A Correlation Study of Student Attitudes Toward

Science in a Southern State High School

by
Crystal Barco-Southall

An Applied Dissertation Submitted to the

Abraham S. Fischler School of Education
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Education

Nova Southeastern University

2012
 UMI Number: 3578095

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3578095
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 Approval Page

This applied dissertation was submitted by Crystal Barco-Southall under the direction of
the persons listed below. It was submitted to the Abraham S. Fischler School of
Education and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education at Nova Southeastern University.

______________________________________ ______________________
John Kellmayer, EdD Date
Committee Chair

______________________________________ ______________________
Lucille Beisner, EdD Date
Committee Member

______________________________________ ______________________
Program Professor Review Date
Applied Research Center

______________________________________ ______________________
Ronald P. Kern, PhD Date
Associate Dean

ii
 Acknowledgments

To my parents, the late Mildred Williams Barco and James A. Barco, thank you

for giving me life. Most of all, thank you for your unconditional love and values that you

instilled in me, which allowed me to become the individual that I am today.

Throughout the entire process of my doctoral journey, I have relied on the support

of so many great people. First, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my

husband, Gilbert L. Southall, the love of my life, for his unconditional love, prayers,

outstanding support, and most important, for keeping me focused and grounded.

To my sister, Shelia, thank you for your love, prayers, support, and

encouragement. Thank you for being there for me and for helping me to remain sane

throughout this process. I also wish to thank my family and friends for their unwavering

love and support, and most of all, thank God for his favor on my life.

To the students of the high school used in my study, thank you for your

participation. I would also like to thank my colleagues who assisted with this process, and

the guidance director, Marilyn Drewrey, for her support.

To Dr. John Kellmayer, dissertation chair and mentor, thank you for being

available, and for your continued support throughout this journey. Thank you for

challenging and inspiring me, and for modeling exceptional leadership.

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to the other member of my dissertation

committee, Dr. Lucille Beisner. Without the wisdom and guidance of this extraordinary

committee, this work would not have been possible.

iii
 Abstract

A Correlation Study of Student Attitudes Toward Science in a Southern State High

School. Crystal Barco-Southall, 2012: Applied Dissertation, Nova Southeastern
University, Abraham S. Fischler School of Education. ERIC Descriptors: Advanced
Placement Programs, Advanced Placement, Science Education, High School

The purpose of this correlational research study was to examine the attitudes toward
science of students in Grades 11 and 12 and to investigate if there were differences
resulting from gender, grade level, ethnicity, and the level of the curriculum received in
average or advanced placement (AP) honors science.

The participants of this study consisted of 50 randomly selected male and female high
school students who were enrolled in AP and average science classes in an urban
Southern state high school. The study used the Test of Science Related Attitudes
(TOSRA) instrument to measure students’ attitudes toward science in seven categories
including (a) Social Implications of Science, (b) Normality of Scientists, (c) Attitude
Toward Scientific Inquiry, (d) Adoption of Scientific Attitudes, (e) Enjoyment of Science
Lessons, (f) Leisure Interest in Science, and (g) Career Interest in Science.

The quantitative component of the study allowed the researcher to determine whether
there were gender differences in attitudes toward science based on the seven subscales
and measuring different aspects of science attitudes. Statistical treatment of the TOSRA
survey involved the use of descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and multiple and
linear regression.

Findings did not reveal significant gender differences on the total attitude scores although
there were differences on several of the subscales. In addition, there were no significant
differences in the mean attitude scores for grade level. However, the study did reveal
differences in ethnicity and attitudes toward science. With regard to ethnicity, scores for
Native Americans and Whites were higher than scores for Asians, African Americans,
and Hispanics indicating that Native Americans and White students showed a more
positive attitude toward science. Regarding the level of curriculum received by students
who were exposed to advanced level science courses showed more positive attitudes
toward science than those students who were enrolled in average science classes.

iv
 Table of Contents

Page
Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem .........................................................................................1
Research Problem ....................................................................................................2
Significance of Problem ...........................................................................................4
Background and Justification ...................................................................................6
Deficiencies in the Evidence ....................................................................................8
Audience ..................................................................................................................8
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................9
Definitions of Terms ................................................................................................9
Overview ................................................................................................................11

Chapter 2: Review of Literature ........................................................................................13

Where the Achievement Gap Began ......................................................................13
Conceptual Framework of the AP Program ...........................................................21
Organization of the AP Program............................................................................21
Inception of the AP Program .................................................................................23
Minority Student Participation in AP Courses.......................................................24
Contributing Variables of the Achievement and AP-Honors Enrollment Gap......25
Home-Related Variables ........................................................................................26
School-Related Variables.......................................................................................30
Historical Overview of the Attitude Concept ........................................................37
Attitude Concepts...................................................................................................38
Student Attitudes Toward Science .........................................................................41
Contributing Variables That Influence Student Attitudes Toward Science ...........43
Individual Student Characteristics .........................................................................51
Student-Teacher Rapport .......................................................................................55
Theoretical Framework ..........................................................................................58
Summary ................................................................................................................61
Research Questions and Hypotheses .....................................................................62

