“Students' Science Perception and Enrollment Decisions in ...
Transcript of “Students' Science Perception and Enrollment Decisions in ...
Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227887319
“Students'SciencePerceptionandEnrollmentDecisionsinDifferingLearningCycleClassrooms,”
ArticleinJournalofResearchinScienceTeaching·November2001
ImpactFactor:2.64·DOI:10.1002/tea.1046
CITATIONS
54
READS
39
2authors:
AnnM.L.Cavallo
UniversityofTexasatArlington
20PUBLICATIONS441CITATIONS
SEEPROFILE
TimothyA.Laubach
UniversityofOklahoma
7PUBLICATIONS117CITATIONS
SEEPROFILE
Availablefrom:AnnM.L.Cavallo
Retrievedon:12May2016
JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 38, NO. 9, PP. 1029±1062 (2001)
Students' Science Perceptions and Enrollment Decisions in Differing LearningCycle Classrooms
Ann M.L. Cavallo,1 Timothy A. Laubach2
1Science Education, College of Education Rm. 277, Wayne State University,
Detroit, Michigan, 48202
2Science Education Center, University of Oklahoma, 820 Van Vleet Oval, Norman, Oklahoma,
Norman, 73019
Received 7 July 1999; accepted 1 March 2001
Abstract: This investigation examined 10th-grade biology students' decisions to enroll in elective
science courses, and explored certain attitudinal perceptions of students that may be related to such
decisions. The student science perceptions were focused on student and classroom attitudes in the context
of differing learning cycle classrooms (high paradigmatic/high inquiry, and low paradigmatic/low inquiry).
The study also examined possible differences in enrollment decisions/intentions and attitudinal perceptions
among males and females in these course contexts. The speci®c purposes were to: (a) explore possible
differences in students' decisions, and in male and female students' decisions to enroll in elective science
courses in high versus low paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms; (b) describe patterns and examine
possible differences in male and female students' attitudinal perceptions of science in the two course
contexts; (c) investigate possible differences in students' science perceptions according to their decisions to
enroll in elective science courses, participation in high versus low paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms,
and the interaction between these two variables; and (d) examine students' explanations of their decisions to
enroll or not enroll in elective science courses. Questionnaire and observation data were collected from 119
students in the classrooms of six learning cycle biology teachers. Results indicated that in classrooms where
teachers most closely adhered to the ideal learning cycle, students had more positive attitudes than those in
classrooms where teachers deviated from the ideal model. Signi®cantly more females in high paradigmatic
learning cycle classrooms planned to continue taking science course work compared with females in low
paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms. Male students in low paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms had
more negative perceptions of science compared with males in high paradigmatic classrooms, and in some
cases, with all female students. It appears that using the model as it was originally designed may lead to
more positive attitudes and persistence in science among students. Implications include the need for science
educators to help teachers gain more thorough understanding of the learning cycle and its theoretical
underpinnings so they may better implement this procedure in classroom teaching.
ß 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 38: 1029±1062, 2001
Correspondence to: A.M.L. Cavallo; E-mail: [email protected]
ß 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
The science education community has long struggled with declining scienti®c literacy and
waning interest among students to pursue science-related careers. These issues have been so
pervasive that the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS), American Chemical Society (ACS), and National Committee
of Science Education Standards and Assessments (NCSESA) each developed initiatives
speci®cally directed toward promoting scienti®c literacy among all students and encouraging
more students to pursue science-related careers.
In the 1997 Digest of Education Statistics, the National Center for Education Stati-
stics reports a wavering number of earned postsecondary degrees in the physical sciences over
1959±1995. Sixteen thousand undergraduate degrees in the physical sciences were conferred
during the 1959±1960 academic year. These ®gures rose to 24,000 in the 1981±1982 academic
year. However, the number of earned undergraduate degrees in the physical sciences declined to
19,000 in 1994±1995. Of those degrees, 12,500 were earned by males and 6,500 degrees by
females. There is a particular de®cit among females pursuing science-related careers.
Therefore, it is well established that dual problems exist with declining scienti®c literacy
and decreasing interest among our students to pursue science-related ®elds. A possible precursor
to these problems is declining enrollment in upper-level secondary science courses. In recent
years, society is realizing an immense dependency upon scienti®c and technological knowledge.
However, many of today's students show a reluctance or aversion toward science and thus fail to
take elective science courses in high school. Failing to take science electives in high school may
lead to few students majoring in science in college or choosing to pursue science-related careers.
Educators must discover ways to improve scienti®c literacy and encourage more students to
pursue science-related careers, with one vehicle being high school science elective courses. This
study contributes to the discovery by exploring factors that may in¯uence students' decisions
to enroll in elective science courses, speci®cally, students' science perceptions and their
experiences in differing inquiry-oriented, learning cycle classrooms.
Theoretical Framework
Relatively few studies have addressed the issue of low enrollment in elective science
courses. Of the available research, investigators have attempted to classify certain variables or
factors which may contribute to students' decisions to enroll in elective science courses. Such
research has indicated several classi®cations of factors that may be related to students' decisions
to take more science (Fouts & Myers, 1992; Fraser, 1994; Gallagher, 1994; Haladyna &
Shaughnessy, 1982; Khoury, 1984). Some of these classi®cations of factors include, but are not
limited to, academic ability, home and school environments, attitudinal/motivational variables,
teacher characteristics, student characteristics, and learning environments.
This study focused on exploring factors relevant to students' perceptions and attitudes in
speci®c classroom contexts that may be related to persistence in future science course work. Part
of the intent of the study was to draw from the literature, previously researched attitudinal
constructs potentially within the classroom teachers' milieu and/or `̀ control'' relative to stud-
ents' persistence in science. This focus on students' attitudes and perceptions within the
classroom context may allow theory and research to better inform classroom practice.
Thus, it was necessary to conduct an extensive review of related attitudinal research. The
research was compiled and ®ndings examined to determine those factors that would best respond
to the research questions posed here. As a result of this process, several factors emerged as most
relevant to students' science elective decisions. These factors, termed student science per-
ceptions, comprised two categories: (a) students' attitudes toward science in their current course,
1030 CAVALLO AND LAUBACH
and (b) students' perceptions of classroom-related in¯uences or classroom impact. Student
attitudes toward science included several subcategories: self-concept of ability, science
enjoyment, lack of anxiety, usefulness of science class, student motivation in science, and
science as a male domain. Classroom impact included the following categories: student choice
of teaching style and curriculum, teacher enthusiasm, and teacher support.
In addition to these variables, gender differences in science enrollment patterns were also
prevalent in the literature. It is not known, however, how these variables, including gender, may
interact with instructional procedures, speci®cally the learning cycle, as potentially relating to
student enrollment in elective science courses. Each variable used in this study has been
examined and described as follows.
Student Attitudes toward Science
The development of positive attitudes toward school subjects is an important and desirable
educational outcome (Fouts & Myers, 1992). In an early study, Mager (1968) identi®ed reasons
why educators should focus on the development of positive attitudes toward subjects, with one
being that a positive attitude toward a subject may lead students to continue future study in the
®eld. Many other studies examining students' attitudes toward science (Koballa & Crawley,
1985; Lee & Burkam, 1996; Myers & Fouts, 1992; Piburn & Baker, 1993; Shrigley, Koballa, &
Simpson, 1998) have reported that attitudes toward science may be related to their science
course enrollment. However, these studies consistently report the need for more research that
will help clarify the nature of students' attitudes and relationships to students' enrollment
decisions. This study attempted to do so by using ®ndings of previous research to characterize
factors or variables that may be embedded in the complex construct known as student attitudes
toward science. These factors are described as follows.
Self-concept of Ability. Self-concept of ability as used in this study refers to the students'
perceptions of their ability to achieve in science (Woolfolk, 1998). The students' academic self-
concept in a subject such as science is a distinct part of a students' general self-concept
(Woolfolk, 1998). Freedman (1997) described student attitude toward science as students'
perception of their personal ability to achieve or self-concept of ability in science. Freedman's
study concluded that students' self-concept of ability was signi®cantly and positively related to
science achievement; therefore, this high science achievement may lead to persistence in
science, as evidenced through elective course enrollment. Other research has reported that as
students become less con®dent about their abilities in science, their attitude toward that subject is
adversely affected (Piburn & Baker, 1993).
Simpson and Oliver (1990) reported ®ndings from a longitudinal study that addressed
variables in¯uencing attitude and achievement. Their report found that science self-concept and
achievement motivation had modest positive relationships with both attitude and achievement.
Simpson and Oliver (1990) reported that self-concept at the 10th-grade level was a good
predictor of both number and type of science courses students will take during high school. From
the existing research, it is reasonable to posit that self-concept of ability, as a component of
student attitudes toward science, may be related to students' science course enrollment
decisions.
Science Enjoyment. Science enjoyment refers to the gladness or happiness students feel
resulting from their experiences in science. Several studies reported that the type of instruction
STUDENTS' SCIENCE PERCEPTIONS AND ENROLLMENT DECISIONS 1031
students experience was related to their science enjoyment (Fouts & Myers, 1992; Freedman,
1997; Gallagher, 1994; Ledbetter, 1993; Myers & Fouts, 1992). Classroom activities involving
laboratory instruction have been reported as positively affecting students' enjoyment of science
(Fraser, 1994; Freedman, 1997). Freedman (1997) conducted a study with two ninth-grade
student groups, an experimental and control. The experimental group was given laboratory
activities, whereas the control group was given a more traditional approach with no laboratory
activities. The research found that students involved in laboratory activities showed a higher
level of involvement and a general exuberance and enjoyment of science class over those
students who did not receive laboratory instruction (Freedman, 1997). This enjoyment of science
in laboratory-centered classrooms may contribute to students' decisions to enroll in additional
elective science courses.
Lack of Anxiety. Lack of anxiety, as used in this study, refers to students' positive comfort
level when pursuing science. Simpson and Oliver (1990) examined variables thought to affect
attitude and achievement in science among high school students. In this longitudinal study, lack
of anxiety was one of the strongest predictors of achievement in science. Atwater et al. (1995)
examined urban middle school students' high and low attitudes toward science. The research
found that students with high anxiety toward science also had low attitudes toward science.
Students who were less stressed or anxious about doing science were among the higher achievers
and were found to have more positive attitudes toward science. It follows, therefore, that students
who are less anxious toward science may also be more likely to continue taking elective science
courses.
