A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS OF TEACHERS AND

THEIR STUDENTS TOWARD SCIENCE TEACHING

Reynaldo R. Ibasco
rt3jibasco@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT

There had been several studies that show that attitudes and beliefs of students toward

science affect their learning. In the information processing model of learning, a component of the

model called the perception filter is affected by attitudes and beliefs of the learner. This in turn

affects how learners respond to and process information presented to them such as those given

by the teacher. In reality both student and teacher possess a perception filter hence both carry

with them unique sets of attitudes and beliefs, into the classroom. The focus of this study is to

compare the attitude and beliefs of students and their science teachers and their possible

pedagogical implications. A two-part survey was conducted to determine the attitudes and beliefs

toward science of 6 science teachers and their 183 secondary students at a private high school in

Antipolo City. Part I of the survey dealt with epistemological beliefs about learning and teaching.

Part II of the survey dealt with attitudes toward science. Analysis of Part I of the survey using

Spearman Rank Correlation shows that there is a statistically significant difference in terms of

what students and teachers believe to be most effective methods of learning/teaching of science.

There is no statistical difference in what students and teachers’ belief to be the most effective

assessments of student understanding of what was taught. Analysis of Part II of the survey using

Mann-Whitney U Test showed no statistically significant difference between the attitudes and

beliefs of students and their science teachers except in the Interest dimension. However, analysis

of the individual items showed statistically significant differences. The results of this study can

help teachers in choosing the teaching methods to use for which students will be responsive. The
simple instrument used in this study can help teachers have a specific and concrete knowledge of

the attitudes and beliefs of his or her students rather than just guess or generalize too much. The

results may also pave the way for further research such as how a difference in the attitude toward

science between student and teacher may affect student performance. Further study may also be

done regarding how the attitudes and beliefs of teachers affect how they teach.

Categories and Subject Descriptors

G.3 [Mathematics of Computing] Probability and Statistics –miscellaneous (StatSof)

General Terms

Design, Documentation, Measurement, Reliability

Keywords

Science, Attitudes, Beliefs, Students, Teachers

1. INTRODUCTION

Many authors and researchers have pointed that attitudes and beliefs of students affect

their learning (1-5). In particular, it has been shown that attitudes and beliefs toward science

affect student performance (6-9). Attitude and beliefs have often been used interchangeably

which elicited criticism from some authors (10, 11). However, in this paper the distinction

between attitudes and beliefs will not be stressed. Attitude has been defined in various ways by

different authors (12). One definition treated attitudes as learned capabilities that influence a

person’s choice of personal action that may result in changes in social behavior. Attitudes will

affect the choices that a learner makes and may be acquired from a variety of sources (13).

Another definition highlights five key elements that make up the concept of attitude: attitudes are
learned, attitudes predict behavior, the social influence of others affect attitudes, attitudes are a

readiness to respond, and attitudes are evaluative with emotion being involved (14). Another

extended the definition to explain scientific attitudes or attributes. These are behaviors that are

associated with critical thinking and typically characterized the thinking processes of scientists

(15). Attitude may also be defined as a learned predisposition to respond favourably or

unfavourably toward an attitude object (16). It is this last definition that closely reflects the

definition adopted in this paper.

Beliefs have been defined in several ways as well. Some authors define belief as personal

knowledge or understandings that are antecedents of attitudes and subjective norms; they

establish behavioural intentions. Others define beliefs as psychologically held understandings,

premises, or propositions about the world that are thought to be true. They are regarded as

cognitive (and so are “known” in some sense). Beliefs are “lenses” through which we view the

world. Belief is contrasted with attitude, in that the latter are more associated with emotions (17,

18, 19). Beliefs in this paper refer, too, to epistemological beliefs about knowing science and/or

the teaching and learning of science.

