gandhi and Jesus Christ. Individuals who have reached this level are recognized as being complete persons; behave in accordance with their ideals and beliefs.

Students probably cannot be expected to advance much beyond the level of responding and valuing in Krathwohl’s Taxonomy based on any given experience in school (Sax, 1997). For the level of organization, it is hard for the teacher to help students clarify their own value systems in limited school hours. Level of characterization by a value is a long-term objective of education. It is very difficult to assess students at higher levels of the affective domain (Boyd, Dooley, & Felton, 2006). Thus, in this study, only the first three levels in Krathwohl’s Taxonomy are taken into account in assessing students’ ATS.

Based on the Krathwohl’s Taxonomy, Klopfer (1971) had presented a classification of scheme for the affective domain which is relative to science education, namely Klopfer’s Classification. This forms the second element of the theoretical framework in this study. Klopfer (1971) had pointed out that this classification does not pretend as a complete taxonomy as Krathwohl’s taxonomy, but wide ranges of meaning are implied when the term “attitude” is used in science educational circles. Thus, more precise terminology of attitude taxonomy should be substituted in discussions of students’ ATS. According to Fraser (1981), Klopfer’s Classification is a comprehensive classification scheme for science education to solve multiple meanings attached to the term of “attitude to science.”

There are six subcategories in Klopfer’s classification. The first subcategory, H.1 Manifestation of favorable attitude towards science and scientists indicates behaviors which manifest favorable attitude towards science and scientist. Meanwhile, H.4 Enjoyment of science learning experiences indicates satisfaction of students in the process of science learning. These two subcategories match with the responding level in Krathwohl’s taxonomy as explained before that student is not only willing to receive, but is actively attending.

The second and third subcategories, H.2 Acceptance of scientific inquiry as a way of thought and H.3 Adoption of scientific attitude match the third level in Krathwohl’s taxonomy, which is valuing. According to Klopfer (1971), H.2 Acceptance of scientific inquiry as a way of thought concerns about students’ acceptance of scientific inquiry as a way of thought. It is matching with one of the key characteristics in the valuing, which is acceptance of a value. Furthermore, H.3 Adoption of scientific attitude indicates that a student has adopted any of the behaviors called scientific attitudes. It means that the student knows that his value is correct and shows commitment as described in third level in Krathwohl’s taxonomy, valuing.

H.5 Development of interest in science and science-related activities and H.6 Development of interest in pursuing a career in science match the first level in Krathwohl’s taxonomy, which is receiving. In the receiving level, student is willing to attend / expresses a preference in science-related activities (Pang & Lajium, 2008). For a student to have willingness in joining science-related activities, he/she must has interest in it. In other words, if he/she has interest in science-related activities, he/she will not refuse to join but willing to attend it. Therefore, interest and receiving (willingness to attend) are closely linked with each others.

Based on Krathwohl’s taxonomy, Fraser (1981) developed seven distinct scales of ATS: (1) Social implications of science, (2) Normality of scientists, (3) Attitude to scientific inquiry, (4) Adoption of scientific attitudes, (5) Enjoyment of science lessons, (6) Leisure interest in science, and (7) Career interest in science. This forms the third element of the framework. On the other hand, Kind, Jones, and Barmby (2007) had developed seven ATS constructs that are similar to Fraser. This forms the fourth element of the framework. The seven constructs are: (1) Learning science in school, (2) Practical work in science, (3) Science outside of school, (4) Importance of science, (5) Self-concept in science, (6) Future participation in science, and (7) Combined interest in science. First three constructs aimed to measure pupil’s ATS learning activities in three different contexts: inside the classroom, practical, and outside the classroom. The fourth construct aimed to measure pupils’ belief in value of science in a wider social context. The fifth construct aimed to measure pupil’s self-concept which is based on beliefs about one’s own ability to master school science. The sixth construct is future participation, which is students’ attitude towards involving more with science in the future career. The last construct is the combination of constructs (1) Learning science in school, (3) Science outside of school, and (6) Future participation in science.

Overall, based on Krathwohl’s Taxonomy, Kloper’s Classification, TOSRA, and ATSM, this study has developed an articulated ATS framework, which consists of eight distinct ATS constructs.

Table 3. ATS Framework

Construct	Meaning
(1) Self-concept in science	Self-concept, which is based on beliefs about one’s own ability to master school science. For example: I learn science quickly.
(2) Social implications of science	The manifestation of favorable ATS belief in value of science in a wider social content. For example, money spent on science is well worth spending.
(3) Normality of scientists	The manifestation of favorable attitude towards scientist. For example, scientists usually like to go to their laboratory when they have a day off.
(4) Attitude to scientific inquiry	The way of thought in obtaining information about the natural world, including attitude toward learning activities inside the laboratory. For example, I would prefer to find out why something happens by doing an experiment rather than by being told.
(5) Adoption to scientific attitudes	The acceptance of scientific attitudes. For example, in science experiments, I like to use new methods which I have not used before.
(6) Leisure interest in science	ATS learning activities outside the classroom. For example, I like reading science magazines and books during my holidays
(7) Career interest and future participation in science	Attitude towards involving more with science in the future career. For example, I would like to become a scientist in the future.
(8) Enjoyment of science lesson	ATS learning activities inside the classroom. For example, science lessons are fun.

Previous Studies

George (2000) found that students’ ATS is generally decline over the middle school and high school years. Furthermore, there were strong positive correlations between students’ ATS and attitude about the utility of science. Cokadar and Kulce (2008) reported the similar findings. They found that pupils’ ATS was at a medium level. They also found that pupils’ ATS is significantly different based on the schools they attended and enjoyment in science classes. This is supported by Oliver and Venville (2011) that students who generally had positive ATS, most of them select science as one of their favorite subject. This shows that pupils who love and enjoy science classes have more positive ATS.

Besides types of schools and enjoyment in science classess, gender has been one of the factors that is related to students’ ATS. Francis and Greer (1999), and George (2000) found that male students have more positive ATS than females students. However, their attitudes dropped faster than girls. This is not in line with the study by Kind, Jones, and Barmby (2008) that the decline in ATS was more pronounced for female students than male students. In addition to the ATS level, gender also plays a role in science courses selection. Farenga and Joyce (1998) found that ATS was an important predictors for the amount of science courses selection for girls but not for boy. In addition, Hassan (2008) found that male students achieved higher scores in motivation, enjoyment of science, and self-concept of ability whereas female students showed higher scores for lack of anxiety.

Other than gender, there are other factors affecting students’ ATS. Siegel and Ranney (2003) found that it is possible to enhance students’ attitudes about the relevance of science by using innovative and issue-based activities. It is parallel with the study by Chen and Howard (2010) that there were positive changes in students’ attitudes and perceptions towards scientists after simulation (innovative instructional activities) was implemented.

Meanwhile, Hong (2010) found that that collaborative science intervention provides students opportunities to gain realistic views about the world and increase their interest in science.

Parental involvement is another factor that can affect students’ attitude and performance in science. Oluwatelure and Oloruntegbe (2010) found that students could achieve greater academic progress in science subject if parental involvement is high. Besides, Hong and Lin (2011) found that that elementary school and academic high school students had significantly higher total scores on interest of science than students from vocational school. In general, there are many factors that contributing to students’ ATS, such as gender, instructional activities, collaborative science intervention, parental involvement and types of school.