Usefulness of Science Class. Usefulness of science refers to students' perceptions of how
science is personally applicable to them and to society. Khoury (1984) found that students'
attitude toward the usefulness of science class was crucial in determining their science elective
decisions, especially among females. Females also considered ®elds pertaining of life sciences,
such as biology, anatomy, physiology, and medicine, more useful for them than physical
sciences. This ®nding is consistent with other related studies [Haselhuhn & Andre, 1997; Lee &
Burkam, 1996; National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 1997b; Remick & Miller,
1978]. Students who perceive the study of science as being useful or relevant to them, presently
and in the future, may be more likely to continue in science and decide to enroll in elective
science courses.
Student Motivation in Science. Student motivation in science, as used in this study, is
de®ned as the level of students' participation in science-related activities inside and outside of
the classroom, along with their objective to achieve in science. Simpson and Oliver (1990) found
that declines in student motivation in science were similar to declines in attitude toward science.
Motivation dropped both within each grade and across Grades 6±10, and by the 10th grade
student motivation in science was near neutral. In their study, motivation to achieve in science
was consistently higher among females (Simpson & Oliver, 1990). Students who are motivated
in science may be more likely to continue in science by enrolling in science electives.
Science as a Male Domain. Science as a male domain refers to the students' perceptions of
science as being male dominated. Ledbetter (1993) contended that students' science perceptions
are affected by gender bias; that is, science is viewed as a more masculine subject to take and
1032 CAVALLO AND LAUBACH
study. According to Kelly (1985), `̀ The masculinity of science is often the prime reason that
girls tend to avoid the subject at school'' (p. 133).
Other researchers have shown that the stereotyping of science as masculine affects
children's expressed interest in speci®c science topics and later in their science course selections
(Baker, 1990). If females do choose to take elective science courses they must overcome the
male scientist stereotype. Contrary to other studies, Green®eld (1996) found that male high
school science students expressed a more male-stereotyped view of science than females. The
view of science as a male domain may negatively affect science attitudes and science persistence
(Kahle & Meece, 1994). Thus, students with this view may be less likely to continue to enroll in
science courses.
Classroom Impact
Classroom impact is de®ned here as students' perceptions or attitudes toward classroom-
related variables, which may affect their science course enrollment decisions. Myers and Fouts
(1992) theorized that the variables primarily under the control of the teacher (teacher
characteristics and learning environment) have the most potential for affecting students'
attitudes because the teacher is seen as the main change agent in the school environment. This
belief coincides with other research reporting that variables af®liated with students' classroom
experience are strongly related to their attitudes toward science (Fraser, 1994; Simpson & Oliver,
1990). The examination of literature that preceded this study revealed several subcategories of
classroom-related variables posed to be related to science persistence, which are described as
follows.
Student Choice. Student choice is de®ned as the level of empowerment the student has on
the curriculum and teaching procedures implemented in the classroom. Piburn and Baker (1993)
performed a qualitative study of students' attitudes toward science, which used several interview
methods for eliciting responses from kindergarten through 12th-grade students. The study asked
students to discuss how they thought science should be taught. One pertinent ®nding was
that students who had less positive attitudes toward science indicated they were rarely consulted
in the construction of the curriculum or the choice of teaching strategies. It is theorized that
making such choices gives students more control of their own learning experiences. This feeling
of empowerment may encourage more students to continue taking science courses in high
school.
Teacher Support. Teacher support, as used in this study, is the students' perceptions of how
much personal interest and effort the teacher expends toward them in the classroom. Remick and
Miller (1978) addressed the importance of teacher support and found that it played an essential
role in encouraging students to continue taking science courses. Importantly, the authors contend
that high school teachers are `̀ in the key role'' to bring about improvements in patterns of
elective science enrollment (Remick & Miller, 1978).
Myers and Fouts (1992) reported that positive attitudes toward science were found in
classrooms with high levels of teacher support, involvement, order and organization, student-to-
student af®liation, and innovative teaching strategies. Similar ®ndings were reported by Fraser
(1994) in research on classroom environments. Thus, the support of the teacher may promote
more positive science attitudes among students and contribute to their decisions to continue
enrolling in science courses.
STUDENTS' SCIENCE PERCEPTIONS AND ENROLLMENT DECISIONS 1033
Teacher Enthusiasm. Teacher enthusiasm, as de®ned in this study, is the level of morale (or
excitement toward teaching science) the teacher conveys to the students. In a study designed to
qualitatively compare students' constructions of science, Ledbetter (1993) found that those
students whose views of science were positive also had favorable opinions of their science teachers.
Teachers who showed high enthusiasm and interest in science had more students reporting positive
attitudes toward science than teachers who did not maintain enthusiasm for the subject.
Gallagher (1994) contended that teachers make a difference in students' attitude and
persistence in science. Accordingly, students who perceive that their teacher enjoys science and
is skilled in instruction are more likely to continue in science than students in a more impersonal
classroom environment.
Gender Differences in Science and Related Enrollment Patterns
Issues related to gender and science have been intensely studied (Catsambis, 1995;
Green®eld, 1996; Farenga & Joyce, 1999; Hammrich, 1997; Jones & Wheatley, 1990; Kahle &
Lakes, 1983; Lee & Burkam, 1996; NCESs 1997a). These studies have generally reported wide
differences in science attitudes, achievement, and enrollment patterns between male and female
students.
During the past 20 years, efforts have been made to better understand and narrow the gender
gap in science education. Jones and Wheatley (1990) investigated gender differences in teacher±
student interactions in science classrooms. The results of their study showed that male students
received more of every type of classroom interactionÐfor example, teacher questions. This
®nding is believed to be a possible explanation of why women are underrepresented in high
school science elective classes (Jones & Wheatley, 1990).
Several studies have expressed that males exhibit signi®cantly more positive attitudes
toward science than females (Catsambis, 1995; Simpson & Oliver, 1985, 1990), especially
during the middle and high school years (Hammrich, 1997). Females participate in fewer
relevant extracurricular activities (Catsambis, 1995; Hammrich, 1997; Kahle & Lakes, 1985)
and aspire less often to pursue science careers than do males (Catsambis, 1995; Kahle & Lakes,
1985). Although attitudes have been found to be higher for males than females, several studies
have revealed that achievement in science has remained neutral (Catsambis, 1995; Green®eld,
1996). Catsambis (1995) found that in middle grade sciences, female students do not lag behind
their male classmates in science achievement tests, grades, and course enrollments. Green®eld
(1996) found no consistent differences in science achievement and very few in science attitudes
with respect to gender. Overall, there were no gender differences in self-perception of either
ability or achievement in science. In other research, female students were found to be
signi®cantly more motivated to achieve in science than their male counterparts (Simpson &
Oliver, 1985, 1990).
The NCES (1997b) produced informative data in a summary of women in mathematics and
science. In this summary, several areas were addressed: science achievement, attitudes toward
science, career expectations in science, and science course taking patterns in high school. The
statistics cited in the summary were taken from the previous National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) reports. Accordingly, a gender gap in science achievement of pro®ciency
begins to appear at age 13. Since 1970, 13-year-old boys have outperformed girls in science and
17-year-old females have consistently scored lower, on average, than 17-year-old males. Data
from the late 1980s and early 1990s indicated that 7th- and 10th-grade boys and girls are equally
likely to report that they enjoy science. Among 12th-graders, however, a gender gap has emerged
in their science enjoyment.
1034 CAVALLO AND LAUBACH
A gap in the career aspirations of boys and girls in science may exist as early as eighth
grade. Among the eighth-grade class of 1988, boys were more than twice as likely as girls to
aspire to be scientists or engineers. Whereas male and female high school seniors were equally
likely to expect careers in science, male seniors were much more likely than their female
counterparts to expect careers in engineering. Regarding course taking patterns, female students
were just as likely as male students to take advanced mathematics and science courses in high
school, with physics being the exception (NCES, 1997b).
There have been ®ndings that reveal gender differences throughout various science
disciplines. Lee and Burkam's (1996) study involving middle school science students discovered
that boys' achievement in science was greatest for physical science, whereas girls' achievement
in science was highest for life science. Notably, female achievement in physical science was
positively in¯uenced when laboratory experiences were implemented into the classroom.
Although the literature has reported much information on males' and females' differing science
attitudes and achievement, it is not yet known how males' and females' experience in laboratory-
centered science classrooms may be related to future science course enrollment.
Laboratory-Centered Teaching, Student Attitudes' and Science Course Enrollment
In laboratory-centered teaching, students' direct experiences and investigations with labor-
atory materials have a prominent role in the learning process. Students actively engage in
inquiry-based experiments, use science process skills, examine patterns in data, and draw
conclusions. Teachers generally foster such inquiry through open-ended questioning or exp-
eriences that create cognitive dissonance among students.
As discussed earlier, the study by Freedman (1997) explored relationships among laboratory
instruction, attitude toward science, and achievement in science. As mentioned, students in he
group who received laboratory instruction scored signi®cantly higher on various achievement
and attitudinal tests than those who did not. Ledbetter (1993) also found that inquiry-based
classes helped students learn and retain information and had a positive effect on the students'
attitudes toward doing science.
Thus, there is some understanding of how inquiry and noninquiry classrooms may relate to
student attitudes. Little is known, however, on how differing degrees of inquiry instruction may
translate to students' decisions to enroll in elective science courses. Given the results of prior
research, it is generally understood that laboratory-centered, inquiry-based classrooms may lead
students to later enrollment in higher levels of science (Gallagher, 1994). The foci of this study
are the laboratory-centered, inquiry-based classrooms that implement the learning cycle
paradigm and associated curricula; and, particularly, how the learning cycle paradigm may be
differentially implemented in classroom teaching.
The Learning Cycle Paradigm. The learning cycle model or paradigm was originally
developed by Robert Karplus in the late 1950s and early 1960s as a teaching procedure
consistent with the inquiry nature of science and with the way children naturally learn (as
described by Piaget, 1964). The word paradigm is used here because the learning cycle is a
model of science teaching and curriculum design. It was the foundation for several curriculum
programs of the 1960s, such as the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) and
Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS), with updated versions still in prevalent use. The
learning cycle also represents a general philosophy of teaching and learning with strong
constructivist underpinnings. The learning cycle consists of three phases, most currently named
STUDENTS' SCIENCE PERCEPTIONS AND ENROLLMENT DECISIONS 1035
exploration, term introduction, and concept application (Lawson, 1995; Abraham, & Renner,
1989; Marek & Cavallo, 1997). The phases comprising the learning cycle paradigm are brie¯y
described as follows.