1.1 Student Attitudes and Beliefs

The desire to improve the performance of Filipino students in international assessments

such as TIMSS has been a strong focus for almost a decade now. Though this desire is

noteworthy, the focus to develop higher quality of education for our students to prepare them to

become globally competitive, nationally and ethically responsible and socially productive has

been an inspiring effort of many government and non-government groups. A large part of this

effort is to further train teachers to provide higher quality instruction and be more effective to
handle varying needs and context of learners. An important focus for some time now is helping

teachers understand how students learn and how to teach best, particularly math and science (1.

2, 20-22). From studies, it was shown that the attitude and beliefs of students are influenced by

gender, age, socio-economic background and whatever prior experience the students had (2, 21,

23-24). Such background may give rise to high or low self-efficacy (SE). Self-efficacy which

refers to personal beliefs about one's ability to perform a given task or behaviour (25), has been

shown to affect student performance (9, 26-27). Below is a sample of questionnaire that

determines the self-efficacy towards chemistry (9):

Table1.

Items in the Initial Chemistry Course Perceptions Questionnaire

Item
Number Item Statements for Students' Responses

1 Chemistry is easy for me to learn.

2 I am good in chemistry.

3 I like chemistry.

4 I expect to get a good grade in this chemistry class.

5 This course will be one of the hardest classes I will take.

6 I expect to pass this course as long as I put in my time.

7 Science is my strong suit.

Some studies show that attitude toward science in particular, show a positive correlation

with the classroom environment. These studies have been carried out in many countries
including: Australia (28), Turkey (29), Canada (30-31), China (32), Singapore (33), United

States (34-36), and Korea (37). This shows that there is much the teacher can do in the classroom

to develop a more positive attitude toward science among students. Johnstone in his recent paper

points out that the problem of teaching is that information cannot be transferred intact from a

teacher to a learner. The only way a teacher can be reasonably sure that a student has received

and understood exactly what was intended is for teacher and student to discuss and exchange the

understanding face to face (1). The effectiveness of the teacher to accomplish this is limited

because of the students’ attitudes and beliefs which act as filter through which information is

received and processed (38-40). Figure 1 shows an information processing model that illustrates

how the student’s filter affects the reception and processing of information coming from outside

stimuli such as that coming from the teacher.

Figure 1. Information Processing Model

The challenge for the teacher then is how to connect to his or her students given the varying

filters of the students. The task becomes more challenging because the teacher himself or herself
has his or her own unique filter (beliefs and attitudes) which may influence how he or she will

respond to the students and how she or he may conduct the class.

1.2 Teacher Beliefs and Attitudes

Studies have suggested that a teacher’s beliefs, rather than his or her knowledge of the

subject, constitute the more important construct which determines the classroom practice of

teachers. Beliefs are personal constructs that guide teachers in their instructional decisions,

influence their classroom management, and provide them with a lens for understanding

classroom events (41-45).

Studies show that teachers would teach based on their belief despite training and

pedagogical knowledge (46-48). Therefore a teacher with a constructivist epistemology will

likely engage in inquiry-based approach; whereas a teacher with an objectivist epistemology will

most likely use traditional methods such as lecture. There had been a few studies that show that

the epistemological beliefs and thus the teaching methodologies adopted by the teacher influence

the attitudes of students toward science and classroom learning as a whole. A positive attitude of

science teachers toward teaching has positive correlation with student performance (48, 49).

1.3 Purpose of the Study

The focus of this study is to compare the attitudes and beliefs of students and their

science teachers and their possible pedagogical implications. Specifically the study will answer

the following questions:

1. What are the attitudes and beliefs of students and teachers toward science?

2. Is there a difference in the attitudes and beliefs of students and teachers toward science?
 3. What are the pedagogical implications of the results of the study?

2. METHOD

2.1 Study Demographics

The participants are secondary science teachers and students in a small non-science and

private high school. There were 183 students: 51 1st Year students, 27 2nd Year students, 64 3rd

Year students and 41 4th Year levels and six science teachers who participated in the study. There

were 90 female students and 93 male students. The teachers cover General Science, Biology,

Chemistry and Physics.

2.2 Instrument

A one-time survey was conducted using a two-part questionnaire. Part I is a two-item

survey in which respondents will choose what they believe to be the three most effective

methods of teaching science and the three most effective methods of assessing if students

learned. They also needed to rank their top three choices (1 being the most effective and 3 the

least).

