|
UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Full Text : |
| Like other countries, Malaysia is concern about the students’ engagement with science in upper secondary schools and the numbers pursuing the further study of science as their careers, thus this research was carried out to demonstrate relationships between the five constructs: pupils’ interest and attitude, inquiry learning, science activities outside school hours, aspirations to engage in science careers, and representation of science and scientists. Using a correlational research design, a set of Science Interest Instrument by Dillon et al., (2008) was adapted and translated to Malay Language and administered to a total of 938, 13-year-old and 14-year-old school students. The data collected were analyzed descriptively in terms of percentage, and inferentially using Pearson Correlation. The results indicated that there was a large positive correlation between interest and attitude towards science and inquiry learning. Also a strong relationship between high interest and attitude towards science, and aspiration of students to become scientists or taking up science jobs. The young students also had favourable representation of science and scientist. The result of this study was discussed in relations to students’ science identity, and the government and parents could nurture this aspect of identity in adolescents. |
| References |
1. Abdelal,R., Herrera,Y. M., Johnston, A. I., & McDermott, R. (2006). Identity as a variable. Perspectives on Politics, 4, 695-711.
2. Ahmad Nurulazam , M.Z., Mohd Ali, S., Rohandi, & Azman, J. (2010). Using the Rasch Model to measure students’ attitudes toward science in “low performing” secondary schools in Malaysia. International Education Studies, 3(2), 56-63.
3. Aminah Ayob (2011). Analisis status pendidikan sains dan matematik, dan persediaan tenaga manusia sains dan teknologi Negara. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains & Matematik Malaysia, 1(1), 82-97.
4. Berg, C. A., Bergendahl, V. C., Lundberg, B., & Tibell, L. (2003). Benefiting from an open-ended experiment? A comparison of attitudes to, and outcomes of, an expository versus an open-inquiry version of the same experiment. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 351–372.
5. Bou Jaoude, S. B. (1992). The relationship between students’ learning strategies and change in their misunderstandings during a high school chemistry course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(7), 157-172
6. Burke, P. J. (1980). The self: Measurement requirements from an intergrationist perspective. Social Psychology Quarterly,43, 18-29
7. Carlone, H. B. & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of colour: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44,1187-1218.
8. Chung-Hsien Tseng, Hsiao-Lin Tuan, & Chi-Chin Chin. (2012). How to help teachers develop inquiry teaching: Perspectives from experienced science teachers. Res Sci Educ. Published online 06 May 2012. Springer.
9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd.ed.) NJ: Pearson Education International.
11. Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony. Balancing conceptual, epistemic and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32,268-291.
12. Dzulkifli Abdul Razak (2013). Humanising science. 2020 Human Capital Road map identified reasons for a decline in interest among students. Retrieved from NSTP IMAGE ARCHIVE. Digital Collection DC5: Text Archive. Detail view. Mozila firefox.
13. Eng Tek Ong & Ruthven K, (2010). The distinctiveness and effectiveness of science teaching in tha Malaysian ‘Smart school’. Research in Science and Technological Education,. 28(1), 25-41.
14. Ford, M.J. & Wargo, B.M. (2007). Routines, roles, and responsibilities for aligning scientific and classroom practices. Science Education, 91,133-157.
15. Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2009). Educational research (9th.ed.). New Jersey: Merrill.
16. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science education, 88(1), 28–54.
17. Kanter, D. E., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2010). The impact of a project-based science curriculum on minority student achievement, attitudes, and careers: The effects of teacher content and pedagogical content knowledge and inquiry-based practices. ScienceEducation.
18. Kessels, U. & Taconis, R. (2011). Alien or alike? How the perceived similarity between the typical science teacher and a student’s self-image correlates with choosing science at school. Res Sci Educ. Published online: 27 May 2011. Springer.
19. Leary, M.R. & Tangney, J. P. (2003) Handbook of self and identity (http://books.google.com/?id=fa4_5xN9c5wC). New York: Guilford Press. ISBN 1572307986. http://books.google.com/?id=fa4_5xN9c5wC.
20. Osborne, J. & Dillon, J. (2008). Science Education in Europe: Critical Reflections. www.pollen-europa.net/pollen_dev/Images_Editor/nuffieldreport.pdf. Retrieved 2011-12-30.
21. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
22. Malaysia Department of Statistics. (2013). Population by age group and sex. Retrieved 12 July, 2013, from http://www.kpwkm.gov.my/BM/Upload/20080624_034725_12064_j1.4.pdf .
23. Mohd Hasani Dali (2007). A case study of peer group pressure within and outside school. Jurnal Penyelidikan Pendidikan. 09,16-37.
24. Najib Razak. (2014). www.nst.com.my/node/36346.
25. Niaz, M. & Robinson, W.R. (1993). Teaching algorithmic problem solving or conceptual understanding; Role of development level, mental capacity and cognitive style. Journal of Science and Educational Technology, 2(2), 407-416.
26. Nik Azmah Nik Yusuff (2007). Kualiti perkhidmatan pengurusan pendidikan sains dan matematik dalam wawasan pendidikan negara. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Doctor of Philosophy thesis.
27. Organization for economic Cooperation and Development. (2006). Evolution of student interest in science and technology studies policy report. Retrieved from http://www.nieuwescheikunde.nl/.
28. Poon, C., Tan, D., & Tan, A. (2009). Classroom management and inquiry-based learning: Finding the balance. Science Scope, 32 (9), 18-21. (EJ850038).
29. Roth, W.-M. (2003). Learning science in/for the community. Paper presented at Congresso Enseńannza de las Ciencias, Barcelona, Spain.
30. Rummens, J. (1993). Personal Identity and Social Structure in Sint Maartin/SaintMartin: a Plural Identities Approach. Unpublished Thesis/Dissertation: York University.
31. Schreiner, C. (2006). Exploring a ROSE-garden: Norwegian youth’s orientations towards science – seen as signs of late modern identities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Department of Teacher Education and School Development, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
32. Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Bakken, J. P., & Brigham, F. J. (1993). Reading versus doing: The relative effects of textbook-based and inquiry-oriented approaches toscience learning in special education classrooms. The Journal of Special Education,27(1), 1.
33. Siegel, M. A., & Rannery, M. A. (2003). Developing the changes in attitude about the relevance of science (CARS) questionnaire and assessing two high school science classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(8), 757-775.
34. Taconis, R., Lesley G. M. de P-S, Hendry, S., Perry J. den Brok, & Beijaard, D. (2010). The construction of a questionnaire to evaluate the science orientedness of students’ identities as learners from a cognitive perspective. Educational Research and Evaluation, 16(4),383-400.
35. UTM. Penolong Pendaftar Pejabat Hal Ehwal Korporat, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Retrieved 5 September 2013 from www.moe.gov.my/bpk/v2/?optien=com_content&view=article&id=156%3Apersepsi-negatif-punca-pelajar-tidak minat-sains-&
36. Wallace, C. S., & Kang, N. H. (2004). An investigation of experienced secondary science.
37. teachers’ beliefs about inquiry: An examination of competing belief sets. Journal of research in science teaching, 41(9), 936–960.
38. Wilson, C. D., Taylor, J. A., Kowalski, S. M., & Carlson, J. (2010). The relative effects and equity of inquiry-based and commonplace science teaching on students’ knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 276–301. |
| This material may be protected under Copyright Act which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials. You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research. |