In exploration, student groups engage in an investigation in which they gather their own
data, explore and observe phenomena, and attempt to make sense of observations. Students are
not informed ahead of time of the expected outcome of the investigation, which may be unknown
in certain experiments. The exploration is student-centered with the teacher acting as facilitator
by providing materials, giving directions, asking questions, and encouraging student discovery.
In term introduction, the teacher establishes a discussion environment. The teacher asks
students to report their data to the class and interpret the collective ®ndings. Importantly, student
must formulate a statement of the concept or main idea in their own words. After all students
have constructed and expressed understanding of the concept, the teacher or students may
introduce related scienti®c terminology (Marek & Cavallo, 1997).
In concept application, the teacher facilitates the use of the concept in different contexts.
These applications help extend and expand students' understandings and apply the concept to
everyday experiences. Different concept application or expansion activities may include, but
are not limited to, additional laboratory investigations, selected readings, relevant problems,
computer applications, ®eld trips, ®lms, audiovisuals, and demonstrations. The purpose of the
application activities is to provide students with experiences that help them organize the concept
they have constructed with other ideas that relate to it (Marek & Cavallo, 1997).
As mentioned, several current, published learning cycle-based curricula are available to
teachers, such as Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS-3), Full Option Science System
(FOSS), and, at the secondary level, Investigations in Natural Science: Biology (Renner, Cate,
Grzybowski, Surber, Atkinson, & Marek, 1996). However, although teachers may use a
common, published learning cycle curriculum, they may not implement the learning cycle in the
manner intended by the model and its originators (Karplus & Their, 1967; Lawson, Renner, &
Abraham, 1989). Marek, Eubanks, and Gallaher (1990), found that science teachers displayed
varying degrees of understanding of the learning cycle which ranged from sound understanding
to misunderstanding. During each phase of the learning cycle, teaching behaviors differed
according to the teachers' understanding of this teaching procedure. Teachers with sound
understandings implemented the learning cycle consistent with the ideal paradigm, whereas
those with misunderstandings were often inconsistent with the ideal paradigm.
In addition to implementing the three phases in the order and manner described, teachers
who have deep understandings of the learning cycle use students' data in helping them construct
the concept. These teachers question and challenge students to construct the idea without
providing answers, thereby elevating the level of inquiry in the classroom. Teachers who
misunderstand, misinterpret, or misuse the learning cycle model often fail to use students' data in
constructing the concept, turn questions and discussion leading to the concept into lectures, or
provide answers to the investigation before students have collected data themselves (veri®cation)
(Marek & Cavallo, 1995, 1997). In doing so, these teachers lower the level of inquiry of the
laboratory-centered classroom. In this study, teaching that is more consistent with the high-
inquiry, ideal learning cycle model and its philosophy is considered high paradigmatic or high
inquiry. Teaching that shows inconsistencies with the ideal learning cycle model as previously
described, is called low paradigmatic or low inquiry.
Students Attitudes and the Learning Cycle. Research has found that students in classrooms
using the learning cycle had more positive attitudes toward science and science instruction than
1036 CAVALLO AND LAUBACH
other approaches usually identi®ed as traditional (Lawson, Abraham, & Renner, 1989).
Campbell (1977) found that students in a learning cycle group, as opposed to a traditional
approach, had more positive attitudes towards laboratory work, scored somewhat higher on a
laboratory ®nal exam, and were not likely to withdraw from the course.
Although prior research found differences in students' attitudes in inquiry versus expository
science classrooms (favoring inquiry), little is known about such patterns in differing learning
cycle classrooms, both of which use the inquiry model but perhaps to different degrees. Renner,
Abraham, and Birnie (1985) compared teachers' implementation of the ideal learning cycle
model with a deviation of the ideal learning cycle where the students did not experience a
laboratory investigation. It was found that students expressed greater interest and enjoyment of
science in the ideal learning cycle as opposed to the deviated model.
From reports of research on the learning cycle, it is postulated that because this high inquiry
procedure yields positive student attitudes, students in such classrooms may be likely to continue
taking elective science courses. However, are students in high paradigmatic learning cycle
classrooms (those which closely adhere to the model) more likely to continue taking elective
science courses than those in low paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms (those which do not
adhere to the model)? Do students in high paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms have more
positive science perceptions (student attitudes and classroom impact) compared with those in
low paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms? Do males and females differ in their perceptions of
science and the classroom in the different learning cycle course contexts? These and related
questions were explored in this study.
Purpose
The purposes of this investigation were to: (a) explore possible differences in students'
decisions and in male and female students' decisions to enroll in elective science courses in high
versus low paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms; (b) describe patterns and examine possible
differences in male and female students' attitudinal perceptions of science in the two course
contexts; (c) investigate possible differences in students' science perceptions according to their
decisions to enroll in elective science courses, participation in high versus low paradigmatic
learning cycle classrooms, and the interaction between these two variables; and (d) examine
students' explanations of their decisions to enroll or not enroll in elective science courses.
Method
Sample
The students of this study were enrolled in 10th-grade Biology in a large suburban high
school in a Midwestern state (N� 119; 59 males, 60 females). The reported ethnicity of the
students was approximately 77% white, 7% African American, 7% Hispanic, 1% Asian
American, and 8% Native American. The total enrollment in Grades 9±12 at this school was
approximately 1,900 students. This study took place in spring semester.
Six classroom biology teachers of these students also participated in this study (3 males, 3
females). The average years of teaching experience for all teachers were between 6 and 10 years.
All teachers reported education beyond the undergraduate level. One teacher had a master's
degree along with doctorate-level coursework, and one teacher had completed master's course
work and was working on the thesis.
STUDENTS' SCIENCE PERCEPTIONS AND ENROLLMENT DECISIONS 1037
The students and teachers were selected for this study because general biology is typically
the last high school science course required in this state. Normally, students take physical
science in ninth grade and biology in 10th grade. In addition, for over 2 decades the selected
school district has worked collaboratively with the University of Oklahoma in developing,
designing, and implementing inquiry-based, learning cycle science curricula for all science
subjects (e.g., Investigations in Natural Science: Biology, Renner et al., 1996).
All teachers in this school district were graduates of the university's science education
program, which is centered on the learning cycle teaching procedure and its theory base, and/or
they attended intensive in-service seminars on the learning cycle before teaching, and as a
condition of their hire in the district. The use of the learning cycle teaching procedure and
published curricula is expected and highly valued in this school district. However, once hired, it
is unknown to what extent teachers implement the learning cycle model in their classrooms (the
level of inquiry and constructivist practice).
Instrumentation
Science Attitude Questionnaire (SAQ). The SAQ was used to measure students' science
perceptions and consisted of subscales on student- and classroom-related attitudes. The
constructs and items of this instrument were compiled from the literature as previously described
(Fraser, 1994; Khoury, 1984; Simpson & Oliver, 1984, 1990). The SAQ used in this study
consisted of 49 items with three parts. The ®rst part asked students to report their gender,
age, ethnicity (optional), and decisions/intentions to enroll in an elective science course in high
school (four items). The second part of the questionnaire was adapted primarily from Khoury
(1984) and contained items measuring students' attitudes and perceptions toward science and
classroom teaching (42 items). The majority of these items were adapted and modi®ed
slightly from the affective items of the NAEP. The items measured nine identi®ed factors: self-
concept of ability, science enjoyment, lack of anxiety, usefulness of science class, student
motivation in science, science as a male domain, student choice, teacher support, and teacher
enthusiasm.
From these nine factors, the two main subscales were: (a) student attitude toward science
(STUATT), and (b) classroom impact on learning (CLRMIMP). The subscale, student attitude
toward science, contained 29 items measuring these six factors: (a) self-concept of ability, (b)
science enjoyment, (c) lack of anxiety, (d) usefulness of science class, (e) student motivation in
science, and (f) science as a male domain. The subscale, classroom impact, contained 13 items
measuring these three factors: (a) student choice, (b) teacher support, and (c) teacher enthusiasm.
The questionnaire used in this study appears in Laubach (1998).
The items of the two subscales were assessed using a Likert scale. There were two types of
®ve response choices: (a) `̀ strongly agree,'' `̀ agree,'' `̀ no opinion,'' `̀ disagree,'' and `̀ strongly
disagree,'' or (b) `̀ always,'' `̀ often,'' `̀ seldom,'' and `̀ never.'' Each response was given a score
from 0 to 4, with the weight of 4 corresponding to the response re¯ecting highly positive
perceptions or attitudes toward science. Mean scores for the total SAQ and for the two main
subscales were computed for each student and used in the data analyses.
For the current study, internal consistency was determined on the 42 attitudinal items in the
Total Science Attitude Questionnaire (TOTSAQ), representing students' overall science
perceptions. The Cronbach alpha reliability coef®cient on the TOTSAQ was reported as
r� .87. The Cronbach alpha coef®cients for the grouped items used in this particular study were
as follows: self-concept of ability, r� .94; science enjoyment, r� .90; lack of anxiety, r� .76;
1038 CAVALLO AND LAUBACH
usefulness of science class, r� .66; student motivation in science, r� .88; science as a male
domain, r� .92; student choice, r� .82; teacher support, r� .84; and teacher enthusiasm,
r� .86. The reliabilities for the two subscales were as follows: STUATT, r� .87 and CLRMIMP,
r� .85.
In support of reliability and construct validity the SAQ was found to correlate with the
questionnaire upon which it was largely based (Khoury, 1984): self-concept (.77), science
enjoyment (.85), lack of anxiety (.75), usefulness of science class (.77), student motivation in
science (.86), science as a male domain (.78), student choice (.65), teacher support (.68), and
teacher enthusiasm (.78). In addition, the instrument was reviewed by three professors of science
education and a classroom science teacher. The reviewers assessed construct validity of the
instruments' items and subscales. The review determined that the SAQ was valid with respect to
the constructs measured.
The third part of the student questionnaire (three items) asked students to rank and explain
three reasons why they are or are not planning to enroll in an elective science class in high
school. The open-ended question was used to reveal more detailed explanations of factors that
may be related to science elective enrollment intentions.