Part II is an 18 item questionnaire validated by fellow chemistry teachers from other

schools. Respondents used a four-point Likert–like scale, 1 corresponding to “Strongly Agree” to

4 corresponding to “Strongly Disagree”. The middle point (corresponding to 3) was intentionally

removed to get respondents to be decisive on which side of the scale they really are. Though not

reflected in the actual survey, the items were categorized into four dimensions:

1. Attitude toward liking science (Interest)

2. Attitude toward usefulness of science (Importance)

3. Attitude toward difficulty of science (Difficulty)

 4. Attitude toward teaching/learning science (Epistemology)

3. ANALYSIS

The data for Part I was analyzed using Spearman Rank Correlation. The data for Part II

was analyzed using Mann-Whitney U Test. In both analyses a confidence level of p ≤ 0.05 was

chosen for analysis by independent samples two-tailed using a software called StatSoft.

4. RESULTS

4.1 Epistemology

Part I of the survey reflects the epistemology of students and teachers about learning and

teaching science. Table 2 shows that both teachers and students believe similarly that doing

experiments and discussion are the most effective methods to teach science. Six out of six of the

teachers chose experiments and five of six chose discussion. A total of 111 out of 183 students

(60.6%) chose experiments and 89 students (48.6%) chose discussion. Six of the six teachers also

chose uniquely class demonstrations while 70 students (38.2%) also chose uniquely doing field

trip as one of their top three choices. Thus, the top 3 of teachers are Experiments, Discussion,

and Demonstrations. The top three of students are Experiments, Discussion and Field Trips. The

Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient (r = 0.454) was not significant at p = 0.05 thus pointing

out that the epistemology of teachers and students are statistically different over-all with regards

to teaching methods.

Table2.

Summary of ranking of students and teachers in Part IA (teaching methods) of survey

 Teacher 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total M F
Year Year Year Year
Homework 0 7 2 11 5 25 16 9

Project 1 9 3 9 2 23 18 5

Experiment 6 29 17 38 21 111 46 65

Demonstration 6 14 4 14 13 45 25 20

Discussion 5 24 15 33 12 89 41 48

Exercises 0 5 7 18 4 34 12 22

Field Trip 0 21 13 19 17 70 31 39

Games 0 7 7 11 6 31 15 16

Internet 0 18 2 7 6 33 16 17

Lecture 0 13 6 16 18 53 30 23

Role playing 0 6 2 3 2 13 8 5

Spearman, r
0.582 0.406 0.429 0.345 0.454 0.625 0.365
Legend: T: Teacher; S: Student; M: Male; F: Female

Table 3 shows that teachers and students believe similarly that written exam and able to

solve problems are the most effective way to assess students’ understanding of what was taught

them. Five out of six (83.3%) teachers chose written exam; four out six (66.7%) teachers chose

solving problems; 109 (59.6%) students chose written exam; 81 (44.3%) students chose solving

problems. Five of the six (83.3%) teachers also chose being able to apply concepts learned as

one of their top three most effective assessment method and so did 77 (42.1%) students. The

Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient (r = 0.918 at p= 0.05) shows high correlation of the
belief of students and teachers; that they have similar epistemology on what they believe to be

the most effective assessment methods.

Table 3.

Summary of ranking of students and teachers in Part IB (assessment methods) of survey

Teacher 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total M F

Year Year Year Year
Written Exam 5 39 16 28 26 109 46 63

Explain 2 25 14 24 13 76 33 43
(Written and
Oral)
Demonstrate 2 13 9 19 18 59 36 23
skills
Had fun 0 15 9 24 8 56 23 33

Solve problems 4 24 10 30 17 81 39 42

Apply concepts 5 16 10 34 17 77 38 39

Make 0 21 10 12 15 58 31 27
presentations

Spearman r 0.442 0.539 0.815 0.713 0.918 0.918 0.606

4.2 Interest

Table 4 shows that over-all, there is a statistically significant difference in attitude toward

Interest in science between teachers and students (p = < 0.001).