Science Teaching Approach Questionnaire. The Science Teaching Approach Questionnaire
was used to reveal the extent to which teachers' classroom practice was consistent with the
inquiry model known as the learning cycle in their classroom instruction. The teacher
questionnaire consisted of four parts that addressed background information and instructional
emphases (Laubach, 1998). The ®rst part asked teachers to respond to questions such as gender,
years of teaching experience, years of teaching experience in this particular school district, place
of postsecondary education, and highest academic degree earned. The second and third parts of
the questionnaire were adapted from a previous study (Cavallo, Reap, Saunders, & Gerber,
1995). The teachers were asked to rank their use of listed teaching techniques (lecture,
laboratory, discussion, demonstration, text or nontext reading) in order of implementation and to
report how often they use each technique. The fourth part of the questionnaire was also adapted
from a previous study (Gallagher, 1994). The teachers were asked to check the classroom
experiences that they emphasize, such as developing students' problem-solving skills, reading,
giving information and note taking, and experimental logic and design. The Science Teaching
Approach Questionnaire appears in Laubach (1998).
Each part of the Science Teaching Approach Questionnaire had been assessed for
construct validity in prior studies. The Science Teaching Approach Questionnaire was also
assessed for construct validity by three science educators who determined it to be a valid
instrument. The data taken from the Science Teaching Approach Questionnaire were used as one
source of information regarding the extent to which teachers use the learning cycle in their
teaching.
Identifying Teachers' Use of the Learning Cycle Model
As mentioned, all teachers in this particular school district are required to use the learning
cycle paradigm and published curricula in their teaching. The teachers of this study used the
secondary biology learning cycle curricula, Investigations in Natural Science: Biology (Renner
et al., 1996). All teachers had been prepared to use the learning cycle through their teacher
education program at the University of Oklahoma and/or through special inservice programs
regularly implemented in the selected school district. The teachers received full support from the
administration, and necessary resources and supplies for implementing the learning cycle
STUDENTS' SCIENCE PERCEPTIONS AND ENROLLMENT DECISIONS 1039
curriculum. The teachers coordinated their teaching of the curriculum with respect to scheduling
and sharing of materials. However, although the curriculum and materials were shared, the
extent to which the biology teachers adhered to the learning cycle paradigm in their classrooms
was not known. Thus, this phase of the study sought to identify how teachers may implement the
learning cycle model in their classrooms.
Qualitative methods were used to identify the extent to which biology teachers used the
ideal learning cycle model in the selected high school. Consistent with the qualitative method of
triangulation, data were collected from these sources: usage of a key informant (Bogden &
Biklen, 1982) who was a teacher in the school's biology department, the Science Teaching
Approach Questionnaire administered to the six teachers, and classroom observations.
The key informant revealed information regarding the extent to which each teacher used
the learning cycle model. The informant teacher had observed each of the other teachers and all
had worked together on many curriculum-related issues. Data gathered from discussions with
this teacher centered on topics such as teachers' use of questioning, group work, lecture, and
whether the teachers tended to reveal the concept to students or allow students to construct it
themselves. The key informant was familiar with research and understood the elements of
research. The information obtained from the key informant was the initial step in collecting
teacher data.
The Science Teaching Approach Questionnaire was administered to the six teacher-
participants of this study. The teacher questionnaire elicited self-reported evidence of the
teachers' primary teaching procedures. Analyses of these data provided information on
the teachers' general teaching philosophy and use of the learning cycle model. For example,
some teachers stated they rarely or sometimes lectured and always or frequently implemented
laboratory activities. These teachers also reported placing a strong emphasis on developing
problem-solving/inquiry skills. These data indicated that teachers' implementation of the
learning cycle curricula was more consistent with the paradigm. Other teachers reported usage of
lecture frequently or always and laboratory usage sometimes or rarely. These teachers also
reported placing a strong emphasis on giving information and taking notes. These data indicate
low consistency with the learning cycle paradigm.
Classroom observations of the six teachers in this study were conducted as each
implemented the same learning cycle investigation. Field notes on classroom activities,
interactions, and dialogues for the six biology teachers were recorded in a journal. Teaching
behaviors observed to be highly consistent with the learning cycle paradigm included the
following: (a) In the exploration phase, teachers asked students who had dif®culties or
inconsistent results in the laboratory to continue working on their laboratory investigations (by
doing so, students were encouraged to use thinking skills and hypothesize why the experiment
turned out the way it did); (b) in the term introduction phase, teachers used strategic questioning
patterns of leading the students toward constructing the concept.
Teaching behaviors observed to be less consistent or contradict the learning cycle paradigm
included the following: (a) in the exploration phase, some teachers allowed students to end their
laboratory investigations when they had dif®culties or inconsistent results in their laboratory
procedures; (b) in the term introduction phase, discussion turned into lectures, teachers gave
students answers to questions, and told students the concept they should have discovered. Thus,
the analyses of observation data revealed patterns in questioning, group work, students'
construction of the concept, and teachers' overall adherence to the philosophical premise of the
inquiry-based learning cycle model.
Analyses of all three sources of data revealed two distinct patterns in teachers' use of the
learning cycle model. The contrasting uses that emerged were: (a) teachers who used the
1040 CAVALLO AND LAUBACH
learning cycle model as it was designed and employed a highly student-centered, inquiry
teaching approach; and (b) teachers who deviated from the model and employed a more teacher-
centered approach as described above. Teaching that was more consistent with the learning cycle
model was termed high paradigmatic or high inquiry. Teaching that was less consistent with the
learning cycle model was termed low paradigmatic, or low inquiry. Analysis of teacher-related
data resulted in three classrooms identi®ed as high paradigmatic (1�male and 2� female
teachers) and three classrooms identi®ed as low paradigmatic (2�male and 1� female teacher)
with respect to teachers' implementation of the learning cycle model. The teachers in each group
had comparable years of teaching experience, with the high paradigmatic group having an
average of 9 years' teaching experience, and the low paradigmatic group having an average of
8.5 years of teaching experience. All teachers had reported that their only teaching experience
was in this school district.
Procedures
Each teacher selected one of his or her general biology classes to participate in taking the
SAQ as part of this study. Over a 2-day period, one investigator administered the student
questionnaire to students in the six general biology classes. The investigator used a written
protocol in administering the student questionnaire, ensuring that the same instructions were
given to all students. The researcher emphasized that the items on the questionnaire were to be
addressed according to the science class that the students were presently taking. Also, careful
attention was given when referring to the open-ended part of the questionnaire. The researcher
stressed that the reasons given in Part III of the TOTSAQ were in response to how the students
answered Question 4 on the questionnaire, `̀ Do you plan to enroll in an elective science course
next year or before you graduate?''
The study took place in the spring semester because the students would have been with the
same teacher all year and attitudes toward their classes would have been developed over this time
period. In addition, students were starting to think about and plan their next year of course
enrollment. The school's advisement and course selection process had begun. The next course to
be elected in the sequence by these students would be chemistry.
Results
Data were analyzed according to the questions guiding this research. All analyses were
conducted on the categories of learning cycle teaching procedure (high paradigmatic/high
inquiry or low paradigmatic/low inquiry), enrollment intentions or decisions (to enroll in elective
science courses or not enroll in elective science courses), gender, and/or the interaction of these
variables. The dependent variables consisted of total Science Attitude Questionnaire scores
(TOTSAQ), the two subscales (STUATT, CLRMIMP) and/or the individual factors comprising
these subscales.
Differences in Students' and in Male and Female Students' Decisions to Enroll in Elective
Science Courses in High and Low Paradigmatic Learning Cycle Classrooms
Chi-square analyses were conducted to determine possible differences between the
frequencies of students in high paradigmatic and low paradigmatic classes and their science
elective enrollment decisions. These results are shown in Table 1. No signi®cant differences
STUDENTS' SCIENCE PERCEPTIONS AND ENROLLMENT DECISIONS 1041
were found between the number of students in high paradigmatic and low paradigmatic learning
cycle classes and their enrollment decisions.
Chi-square analyses were also used to determine possible differences between elective
science enrollment decisions in high paradigmatic and low paradigmatic learning cycle classes
among male and female students. These results are shown in Table 2. No differences were found
between males and their elective science enrollment decisions according to extent teachers
adhered to the learning cycle in their classrooms. Signi®cant differences were found, however,
between females and their elective science enrollment decisions according to the extent the
Table 1
Chi-square analyses of students' elective science enrollment decision
by level of learning cycle teaching approach experienced
Enrollment DecisionLearning CycleApproach Not Enrolling Enrolling Total
High paradigmatic n 8 48 56high inquiry % 6.7 40.3
Low paradigmatic/ n 15 48 63low inquiry % 12.6 40.3Total N 23 96 119
�2 (1, N� 119)� 1.73 NS
Note. Percentages do not equal 100 owing to rounding.
Table 2
Chi-square analyses of male and female students' elective science enrollment decision by level of learning
cycle teaching approach experienced
Enrollment DecisionLearning CycleApproach Not Enrolling Enrolling Total
Male studentsHigh paradigmatic/ n 7 23 30
high inquiry % 11.9 39.0Low paradigmatic/ n 5 24 29
low inquiry % 8.5 40.7Total N 12 47 59
�2 (1, N� 59)� .34, NSFemale studentsHigh paradigmatic/ n 1 25 26
high inquiry % 1.7 41.7Low paradigmatic/ n 10 24 34
low inquiry % 16.7 40.0Total N 11 49 60
�2 (1, N� 60)� 6.43, p� .011
Note. Percentages do not equal 100 owing to rounding.
1042 CAVALLO AND LAUBACH
paradigm or level of inquiry was experienced in their learning cycle classrooms. As shown in
Table 2, signi®cantly more females who experienced high inquiry learning cycle classrooms
were planning to enroll in elective science courses in high school than females who were in low
inquiry learning cycle classrooms.
Descriptive Patterns and Differences in Males' and Females' Attitudinal Perceptions of
Science in High and Low Paradigmatic Learning Cycle Classrooms
Descriptive data were calculated for male and female students in low and high paradigmatic
learning cycle classrooms for each variable comprising the SAQ, the TOTSAQ, and the two
subscales (STUATT, CLRMIMP). These data are shown in Table 3. To facilitate interpretation,
data are presented graphically in Figures 1±12. As observed in Table 3 and Figures 1±12, unique
patterns emerged from the descriptive data. For several variables, it appears that mean scores
among males in the low paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms were numerically lower than
other students. The exceptions were science self-concept of ability (indicating high self-
concept), lack of anxiety (indicating high lack of anxiety), and motivation toward science
(indicating high motivation) among males in low paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms. In
some of these instances, the males' mean scores in the different classroom settings were similar
(e.g., science self-concept); in others, the means appear to be dissimilar (e.g., motivation toward
science). Other observations include higher numerical mean scores in student enjoyment, and in
the subscales, STUATT (science attitudes) and CLRMIMP (classroom impact), and the
TOTSAQ for both males and females in the high paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms
compared with those in low paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms.