Table 4.
Mean Scores for INTEREST per item

Item Teacher Student p – Value

Qa 1.00 1.79 < 0.001

Qb 1.50 1.95 0.079

Qf 1.33 2.34 0.004

Interest 1.28 2.02 < 0.001

4.3 Importance

Table 5 shows that over-all, there is no statistically significant difference (p = 0.440) in

the attitude toward the Importance and use of science between students and teachers. The mean

scores of students (1.59) and teachers (1.50) show a general agreement that science is useful and

important in all areas of life. The one item they differ significantly (p = 0.006) is Qe, “Science is

also important for politicians.”

Table 5.

Mean Scores for IMPORTANCE per item

Item Teacher Student p - Value

Qd 1.17 1.52 0.158

Qe 1.50 2.62 0.006

Qk 1.50 1.53 0.983

Qp 1.83 2.29 0.115

Importance 1.50 1.59 0.440

4.3 Teaching/Learning

Table 6 shows that there is no statistically significant difference in the attitude and belief

of students and teachers about teaching or learning science. The one significant difference is

Item Qj (p = 0.045) where students believe more that science involve mainly memorizing, and

Item Qm (p = 0.040) where teachers believe more that science teaching should involve doing

experiments.

Table 6.

Mean Scores for TEACHING/LEARNING per item

Item Teacher Student p - Value

Qn 2.33 2.57 0.171

Qg 1.17 1.63 0.084

Qh 2.17 2.27 0.850

Qi 2.00 1.80 0.577

Qj 3.17 2.29 0.045

Qm 1.00 1.50 0.040

Qq 1.67 1.87 0.185

Teaching 1.93 1.99 0.168

4.3 Difficulty

As shown by Table 7, the attitude of students and teachers toward Difficulty of science is

essentially the same. Both consider science as a generally difficult to study or teach but that any

student can learn science with hard work (Item Qr and Qo).
Table 7.

Mean Scores for DIFFICULTY per item

Item Teacher Student p - Value

Qc 2.50 2.78 0.664

Qo 1.83 1.83 0.870

Ql 2.33 2.82 0.149

Qr 1.33 1.44 0.984

Difficulty 2.00 2.20 0.279

Over-all then, Part II of the survey shows there is no significant difference in the attitudes and

beliefs of students and teachers with regards to science. The main difference is in the area of

Interest. In only six items (Qa, Qb, Qe, Qf, Qj and Qm) out of 18 items do we find significant

differences.

4.4 Gender

Table 8 shows that a similar trend is observed for male and female students. The male

and female students differ only with teachers in the Interest dimension (p = 0.001 for both).

Looking at individual items, the male students differ significantly with teachers in 7 items (Qa,

Qe, Qf, Qg, Qj, Qm and Qp). The female students differ significantly with teachers in only 5

items (Qa, Qe, Qf, Qj, and Qp).

Table 8.

Mean Scores by GENDER per item

Item Teacher M F
Qa 1.00 1.76 1.81
(p = 0.001) (p = 0.001)
 Qb 1.50 1.94 1.97
(0.120) (0.056)
Qf 1.33 2.32 2.37
(0.006) (0.003)
Interest 1.28 2.01 2.04
(0.001) (0.001)
Qd 1.17 1.61 1.43
(0.099) (0.267)
Qe 1.50 2.72 2.52
(0.005) (0.010)
Qk 1.50 1.64 1.42
(0.633) (0.658)
Qp 1.83 2.66 2.77
(0.005) (0.002)
Importance 1.50 1.72 1.62
(0.068) (0.270)
Qn 2.33 2.62 2.51
(0.302) (0.401)
Qg 1.17 1.73 1.53
(0.011) (0.128)
Qh 2.17 2.24 2.30
(0.673) (0.560)
Qi 2.00 1.99 1.61
(0.780) (0.404)
Qj 3.17 2.35 2.23
(0.016) (0.009)
Qm 1.00 1.58 1.41
(0.013) (0.531)
Qk 1.67 2.00 1.73
(0.340) (0.835)
Teaching 1.93 2.07 1.90
(0.152) (0.969)
Qc 2.50 2.74 2.72
(0.391) (0.394)
Qo 1.83 1.84 1.82
(0.993) (0.986)
Ql 2.33 2.81 2.84
(0.082) (0.060)
Qr 1.33 1.51 1.37
(0.642) (0.906)
Difficulty 2.00 2.22 2.18
(0.139) (0.167)
Legend: ( ): p –values
4.5 Age

In Tables 9A and 9B, the trend is consistent with earlier results. The difference in attitude

toward Interest in science is statistically significant in all year levels. In addition, the 3rd Year

students show a statistically significant difference with teachers in the Difficulty dimension, and

the 4th Year students show s statistically significant difference with teachers in the Importance

dimension. All the year levels also show a significant difference with teachers for Item Qm,

“Science teaching should involve doing experiments” where students tended to be less positive.

All levels except 2nd year level show a significant difference with teachers for Item Qj,

“Learning science involves mainly memorizing,” where students tended to be more in agreement

with the statement.

Table 9A.

Mean scores by AGE per item

Item Teacher 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

Qa 1.00 1.71 1.74 1.89 1.76
0.001 0.005 0.001 0.001
Qb 1.50 1.80 1.81 2.09 2.00
0.292 0.276 0.016 0.079
Qf 1.33 2.24 2.30 2.33 2.54
0.013 0.018 0.006 0.002
Interest 1.28 1.92 1.95 2.10 2.08
0.003 0.010 0.001 0.001
Qd 1.17 1.39 1.69 1.55 1.54
0.366 0.054 0.183 0.174
Qe 1.50 2.57 2.44 2.47 3.05
0.010 0.015 0.024 0.001
Qk 1.50 1.40 1.44 1.59 1.66
0.618 0.829 0.798 0.592
Qp 1.83 2.27 2.19 2.19 2.54
0.200 0.216 0.297 0.025
Importance 1.50 1.52 1.54 1.55 1.76
0.864 0.906 0.782 0.015
Legend: values below the mean scores are p –values
Table 9B.

Mean Scores by AGE per item

Item Teacher 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

Qn 2.33 2.61 2.44 2.63 2.51
0.315 0.626 0.251 0.494
Qg 1.17 1.53 1.52 1.72 1.71
0.987 0.169 0.028 0.025
Qh 2.17 2.27 2.26 2.33 2.17
0.643 0.024 0.496 0.832
Qi 2.00 1.61 1.62 1.94 1.95
0.372 0.666 0.859 0.856
Qj 3.17 2.16 2.04 2.49 2.32
0.003 0.470 0.056 0.032
Qm 1.00 1.57 1.63 1.44 1.41
0.013 0.003 0.046 0.082
Qk 1.67 2.06 1.81 1.73 1.88
0.249 0.011 0.891 0.583
Teaching 1.93 1.97 1.91 2.04 1.99
0.791 0.906 0.255 0.400
Qc 2.50 2.63 2.58 2.98 2.56
0.644 0.957 0.056 0.803
Qo 1.83 1.78 2.00 1.83 1.78
0.860 0.692 0.980 0.911
Ql 2.33 2.73 2.70 3.03 2.68
0.192 0.208 0.010 0.180
Qr 1.33 1.49 1.33 1.47 1.39
0.662 0.977 0.636 0.984
Difficulty 2.00 2.16 2.15 2.33 2.10
0.309 0.354 0.022 0.423
Legend: values below the mean scores are p –values