The descriptive data were subjected to statistical analyses to determine whether observed
numerical differences were signi®cant. The results of t-tests between males and females in high
and low paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms are shown in Table 4. Equal variances were
not assumed in these analyses and presentation of results. As shown in Table 4 and interpreted by
observing the means shown in Table 3, male students in high paradigmatic learning cycle
classrooms had signi®cantly higher science enjoyment and more positive perceptions of
teacher support and teacher enthusiasm compared with males in low paradigmatic learning cycle
classrooms. Thus although motivation and the other variables investigated were equivalent
among males in both classes, male students in the low paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms
did not express enjoyment of science as much, and viewed their teachers as less supportive and
exuberant toward teaching science. Males in the low paradigmatic classrooms also had
signi®cantly lower perceptions of their teachers' enthusiasm compared with the females in
these same classrooms. Males in the low paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms had a
signi®cantly stronger view of science as a male domain compared with female students in these
same classrooms. The mean for the classroom impact (CLRMIMP) subscale was also
signi®cantly higher among males in the high paradigmatic classrooms (p< .01) and higher
among females in the low paradigmatic classrooms (p< .05) compared with males in low
paradigmatic classrooms.
Differences in Attitudinal Perceptions of Science According to Enrollment in High
Paradigmatic or Low Paradigmatic Learning Cycle Classes, Students' Decisions to Enroll
in Elective Science Courses, and the Interaction of These Variables
Descriptive statistics were produced for the students' mean scores on the TOTSAQ and the
mean score for each subscale, STUATT and CLRMIMP. These data are presented in Table 5. The
STUDENTS' SCIENCE PERCEPTIONS AND ENROLLMENT DECISIONS 1043
Table 3
Descriptive statistics of SAQ variables among male and female students in high and low paradigmatic
learning cycle classrooms
Learning CycleVariable Approach Gender Mean SD
Science High paradigmatic Male (n� 30) 15.7 3.9enjoyment Female (n� 26) 15.0 4.4
Low paradigmatic Male (n� 29) 12.9 3.6Female (n� 34) 13.0 4.9
Self-concept High paradigmatic Male 4.4 1.6of ability Female 4.0 1.6in science Low paradigmatic Male 4.4 2.1
Female 3.9 1.8Lack of anxiety High paradigmatic Male 17.8 3.0
Female 17.3 4.6Low paradigmatic Male 18.3 2.7
Female 17.0 3.8Student choice High paradigmatic Male 4.6 2.6
Female 4.9 4.1Low paradigmatic Male 4.0 3.9
Female 4.7 3.2Teacher support High paradigmatic Male 5.2 2.1
Female 5.5 3.3Low paradigmatic Male 3.9 2.5
Female 4.6 2.7Teacher High paradigmatic Male 14.8 3.3
enthusiasm Female 14.8 4.3Low paradigmatic Male 12.1 3.8
Female 14.4 3.4Usefulness of High paradigmatic Male 13.2 2.3
science Female 13.7 2.5Low paradigmatic Male 12.2 2.8
Female 13.2 2.6Science as High paradigmatic Male 6.8 1.5
male domain Female 7.3 1.1Low paradigmatic Male 6.4 1.9
Female 7.4 1.0Student High paradigmatic Male 12.0 5.5
motivation Female 12.1 6.8Low paradigmatic Male 13.1 5.9
Female 11.9 6.5Total High paradigmatic Male 94.7 15.7
Science Female 94.7 20.0Attitude Low paradigmatic Male 87.4 15.7(TOTSAQ) Female 90.2 17.6
Attitude High paradigmatic Male 70.0 12.3Toward Female 69.5 12.9Science Low paradigmatic Male 67.4 11.6(STUATT) Female 66.5 14.4
Classroom High paradigmatic Male 24.7 6.1Impact Female 25.2 9.6
(CLRMIMP) Low paradigmatic Male 20.0 7.0Female 23.7 7.3
1044 CAVALLO AND LAUBACH
numerical differences observed in Table 5 were analyzed for signi®cance using general linear
models analyses of variance. The general linear models procedure controls for unbalanced or
uneven subsamples, and thus was most appropriate for these analyses. In addition, O'Briens'
(1981) test of homogeneity of variance was conducted on TOTSAQ, STUATT, and CLRMIMP
scores before all analyses. The tests were conducted according to learning cycle approach,
enrollment decision, and learning cycle approach� enrollment decision as independent vari-
ables. The results indicated that the assumption of homogeneity of variance among the
subsamples was not violated for any of the questionnaire scores (p> .05).
A general linear models, two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to examine
possible differences in students' overall science perceptions according to learning cycle ap-
proach (high paradigmatic, low paradigmatic) and students' enrollment intentions. These results
are shown in Table 6.
The test revealed statistically signi®cant main effects for each independent variable and a
signi®cant interaction. Examination of the means (Table 5) and Student±Newman±Keuls post
hoc analyses determined the sources of these differences. Students in high paradigmatic/high
inquiry classes had higher mean scores on the TOTSAQ than students in low paradigmatic/low
inquiry classes. Students planning to take elective science courses in high school had a
considerably higher mean score than students not planning to enroll in elective science courses.
However, these differences in main effects can be interpreted only by analyzing the interaction
(Huck & Cormier, 1996). Therefore, the signi®cant interaction is represented in graphic form in
Figure 13.
Figure 2. Science self-concept, gender, and learning cycle approach.
Figure 1. Science enjoyment, gender, and learning cycle approach.
STUDENTS' SCIENCE PERCEPTIONS AND ENROLLMENT DECISIONS 1045
According to Figure 13, students in high paradigmatic classes who were not planning to
enroll in elective science courses had lower attitudes than those planning to take elective science
courses in these same classes. Students who were in high paradigmatic classes and planning to
enroll in elective science had particularly high attitudes. Among students not planning to enroll,
those in low paradigmatic classes had higher overall attitudes than those in high paradigmatic
classes. These differences are likely the source of the interaction.
Teacher effect analyses were also conducted to determine whether teacher gender in¯ue-
nced students' science perceptions or elective science enrollment intentions. No signi®cance
was found with teacher gender in high or low paradigmatic science classes and their students'
science perceptions and enrollment intentions, which suggests that teacher gender did not
in¯uence students' attitudes towards science or students' willingness to continue taking science
courses.
STUATT. A general linear models, two-way ANOVA was conducted to determine possible
differences in students' scores on the subscale STUATT. Student scores on the STUATT subscale
served as the dependent variable, whereas learning cycle approach, students' enrollment
intentions, and the interactions of learning cycle approach � students' enrollment intentions
were the independent variables. Results are reported in Table 7.
Figure 4. Student choice, gender, and learning cycle approach.
Figure 3. Lack of anxiety, gender, and learning cycle approach.
1046 CAVALLO AND LAUBACH
No signi®cant main effects were found in the STUATT subscale scores according to the
learning cycle approach or the interaction. However, a signi®cant main effect was observed on
STUATT scores according to students' plans to enroll in elective science courses in high school.
Examination of the subscale means in Table 5 and Student±Newman±Keuls post hoc
analyses on the signi®cant main effect of student enrollment intention revealed the direction of
the observed difference. Students planning to continue science course enrollment had higher
student attitudes that those not intending to enroll.
CLRMIMP. A general linear models, two-way ANOVA was conducted to determine
possible differences in students' scores on the subscale CLRMIMP according to learning cycle
approach, enrollment intention, and the interaction of these variables. Results are reported in
Table 8.
The results revealed signi®cant main effects in students' perceptions of their classroom
according to learning cycle approach and the interaction between learning cycle approach and
enrollment intention (p< .05). No signi®cant differences were found in students' CLRMIMP
scores according to their decision to enroll in elective science in the future.
Examination of the means in Table 5 and Student±Newman±Keuls post hoc analyses
indicated that students in high paradigmatic classes had signi®cantly higher scores on
CLRMIMP than students in low paradigmatic classes. Again, differences in main effects can be
Figure 6. Teacher enthusiasm, gender, and learning cycle approach.
Figure 5. Teacher support, gender, and learning cycle approach.
STUDENTS' SCIENCE PERCEPTIONS AND ENROLLMENT DECISIONS 1047
interpreted only by analyzing the interaction (Huck & Cormier, 1996). Therefore, for
interpretation the signi®cant interaction of learning cycle approach � enrollment intention for
the CLRMIMP subscale is represented in Figure 14.
As shown in Figure 14, students in high paradigmatic classes who did not plan to enroll in
future high school science courses had relatively low attitudes in classroom-related areas,
whereas those who planned to enroll had relatively high attitudes. The means of CLRMIMP
among students in low paradigmatic classes were nearly equal for students who did and did not
plan to enroll in more science courses. This discrepancy is likely the source of the interaction.
Patterns in Students' Explanations of Their Intentions to Enroll in an
Elective Science Course
To explore patterns in students' explanations for taking or not taking elective science
courses, their open-ended responses were ®rst grouped according to their decision to enroll in
future science elective classes. Ninety-six students answered `̀ yes'' to Question 4 on the SAQ,
indicating plans to enroll in an elective science class in high school, whereas 23 students
indicated they were not planning to enroll in elective science classes. Because students were
asked to give three reasons for planning or not planning to enroll, a total of 288 positive
Figure 8. Science as male domain, gender, and learning cycle approach.
Figure 7. Usefulness of science, gender, and learning cycle approach.
1048 CAVALLO AND LAUBACH
responses and a total of 69 negative responses were expected. However, several students gave
no response or provided statements that were irrelevant to their enrollment decisions. These
responses were considered not valid and were excluded from examination. Of the 288 possible
total responses of those students planning to enroll, 35 responses were not valid. Of the 69
possible total responses of students not planning to enroll, 37 responses were not valid.
Therefore, the focus of this particular analysis was on relevant responses that could be
interpreted in light of the students' enrollment decisions. Each response was examined and
similar responses were placed in common categories. All categories that emerged from the
student responses are shown in Tables 9 and 10.
As shown in Table 9, the most frequent reason given for planning to enroll in elective
science was that the students' future careers were related to science. This reason was followed by
comments that the students wanted to learn more about science. Need for college was the third
most important reason for planning to enroll in elective science courses.
As shown in Table 10, the most frequent reason given for not planning to enroll in elective
science was that the students' future careers were not related to science. This reason was
followed by comments that the students did not need any more science credits. That science is
not interesting was the third most important reason given for not planning to enroll in elective
science courses.
Figure 10. Total Student Attitudes (TOTSAQ), gender, and learning cycle approach.
Figure 9. Student science motivation, gender, and learning cycle approach.
STUDENTS' SCIENCE PERCEPTIONS AND ENROLLMENT DECISIONS 1049
Discussion
The ®rst question of this research was to explore differences in students' science enrollment
decisions according to participation in high paradigmatic/high inquiry and low paradigmatic/low
inquiry learning cycle classrooms. Results indicated equal distribution in both high paradigmatic
and low paradigmatic classes of students who did or did not plan to enroll in elective science
courses. Perhaps this similar desire to take more science courses is due to the use of learning
cycle curricula through every grade level of this school district, which, despite differences in
actual implementation, is a distinctly constructivist, inquiry-based teaching procedure (Myers &
Fouts, 1992). Alternatively, students at this school may continue taking science courses
regardless of variations in teaching procedures because of future plans for college. Because the
school is situated in a university community where its in¯uence is strong, the likelihood that
students will go on to college may be greater here than in some other communities. There may be
outside factors not examined in this study that in¯uence students' decisions to continue enrolling
in elective science courses.
No known studies have yet addressed the issue of gender enrollment in elective science
courses by the extent of inquiry teaching used in classrooms particularly, by teachers' differing
use of the learning cycle paradigm. In this study, no differences were observed in the frequency
of males choosing to take or not take elective science courses according to the extent teachers
implemented the inquiry-based learning cycle paradigm. However, a signi®cant difference was
found in intentions to enroll among females in these learning cycle classrooms. More females in
Figure 11. Student Science Attitudes (STUATT), gender, and learning cycle approach.
Figure 12. Classroom Impact (CLRMIMP), gender, and learning cycle approach.
1050 CAVALLO AND LAUBACH
Table 4
t-test analyses between male and female students in high and low learning cycle paradigm classrooms on
variables examined in this study
Variable Groups tested L df p
Science enjoyment Males high/males low 2.89 57 .006Females high/females low 1.68 57 .098Males high/females high 0.618 51 .540Males low/females low 0.096 60 .924
Self-concept Males high/males low 0.100 53 .921of ability Females high/females low 0.046 56 .963in science Males high/females high 1.02 53 .314
Males low/females low 1.04 56 .304Lack of anxiety Males high/males low 0.695 57 .490
in science Females high/females low 0.287 48 .775Males high/females high 0.465 42 .644Males low/females low 1.61 59 .112
Student choice Males high/males low 0.723 49 .473Females high/females low 0.185 46 .854Males high/females high 0.269 42 .789Males low/females low 0.775 54 .442
Teacher support Males high/males low 2.12 55 .039Females high/females low 1.11 48 .271Males high/females high 0.449 41 .655Males low/females low 1.09 61 .281
Teacher enthusiasm Males high/males low 2.96 55 .004Females high/females low 0.375 47 .709Males high/females high 0.062 47 .951Males low/females low 2.50 57 .015
Usefulness of Males high/males low 1.48 54 .144science Females high/females low 0.748 54 .458
Males high/females high 0.771 51 .444Males low/females low 1.45 57 .152
Science as Males high/males low 0.997 53 .323male domain Females high/females low 0.134 50 .894
Males high/females high 1.45 52 .152Males low/females low 2.54 39 .015
Student science Males high/males low 0.765 56 .448motivation Females high/females low 0.134 53 .894
Males high/females high 0.069 48 .945Males low/females low 0.803 61 .425
Total Science Males high/males low 1.77 57 .082Attitudes Females high/females low 0.914 50 .365(TOTSAQ) Males high/females high 0.006 47 .995
Males low/females low 0.657 61 .513Attitude Males high/male low 0.831 57 .410
Toward Females high/females low 0.865 56 .391Science Males highly/females high 0.146 52 .884(STUATT) Males low/females low 0.298 61 .767
Classroom Males high/males low 2.72 55 .009Impact Females high/females low 0.647 45 .521(CLRMIMP) Males high/females high 0.241 41 .811
Males low/females low 2.07 60 .043
STUDENTS' SCIENCE PERCEPTIONS AND ENROLLMENT DECISIONS 1051
high paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms were planning to further their science education
than were females in low paradigmatic learning cycle science classrooms. The ®nding coincides
with other research reporting that females who are subject to a higher level of inquiry tend to
aspire for a continuance in science (Lee & Burkam, 1996). Furthermore, females tend to prefer
collaboration and high levels of small-group interaction (Kahle & Meece, 1994). The
collaborative groups that are an essential component of the learning cycle may be a positive
experience for females in particular and may lead to continued science course enrollment. The
ideal learning cycle also allows substantial opportunity for students to express thoughts and ideas
Table 5
Descriptive statistics of the variables used in this study for the total group
TOTSAQ STUATT CLRMIMP
n M SD Range M SD Range M SD Range
Total group 119 91.7 17.3 49±124 68.3 12.9 36±92 23.4 7.7 4±38High paradigmatic 56 94.7 17.7 49±124 69.8 12.5 36±90 24.9 7.8 5±38Low paradigmatic 63 88.9 16.7 54±117 66.9 13.1 40±92 22.0 7.3 4±37
Enrolling 96 94.8 16.2 50±124 71.0 11.7 40±92 23.9 7.5 4±38Not enrolling 23 78.3 15.7 49±117 57.0 11.2 36±80 21.3 8.1 7±37
High paradigmatic 48 98.6 15.4 50±123 72.6 10.8 42±90 26.0 7.6 5±38� enrolling
High paradigmatic 8 71.6 12.1 49±83 53.3 8.7 36±63 18.4 6.6 7±25� not enrolling
Low paradigmatic 48 91.1 16.3 54±117 69.4 12.5 40±92 21.7 7.0 4±36� enrolling
Low paradigmatic 15 81.9 16.5 56±117 59.0 12.1 41±80 22.9 8.6 12±37� not enrolling
Note. TOTSAQ�Total Science Attitude Questionnaire; STUATT�Student Attitude toward Science (subscale of the
TOTSAQ); CLRMIMP�Classroom Impact (subscale of the TOTSAQ).
Table 6
Two-way analysis of variance with Total Science Attitudes (TOTSAQ)
as dependent variable
Source SS df MS F
Learning cycle 989.70 1 989.70 4.00*approach
Enrollment 4,591.70 1 4,591.70 18.55**decision
Learning cycle 1,349.63 1 1,349.63 5.45*approach�enrollmentdecision
Error 28,461.87 115 247.49Corrected total 35,192.87 118
*p< .05; **p< .001.
1052 CAVALLO AND LAUBACH
in oral and written forms. Perhaps such an atmosphere particularly appeals to females and
capitalizes on their strengths in verbal expression (Cavallo, 1994). In essence, the learning cycle
may provide a social context in which female students are comfortable and successful in their
learning. More research is needed on this topic to clarify these prospects.
Analyses of differences in students' attitude variables relative to gender and experience in
high and low paradigmatic classrooms revealed some unexpected ®ndings. It appears that males
in the low paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms had more negative views of their classroom
environments, particularly teacher support and enthusiasm, and lower science enjoyment
compared with males in the high paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms. Thus, although
considerable research has been conducted on the impact of inquiry and collaborative group
learning among females, little is known about the impact of such curricula on males. Males in the
low paradigmatic classrooms were planning to continue enrolling in science courses in high
school at an equivalent rate with males in high paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms.
However, males in the low paradigmatic classrooms held lower perceptions of their science
instruction/environment compared with those in the high paradigmatic learning cycle
classrooms. Might there be long-term effects of the more negative perceptions among these
Figure 13. Signi®cant interaction of approach � enrollment decision on TOTSAQ.
Table 7
Two-way analysis of variance with Student Science Attitudes (STUATT) as dependent variable
Source SS df MS F
Learning cycle 246.41 1 246.41 1.83approach
Enrollment 3,451.91 1 3,451.91 25.69*decision
Learning cycle 340.74 1 340.74 2.54approach �enrollmentdecision
Error 15,450.79 115 134.35Corrected total 19,489.85 118
*p< .001.
STUDENTS' SCIENCE PERCEPTIONS AND ENROLLMENT DECISIONS 1053
male students, and if so, what might be the nature of such effects? Future research should
investigate this possibility.
Furthermore, the male students in the low paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms had more
stereotypical views of science as a male domain compared with the females in these same
classrooms. There were no differences in views of science as a male domain between the males
and females in the high paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms. The ®nding that males in the
low paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms had more stereotypical views of science as a male
domain corroborates ®ndings of research cited earlier (Green®eld, 1996). However, that science
as a male domain was viewed equivalently among the males and females in the high para-
digmatic learning cycle classrooms contradicts this earlier research. Two male teachers and one
female teacher were the instructors in the low paradigmatic classrooms, whereas two female
teachers and one male teacher were the instructors in the high paradigmatic learning cycle
classrooms. It was thought possible that the 2:1 ratio of male teachers in the low paradigmatic
classrooms contributed to the male students' view of science as a male domain, although the
presence of male teachers did not effect the female students in these same classrooms (or had the
opposite effect). Statistical analyses of teacher effect on this variable (science as male domain)
revealed no differences between males and females according to gender of the teacher. It is not
conclusive from the current study whether these ®ndings are due to differences in the high versus
Table 8
Two-way analysis of variance with Classroom Impact (CLRMIMP) as dependent variable
Source SS df MS F
Learning cycle 248.45 1 248.45 4.53*approach
Enrollment 81.16 1 81.16 1.48decision
Learning cycle 334.09 1 334.09 6.09*approach �
Enrollmentdecision
Error 6,304.29 115 54.82Corrected total 6,967.98 118
*p< .05.
Figure 14. Signi®cant interaction of approach � enrollment decision on CLRMIMP.
1054 CAVALLO AND LAUBACH
low inquiry nature of two classroom situations, or an alternative explanation. The question of
why these results were found would be important for future research.