5. DISCUSSION

The epistemological beliefs and attitudes of students and teachers toward learning and

teaching science are generally similar (Tables 2, 3 and 6). This is more pronounced in the

assessment methods preferred by the students and teachers. Such congruence should foster

connections between teacher and students since beliefs may be described as “lenses” through

which students and teachers view the world around them (19). That this congruence is critical is
supported by what Johnstone calls “unique filters” which affect how students respond to stimuli

such as interaction with the teacher in a classroom setting (1). The preference of teachers reflects

a constructivist epistemology which bade well with the students’ preference for more active and

student-centered methods. This should help the teacher create a more positive environment

where students enjoy the class interaction. Studies show that positive classroom environment

contribute to over-all student achievement (29, 50,). The high interest towards field trip across

levels seems to indicate that students don’t want to be confined in the classroom. An occasional

activity outside the room such as the playground may suffice to meet this preference of the

students. It is interesting that the seniors, about half of them (44%), prefer lecture. The older

students perhaps needed more input from the teacher as they study Physics, hence a more

teacher-centered approach such as lecture, is preferred by this level.

The trends in the other dimensions: Interest, Importance, and Difficulty, follow a similar

trend as the epistemology. Although the Interest scores show a statistically significant difference,

the actual scores do show that both students and teachers show a positive interest toward science.

The interest of the student toward the subject is a crucial factor in developing a positive attitude

in the classroom which in turn affects his performance (35-36, 51). The teacher plays a major

role in nurturing a positive attitude toward the subject – a teacher factor (2, 52). The Interest

mean scores are generally increasing with age. This means that the older students are showing

less interest in science compared when they were younger. Studies show that beliefs, perception

and attitudes of learners are not static but undergo changes (12, 21). There are various factors

that come into play here but the teacher factor is one major factor. The kind of teaching methods

the teacher uses have also been shown to influence the development of attitude of students

toward science (48).

 The attitude toward the importance or use of science, follow the same trend of increasing

mean scores (decreasing view of the importance of science). This illustrates the importance of

situated learning and context-based teaching so students find meaning and relevance of what

they are learning in class (53). Although it is a given that most students believe that science is a

difficult subject to study, teachers still need to be reminded that students have this general

perception. The goal of any teacher is to help alleviate the stress that arises from this negative

perception. Contributing to the demise of students is low self-concept or self-efficacy (9, 54).

Since the teacher’s beliefs and attitudes influence those of his or her students (48, 49) the teacher

must be mindful of his or her own attitude and beliefs.

It is interesting that none of the teachers chose giving homework as one of the top three

most effective methods to teach science even though in practice teachers give a lot of homework.

This may be an example of what some studies show that what teachers claim they believe in may

not necessarily translate into actual practice (55). Although the study does not carry the statistical

powers to make conclusions, there are some differences in the beliefs and attitudes between the

younger and older teachers. This may be one area to pursue. Some studies indicate that younger

teachers are more prone to the “disconnect” between belief and practice as they are still

undergoing development and maturation in their career (46, 48, 55).

5.1 Pedagogical Implications

The greatest value of assessing the attitude and beliefs of students and how they differ

with the teacher lies in the teacher becoming aware of the kind of perception filters that students

carry with them as they step into the classroom. Where necessary, the teacher can then make

adjustments to the methods and strategies he or she will use to connect better with the students.
The teacher should develop strategies to connect with students whose attitudes and beliefs differ

with him or her. Not to do so will limit significantly the effectiveness of the teacher in the

classroom. The excellent teacher is one who will not just be content that he or she has blurted out

the lesson regardless if he or she penetrated the filters of his or her students. As was pointed out

earlier, there is a need to create a classroom environment characterized by situated and context-

based learning to engage the older students whose interest in science is diminishing and views

science as being not so relevant in life. Although lecture will always have a rightful place in the

classroom, teachers must increasingly adopt a constructivist epistemology to accommodate the

active and technology driven generation. There is a need for teachers to continue to examine and

reflect on their own attitudes and beliefs because these impact their students and how they teach.

Supervisors must periodically assess the attitudes and beliefs of teachers especially in areas

where these may affect their effectiveness in the classroom.

5.2 Recommendations

There isn’t much done yet in comparing the attitudes and beliefs of students and teachers.

The questionnaire can be improved and expanded in order to reflect a more general epistemology

of students and teachers of a larger locality (e.g. MM or one city). Larger sample of students and

teachers must also be targeted.