The third research question focused on differences in students' science perceptions (student
attitudes and classroom impact) according to teacher use of the learning cycle model, intentions
to enroll in elective science courses, and the interaction between these variables. One important
®nding was that in classrooms where teachers used a more student-centered, high paradigmatic
learning cycle model, students had more positive overall science perceptions than students in
Table 9
Patterns of responses from students who are planning to enroll in elective sciences (N� 96)
Reasons Frequency %
Career related to science 48 50.0Want to learn more 35 36.5Need for college 29 30.2Enjoy/like science 22 22.9Looks good on transcript 20 20.8Science is interesting 18 18.8Science is helpful in life 18 18.8Need the credits to graduate 14 14.6Science is fun 13 13.5
The following responses each had a frequency lower than 7 and %lower than 10.0
Friends are taking scienceHelp me to understand science betterPersonal goalsSomething to doScience is better than other subjectsTo score higher on ACT/SATWant toScience is importantGood at science
Table 10
Patterns of responses from students who are not planning to enroll in
elective sciences (N� 23)
Reason Frequency %
Does not apply to career 8 34.8No more science credit needed 6 26.1Science is not interesting 5 21.7Does not like science 3 13.0No time in schedule 3 13.0Lowers grade point average 2 8.7Does not enjoy 2 8.7Takes time and hard work 1 4.3Science is not fun 1 4.3Lacks motivation 1 4.3
STUDENTS' SCIENCE PERCEPTIONS AND ENROLLMENT DECISIONS 1055
classrooms where teachers did not adhere as closely to the model. The signi®cant interaction
reveals that this ®nding is only relevant among those students planning to continue taking
science. Thus, a higher level of inquiry in the learning cycle relates to more positive perceptions
of science, particularly among students who plan to enroll in science elective course work. This
®nding may imply that these high inquiry classrooms have great appeal to students planning to
continue enrolling in science because they engage students in activities that more closely re¯ect
the true nature of the scienti®c discipline.
As could be expected, students planning to enroll in elective science courses had more
positive overall perceptions of science than those not planning to enroll. However, students in
the high paradigmatic classes who were not planning to enroll had lower overall science
perceptions than their counterparts in the low paradigmatic classes (Figure 13). Students in low
paradigmatic/low inquiry classes showed relatively equivalent attitudes whether or not they
intended to enroll in more science courses, as evidenced by the essentially horizontal line in
Figure 13. Perhaps students who do not plan to continue enrolling in science classes have more
negative attitudes in high paradigmatic/high inquiry learning cycle classes, because they are
forced to engage in investigations and think autonomously, compared with the science
classrooms with fewer of these experiences and challenges. Those students in high paradigmatic
classrooms who are not planning to take more science may not want to be challenged with the
thinking processes required in the learning cycle. As found in other research, although most
students would rather ®nd the answer to a question than be told it and value teachers who
encourage them to think for themselves, some are uncomfortable with questions they cannot
answer (Ward, 1979).
In addition, Hueftle, Rakow, and Welch (1983) implied that students may feel more
comfortable with assessment at lower rather than higher cognitive levels. These high inquiry
classes demand students to struggle with ideas and use autonomous thinking in constructing the
concept. Students who do not plan to take more science may be uncomfortable or unwilling to
expend such effort; thus, being forced to do so may translate to more negative attitudes toward
science and classroom-related issues in these high inquiry classrooms.
Another possible explanation for the discrepancy of student attitudes in the high
paradigmatic classes may be that some students prefer working individually as opposed to
working in collaborative groups. The high paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms require
considerable collaborative groups efforts. Students who do not plan to enroll in future science
coursework may not wish to engage in such collaboration, and may develop negative attitudes
toward science and science teaching. It is not known whether these students are among the lower
achievers in science, which could also explain the more negative science perceptions, and hence
their decisions not to enroll. Future research should incorporate measures of student effort, group
work preferences, and achievement to help clarify ®ndings of this study. The challenge then lies
in ®nding ways to help these students develop more positive science attitudes in high inquiry
classrooms.
Results of analyses on the subscale of attitudes toward science showed a difference with
respect to students' enrollment intentions. Students who plan to enroll in elective science courses
in high school have more positive attitudes than those not planning to enroll. This ®nding
coincides with previous studies on this topic (Crawley & Coe, 1990; Haselhuhn & Andre;
Khoury, 1984). Students' attitudes toward science did not differ according to the extent teachers
adhered to the learning cycle model and the interaction between learning cycle approach and
students' enrollment intentions. As in other research, this ®nding may indicate that variables
other than teaching approach may in¯uence students' personal attitudes toward science (Fouts &
Myers, 1992; Gallagher, 1994; Ledbetter, 1993; Myers & Fouts, 1992). Students' personal
1056 CAVALLO AND LAUBACH
attitudes seem to be most linked to their decisions to continue taking science courses. Perhaps
those students who do not see personal meaning or relevance in science may discontinue their
pursuit of additional science-related courses.
An interesting discovery of this study was that the students' classroom-related attitudes
did not differ according to their enrollment intentions. This ®nding contradicts several studies
(Myers & Fouts, 1994; Piburn & Baker, 1993; Remick & Miller, 1978; Simpson & Oliver, 1990)
which state that the impact of the classroom environment is the primary in¯uence on increased
science attitude, achievement, and future enrollment. Unique to this study, the extent to which
teachers use the ideal learning cycle model revealed different classroom-related attitudes among
students, especially those planing to enroll in elective science courses. In classrooms where
teachers use high levels of inquiry and closely emulate the learning cycle model, those students
who plan to continue in science have more positive views of their science classroom in areas
of teacher support, involvement, order and organization, student-to-student af®liation, and
innovative teaching strategies than in classrooms where the model is not as closely emulated. In
these high paradigmatic classrooms, students are more likely to experience science in the
manner the discipline is structuredÐas a constructivist, high inquiry, laboratory-centered
process (Lawson, Abraham, & Renner, 1989). As the current study shows, these experiences
seem to translate to highly positive perceptions of the science classroom among students who
plan to enroll in elective science courses. However, the experiences may also have a negative
impact on those not planning to enroll in elective science courses.
Interpretations of students' open-ended responses may be facilitated by examining The
Digest of Education Statistics (1997), which reported several reasons 12th-graders gave in
response to choosing science classes. In this document, the following statistics were given
as a percentage of 12th-graders who answered somewhat important or very important to the
following categories: interested in science, 79; do well in science, 81; need it for college, 83;
need it for career, 47; need it for advanced placement, 50; advised to take by: teacher, 59;
guidance counselor, 59; parent, 66; friend, 44; and sibling, 29.
Fiegel (1970) conducted a similar study involving tenth grade biology students, high school
counselors, and chemistry teachers. Each group was asked to list several factors that were
involved in the students' decisions regarding their enrollment in chemistry. The researcher
ranked the groups' responses in order importance why students decided to elect chemistry. These
factors were: college preparatory, interest, major sequence, vocational goals, family in¯uence,
counselor in¯uence, peer in¯uence, and good science grades. The factors responsible for
students not to elect chemistry were also ranked. The ®rst nine factors considered important in
the decision not to elect chemistry were nonscience goals and dif®culty (tie), disinterest, lack of
ability, poor science grades, noncollege preparatory, poor math grades, and nonscience sequence
and peer in¯uence (tie).
After analyzing the qualitative data for the current study, comparisons were made with
these similar studies (Fiegel, 1970; NCES, 1997). Several reasons for future science elective
enrollment given in the current study were also given in the other studies. These reasons
include: need science credit for college purposes, need science for future career, and need
science credit for advance placement. These similar responses may be due to the increased
educational emphasis placed on future careers and the societal emphasis placed on being
successful.
However, several reasons for future science elective enrollment given in the current study
did not match those given in the other studies. These reasons include: the student wants to learn
more science, the student enjoys or likes science, science is helpful to the student, and science is
fun for the student. One possible explanation for the inclusion of these factors in students'
STUDENTS' SCIENCE PERCEPTIONS AND ENROLLMENT DECISIONS 1057
explanations may be the exclusive learning cycle science instruction they receive throughout
their education in this school district (Grades K±12). Again, the ®ndings support the notion that
more positive attitudes toward science exist in inquiry-based classrooms where students
thoroughly experience science, as opposed to more noninquiry programs where students do not
experience the nature of science.
The most frequent reasons given for why students were not planning to enroll in elective
science courses were congruent with similar studies (Fiegel, 1970). These reasons include: non±
science career, non±college preparatory, and disinterest in science. It seems that these students
do not consider the study of science applicable to their everyday or future needs. This perception
is unfortunate since science is so closely linked to everyday experience. Teachers must work
toward making science relevant and applicable to students' everyday lives.
Limitations
This study was exploratory in nature and thus used a design to assess the extant attitudes,
perceptions, and enrollment decisions of students in biology classrooms at the time this study
was conducted. The investigation serves as a springboard for more in-depth, future research.
Such future research will use a pre- and posttest design among the students to gauge possible
shifts in science attitudes, perceptions, and enrollment decisions from the beginning to the end
of the school year. Additional research would further analyze previous science experiences of the
students, and follow students through subsequent years of high school to determine whether and
why students chose to pursue further science coursework, or chose not to do so. Qualitative
techniques would be invaluable and necessary in future research on questions raised in this study.
From a statistical perspective, one limitation of this study was uneven subsample sizes,
particularly the low numbers of high paradigmatic and low paradigmatic students not planning
to enroll in elective science courses. Statistical procedures that controlled for uneven subsample
sizes were used to account for the diversi®ed distribution of subjects among the groups.
However, results af®liated with the smaller subsamples should be interpreted with caution.
Such caution is particularly warranted in interpreting Table 2, where 1 cell frequency was <5.
In addition, a large number of statistical tests were conducted in this study, which increases
the likelihood of ®nding statistical signi®cance by chance. The probability level of p< .05 was
used in this study owing to its exploratory nature. However, results related to ®ndings at p< .01
would be more robust. Thus, signi®cant ®ndings > p � :01 should be interpreted with know-
ledge of this possibility of error in ®ndings.
In this study, two major categories of variables were examined, student-related and
classroom-related variables. The study did not examine other factors, mainly related to
achievement and home variables, which may be associated with the ®ndings. Such factors
include: cognitive ability, socioeconomic status, parental education, parental in¯uence, and
family climate. Future investigations may extend the research of the current study by exploring
students' achievement and home-related variables in addition to those used here as related to
science enrollment patterns.
Educational Implications
Many studies have addressed relationships among laboratory instruction, attitudes toward
science, and achievement in science (Freedman, 1997; Lawson, Abraham, & Renner, 1989;
Ledbetter, 1993; Gallagher, 1994; Fouts & Myers, 1992). The ®ndings of this study coincide
with the previous studies, in that students who experience a higher level of inquiry do possess
1058 CAVALLO AND LAUBACH
more positive attitudes toward science and the science classroom. Importantly, this study extends
previous work with the ®nding that students in high paradigmatic, learning cycle classrooms
have more positive attitudes and also choose to continue their studies in science through
additional courses.