Some questions to be pursued further: How do the attitudes and beliefs of science

teachers affect their practice in the classroom? How do differences in attitudes and beliefs of

students and teachers affect student performance? How does attitude and belief toward science

affect student performance?

6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I especially thank the administration of St. John’s Wort Montessori School of Antipolo,

particularly to Mr. Brian Dominguez, the Principal, for allowing me to conduct my study in their

school. I also thank my wife, Terry and my sons for their understanding and support as I was

doing the paper. I thank God more than anyone else for the strength and wisdom He gave me in

completing this research paper.

7. REFERENCES

[1] Johnstone, A.H. J. Chem. Educ.,2010, 87, 22-29.

[2] Prokop, P.; Tuncer, G.; and Chuder, J., Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and

Technology Education, 2007, 3, 287-295.

[3] Bretz, S. L., J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1007.

[4] Lewis, S. E., Shaw, J. J., and Heitz, J. O., J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 86, 744-749.

[5] Novak, J. D. A Theory of Education; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, 1977; p 295.

[6] Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control; W.H. Freeman: New York, 1997.

[7] Lent, R. W.; Brown, S. D.; Larkin, K. C. Relation of Self-Efficacy Expectations to Academic

Achievement and Persistence. J. Counsel. Psychol. 1984, 31 (3), 356–362.

[8] Topcu, M. S. and Yilmaz-Tuzun, O., Elementary Education, Online, 2009, 8(3), 676-693.

[9] Feakes, D. A., Gibbs, K. A., and Rohde, R. E., J. Chem. Educ., 2010, 87, 643-646.

[10] Bauer, C. F., J. Chem. Educ., 2005, 82,1864-1870.

[11] Blosser, P. E. Attitude Research in Science Education. Information Bulletin No. 1,

ED259941, ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education;

Ohio State University: Columbus, OH, 1984.

[12] Smith, C. B. and Ezeile, A. N., “The Relationship between Students’ Perceptions of their

Classroom Environment and their Attitudes Toward Science in Grade Nine Applied Science

Classes”, http://www.unco.edu/AE Extra/2010/4/ezeife.html.

[13] McCown, R.R, Driscoll, M., Roop, P., Saklofske, D.H., Kelly, I.W., Schwean, V.L., &

Gajadharsingh, J. (1996).Educational psychology: A learning-centered approach to

classroom practice. Scarborough, Ontario: Allyn & Bacon Canada.

[14] Shrigley, R.L. (1983). “The attitude concept and science teaching”. Science Education,

67(4), 425-442.

[15] Koballa, T.R. (1988). Attitude and related concepts in science education. Science Education,

72(2), 115-126.

[16] Mager, R. F. Developing Attitude Toward Learning, 2nd ed.;

Lake Publishing Co.: Belmont, CA, 1984.

[17] Ajzen, K.; Madden, T. J. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 22, 453–474.

[18] Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Beliefs, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory

and Research; Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, 1975.

[19] Philipp, R.A. (2007). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and affect. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second

handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 257-315). Charlotte, NC:

Information Age Publishing.

[20] Ramsden, J. M. 1998. Mission impossible?: Can anything be done about attitudes to science?

International Journal of Science Education, 20 (2), 125-137.

[21] Conley, A. M., Pintrich, P. R., Vekiri, I. and Harrison, D., Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 2004, 29 186–204.

[22] Marsh, H. W.; Yeung, A. S. J. Educ. Psych. 1997, 89, 41–54.

[23] 21. Mattern, N.; Schau, C. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2002, 39, 324–340.

[24] Samarapungavan, A. and Robinson, W. A. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1107.

[25] Bandura, A. Social Learning Theory; General Learning Press:Morristown, NJ, 1971.

[26] Lent, R. W.; Brown, S. D.; Gore, P. A., Jr. Discriminant and Predictive Validity of Academic

Self-Concept, Academic Self- Efficacy, and Mathematics-Specific Self-Efficacy. J.

Counsel. Psychol.1997, 44 (3), 307–315.