Unique to previous research, this study did not compare student attitudes in laboratory-
oriented versus lecture-oriented classrooms. Instead, comparisons were made between
teachers' use of the inquiry-based, laboratory-centered teaching procedure known as the
learning cycle and, especially, their adherence to the ideal model. The information obtained in
this study may be useful to school administrators and teachers in relation to curricula decisions
and enrollment issues. Science courses in many school systems typically do not promote
positive attitudes toward science or eagerness among students to continue taking science
courses in high school and college (Simpson & Oliver, 1985). As observed in this study,
students in high paradigmatic learning cycle classes did have positive attitudes toward science
and their science classroom environments. Those planning to enroll in elective sciences in high
school also had highly positive attitudes. Thus, administrators and teachers may encourage and
facilitate the implementation of laboratory-centered teaching procedures in their science
classrooms.
This study revealed that perhaps one way to decrease gender discrepancies in science
education is to increase laboratory-type experiences included in science curricula. Females must
be given the same type of experiences and opportunities as males in the classroom when
performing laboratory activities (Kahle & Lakes, 1983). Such experiences are more likely to
occur in classrooms that emphasize group work and student construction of concepts as in model
learning cycle classrooms. Research consistently shows that most girls prefer and take a more
active role in cooperative or collaborative learning activities, as is emphasized in the learning
cycle, rather than those learning activities which are competitive (Baker, 1990).
Furthermore, in traditional classrooms, females tend to feel more comfortable with student-
to-student interactions than direct teacher-to-student interactions. This study showed that
females in high paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms, where the teacher-to-student inter-
actions were very high, were more likely to continue their science course taking as opposed to
their counterparts in low paradigmatic classrooms. This ®nding corroborates with Kahle (1985),
in that teachers who had a high proportion of girls continuing to enroll in elective science courses
used speci®c teaching strategies; these teachers emphasized laboratory work and discussion
groups, stressed creativity and basic skills, and used other resources rather than relying solely on
a textbook. Thus, teachers should conscientiously implement such teaching procedures that may
promote females' interest and science coursework persistence.
This research unexpectedly revealed the need to rethink and refocus our attention on the
science education of male students. It is not clear how the more negative perceptions of the
attitudinal variables among males in low inquiry classrooms may play out in the future of their
education. However, these revelations are worthy of further inquiry and research. Science
education needs to address the needs of all students, and in doing so strive to increase interest and
persistence of both male and female students in science.
With the new century upon us, educators must be cognizant of the possible factors that may
in¯uence student enrollment in elective secondary science courses. Attention must also be
directed to the teaching procedures used in science. If our educational goals are to achieve
scienti®c literacy and promote student pursuit of science careers, changes in particular school
curricula must take place. Experiences that provide an atmosphere conducive for learning must
be offered to all students so that we can continue to promote the worldwide quest for scienti®c
knowledge.
STUDENTS' SCIENCE PERCEPTIONS AND ENROLLMENT DECISIONS 1059
References
Atwater, M.M., Gardner, C.M., & Wiggins, J. (1995). A study of urban middle school
students with high and low attitudes toward science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
32, 665±677.
Baker, D. (1990, April). Gender differences in science: Where they start and where they go.
Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching,
Atlanta, GA.
Bogden, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and applied methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Catsambis, S. (1995). Gender, race, ethnicity, and science education in the middle grades.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 243±257.
Cavallo, A.M.L., Reap, M.A., Saunders, G., & Gerber, B. (1995) EARTHSTORM project
evaluation: A report to the National Science Foundation. NSF Project No. TPE 9155306.
University of Oklahoma Printing Services, Norman, OK.
Campbell T.C. (1997). An evaluation of a learning cycle intervention strategy for enhan-
cing the use of formal operational thought by beginning college physics students. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Oklahoma. Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 3903A.
Crawley, F.E., & Coe, A.S. (1990). Determinants of middle school students' intention to
enroll in a high school science courses: An application of the Theory of Reasoned Action.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 461±476.
Eisenhower National Clearinghouse. (1996). A perspective on reform in mathematics and
science education. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
Farenga, S.J. & Joyce, B.A. (1999). Intentions of young students to enroll in science courses
in the future: An examination of gender differences. Science Education, 83, 55±76.
Fiegel, M.J. (1970). Elements which in¯uence the selection of `̀ chemistry.'' Doctoral
dissertation, State University of New York of Buffalo. Dissertation Abstracts International, 31,
1643A.
Fouts, J.T., & Myers, R.E. (1992). Classroom environments and middle school students'
views of science. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 356±361.
Freedman, M.P. (1997). Relationship among laboratory instruction, attitude toward science,
and achievement in science knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 343±357.
Fraser, B. (1994). Research on classroom and school climate. In D.L. Gabel (Ed.),
Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 493±541). New York: National
Science Teachers Association.
Full option science system (FOSS). (1993). Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica
Educational Corporation.
Gallagher, S.A. (1994). Middle school classroom predictors of science persistence. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 721±734.
Glass, L.W. (1990). Secondary science enrollment trends and the recent national reports.
School Science and Mathematics, 90, 245±253.
Green®eld, T.A. (1996). Gender, ethnicity, science achievement, and attitudes. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 33, 901±933.
Haladyna, T., & Shaughnessy, J. (1982). Attitudes toward science: A quantitative synthesis.
Science Education, 66, 547±563.
Hammrich, P.L. (1997). Yes, daughter, you can. Science and Children, 34, 20±24.
Haselhuhn, C.W., & Andre, T. (1997, March). Relationships of gender, science self-ef®cacy,
attitude, and subjective norm to intended enrollment in high school biology, chemistry, and
1060 CAVALLO AND LAUBACH
physics. Paper presented at the meeting of National Association for Research in Science
Teaching, Oak Brook, IL.
Huck, S.H., & Cormier, W.H. (1996). Reading statistics and research. New York:
HarperCollins.
Hueftle, S.J., Rakow, S.J., & Welch, W.W. (1983). Images of science: A summary of results
from the 1981±82 National Assessment in Science. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Research and
Evaluation Center.
Jones, M.G., & Wheatley, J. (1990). Gender differences in teacher-student interactions in
science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 861±874.
Kahle, J.B. (1985). Retention of girls in science: Case studies of secondary teachers. In
J.B. Kahle (Ed.), Women in science: A report from the ®eld. Philadelphia, PA: Farmer.
Kahle, J.B., & Lakes, M.K. (1983). The myth of equality in science classrooms. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 20, 131±140.
Kahle, J.B., & Meece, J. (1994). Research on gender issues in the classroom. In D.L. Gabel
(Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 542±557). New York:
National Science Teachers Association.
Karplus, R., & Their, H.D. (1967). A new look at elementary school science. Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Kelly, A. (1985). The construction of masculine science. British Journal of Sociology of
Education, 6, 133±153.
Khoury, G.A. (1984). A model identifying selected factors in¯uencing science enrollment
patterns of high school students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor.
Koballa, T.R., & Crawley, F.E. (1985). The in¯uence of attitude on science teaching and
learning. School Science and Mathematics, 85, 222±232.
Laubach, T. (1998). Tenth grade biology students' intentions to enroll in elective science
courses: A comparison of science perceptions in differing learning cycle classrooms.
Unpublished masters thesis, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK.
Lawson, A.E. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Lawson, A.E., Abraham, M.R., & Renner, J.W. (1989). A theory of instruction: Using the
learning cycle to teach science concepts and thinking skill. National Association of Research in
Science Teaching, Monograph No. 1.
Ledbetter, C.E. (1993). Qualitative comparison of students' constructions of science.
Science Education, 77, 611±624.
Lee, V.E., & Burkam, D.T. (1996). Gender differences in middle grade science achievement:
subject domain, ability level, and course emphasis. Science Education, 80, 613±650.
Mager, R. (1968). Developing attitude toward learning. Palo Alto, CA: Fearon.
Marek, E.A., & Cavallo, A.M.L. (1995). Passkeys to learning science in the elementary
schools: The data and language of science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 80, 613±
650.
Marek, E.A., & Cavallo, A.M.L. (1997). The learning cycle: Elementary school science and
beyond (rev. ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Marek, E.A., Eubanks, C., & Gallaher, T.H. (1990). Teachers' understanding and the use of
the learning cycle. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 821±834.
Myers, R.E., & Fouts, J.T. (1992). A cluster analysis of high school science classroom
environments and attitude toward science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 929±
937.
STUDENTS' SCIENCE PERCEPTIONS AND ENROLLMENT DECISIONS 1061
National Center for Education Statistics. (1996). Report in brief: NAEP 1994 trends in
academic progress. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1997a). Digest of education statistics.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1997b). Findings from the condition of education:
Women in mathematics and science. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
O'Brien, R. (1981). A simple test for variance effect in experimental designs. Psychological
Bulletin, 89, 570±574.
Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2,
176±186.
Piburn, M.D., & Baker, D.R. (1993). If I were the teacher: Qualitative study of attitude
toward science. Science Education, 77, 393±406.
Remick, H., & Miller, K. (1978). Participation rates in high school mathematics and science.
Physics Teacher, 5, 280±282.
Renner, J.W., Abraham, M.R., & Birnie, H.H. (1985). Secondary school students' beliefs
about the physics laboratory. Science Education, 69, 649±663.
Renner, J.W., Cate, J., Grzybowski, E., Surber, C., Atkinson, L., & Marek, E.A. (1996).
Investigations in natural science: Biology. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.
Science curriculum improvement study (SCIS-3). (1992). Hudson, NH: Delta Education.
Shrigley, R.L., Koballa, T.R., Jr., & Simpson, R.D. (1988). De®ning attitude for science
educators. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 659±678.
Simpson, R.D., Koballa, T.R., Oliver, J.S., & Crawley, F.E. (1994). Research on the affective
dimension of science learning. In D.L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching
and learning (pp. 221±234). New York: National Science Teachers Association.
Simpson, R.D., & Oliver, J.S. (1984). Attitude toward science and achievement motivation
pro®les of male and female science students in grades six through ten. Science Education, 69,
511±526.
Simpson, R.D., & Oliver, J.S. (1990). A summary of major in¯uences on attitude toward and
achievement in science among adolescent students. Science Education, 74, 1±18.
Ward, B. (1979). Attitudes toward science: A summary of results from the 1976±77
National Assessment of Science. Report 08-S-01. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the
State.
Woolfolk, A. (1998). Educational psychology, Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Yale, F.G. (1966). Avoiding the physical sciences. Science Education, 50, 325±328.
1062 CAVALLO AND LAUBACH