[27] Smist, J. M. General Chemistry and Self-Efficacy; Paper presentedat the 206th National

Meeting of the American Chemical Society,Chicago, IL, August, 1993; SE054247;

ERIC:1993;ED368558,http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_stora

ge_01/0000019b/80/15/70/09.pdf

[28] McRobbie, C.J., & Fraser, B.J. (1993). Associations between student outcomes and

psychosocial science environment. Journal of Educational Research, 87(2), 78-85.

[29] Telli, S., Cakiroglu, J., & Rakici, N. (2003). Learning environment and students’ attitudes

towards biology. Paper presented at the meeting of the 4th European Science Education

Research Association Conference, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands.

[30] Ebenezer, J.V., & Zoller, U. (1993). Grade 10 students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward

science teaching and school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 175-

186.

[31] Zandvliet, D., & Fraser, B.J. (1999). The psychosocial and physical environment of internet

classrooms in Australia

and Canada. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research

in Science Teaching, Boston.

[32] Chuang, H.F., & Cheng, Y.J. (2003). A study of attitudes toward biology and learning

environment of the seventh grade students. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 11(2),

171-194.

[33] Wong, A.F.L, & Fraser, B.J. (1996). Environment-attitude associations in the chemistry

laboratory classroom.Research in Science & Technological Education, 14, 91-102.

[34] 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(9),

929-937.

[35] Simpson, R.D., & Oliver, J.S. (1990). A summary of major influences on attitude toward and

achievement in science among adolescent students. Science Education, 74(1), 1-18.

[36] Talton, E.L., & Simpson, R.D. (1987). Relationships of attitude toward classroom

environment with attitude toward and achievement in science among tenth grade biology

students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(6), 507-525.

[37] Lee, S.S.U, & Fraser, B.J. (2002). Laboratory classroom environments in Korean high

schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational

Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, United States.

[38] Johnstone, A. H. J. Chem. Educ.,Res. Pract. 2006, 7, 84–95.

[39] Johnstone, A. H. J. Chem. Educ. 1984, 61, 847–849.

[40] Johnstone, A. H. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 262–268.

[41] Pajares, M. F. Review of Educational Research 1992, 62 (3),

307–332.

[42] Nespor, J. Journal of Curriculum Studies 1987, 19, 317–328.

[43] Richardson, V. In The Handbook of Research in Teacher Education; Sikula, J., Ed.;

Macmillan: New York, 1996; pp 102–119.

[44] 25. Ernest, P. Journal of Education for Teaching 1989, 15, 13–34.

[45] Lin, H. S. and Lawrenz, F., J. Chem. Educ. 1992, 69, 904–907.

[46] Gillian H. Roehrig, G. H. and Luft, J. A., J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 1510-1516.

[47] Lorsbach, A., and Tobin, K., “Constructivism as a Referent for Science Teaching,” National

Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST).

http://www.exploratorium.edu/IFI/resources/research/constructivism.html (downloaded

October 30, 2010)

[48] Markic, S. and Eilks, I., J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87, 335-339.

[49] Ediger, M., Assessing teacher attitudes in teaching Science, Journal of Instructional

Psychology, 2002 .
 http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Assessing+teacher+attitudes+in+teaching+Science-

a084667404 (downloaded October 2010).

[50] Zandvliet, D., & Buker, L. (2003). The internet in B.C. classrooms: Learning Environments

in New Contexts. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 7(15).

[51] Dhindsa, H. S., & Chung, G. (2003). Attitudes and achievement of Bruneian science

students. International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 907-922.

[52] Nolen, S.B. (2003). Learning environment, motivation, and achievement in high school

science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 347-368.

[53] Bennet, J. 2005. Bringing Science to Life: The Research Evidence on Teaching Science in

context. York, UK. University of York, Department of Education Studies.

[54] Lewis, S. E, Shaw, J. L. and Heitz, J. O., J. Chem. Educ., 2009, 86, 744-749.

[55] Luft, J. A. and Roehrig, G. H., Electronic Journal of Science Education , 2007, Vol. 11, No.

2.
Columns on Last Page Should Be Made As Close As Possible to