Chapter 3: Methodology and Research Design .................................................................64

Program Goal and Objective ..................................................................................64
Participants .............................................................................................................64
Instruments and Measures......................................................................................64
Research Design and Procedures ...........................................................................66
Data Collection and Analysis.................................................................................67
Limitations .............................................................................................................68
Conclusions ............................................................................................................68

Chapter 4: Analysis and Results ........................................................................................70

Descriptive Statistics of TOSRA ...........................................................................70
Quantitative Results ...............................................................................................71
Multiple Regressions .............................................................................................78

v
 ANOVA for Regression and TOSRA Subscales ...................................................80

Chapter 5: Discussion of Results .......................................................................................82

Explanation of TOSRA Subscales .........................................................................82
Major Findings of the Research .............................................................................83
Factors Shaping Attitudes Toward Science ...........................................................87
Implications for Educators .....................................................................................88
Recruitment and Identification Procedures ............................................................89
Collaboration Among Educators............................................................................89
Parental Involvement .............................................................................................90
Classroom Environment.........................................................................................90
Teacher Attitudes and the Learning Environment .................................................90
Trained Classroom Teachers and Counselors ........................................................91
Precautionary Measures .........................................................................................91
Gender and Attitudinal Differences Toward Science ............................................92
Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................92
Conclusions ............................................................................................................93

References ..........................................................................................................................94

Appendices
A AP Examinee Population by Race-Ethnicity for 2008 .................................110
B AP Population by Race-Ethnicity Gap for the Class of 2008 ......................112
C Minority Participation in AP Science Examinations 1997-2002 .................114
D Minority Participation in AP Science Examinations 2003-2008 .................116
E Minority Participation in AP Biology, AP Chemistry, and AP Physics
for 2005-2006 School Year ..........................................................................118
F Minority Participation in AP Biology, AP Chemistry, and AP Physics
for 2006-2007 School Year ..........................................................................120
G Minority Participation in AP Biology, AP Chemistry, and AP Physics
for 2007-2008 School Year ..........................................................................122
H Minority Participation in AP Biology, AP Chemistry, and AP Physics
for 2008-2009 School Years ........................................................................124
I Permission to Use Instrument.......................................................................126
J TOSRA .........................................................................................................128
K TOSRA Scale Allocation and Scoring for Each Item ..................................134
L Analysis of Gender, Ethnicity, and Attitude Toward Science .....................136

Tables
1 Total Enrollment by Ethnicity and Gender 2007-2008 ....................................1
2 AP Participation and Achievement Report to the Nation 2008........................3
3 Student Enrollment in AP Science Courses by Percentage ..............................4
4 Student Enrollment by Gender in AP Science Courses 2005-2008 .................5
5 Student Enrollment by Gender in AP Science Courses 2008-2011 .................5
6 Standard Achievement Test Virginia Public School Mean Scores 2010 .......18
7 AP Virginia Public School Participation and Achievement 2010 ..................19

vi
8 Six Attitudinal Constructs ..............................................................................40
9 Percentage by Ethnicity ..................................................................................70
10 Percentage by Grade Level .............................................................................71
11 Gender Differences in Total Subscale Mean Scores on TOSRA ...................72
12 Grade Level Differences in Total Subscale Mean Scores on TOSRA ...........73
13 Mean Attitude Ethnicity Scores .....................................................................75
14 Correlations Between Gender and TOSRA Attitudes Subscales ...................77
15 Model Summary of Gender ............................................................................79
16 Pearson Correlation for Grades 11 and 12 .....................................................79
17 Model Summary of Grade Level ....................................................................80
18 Model Summary of Ethnicity .........................................................................80

vii
 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

Statement of the Problem

At the urban high school where the researcher of the applied dissertation is a

science teacher, a disproportionally lower percent of minority students had been enrolled

in the advanced placement (AP) science classes for many years. The administration and

staff raised concerns as to why fewer minority students participate in AP science courses.

The researcher of this study investigated the problem by determining if there were

differences resulting from gender and ethnicity in the attitudes toward science of students

in Grades 11 and 12. For the purposes of this applied dissertation, minority students were

those who were classified as nonWhite.

At the time of the study, there were 1,300 students enrolled in the high school.

Table 1 presents enrollment information by ethnicity and gender for the 2007-2008

school year.

Table 1

Total Enrollment by Ethnicity and Gender 2007-2008

Enrollment Total Eligible AP science %

Ethnicity % enrollment Grade 11-12 enrollment Male Female

African American 53.3 693 316 6.25 - 1

White 42.5 553 252 87.5 7 7

Hispanic/Latino 2.4 32 15 - - -

Asian 0.8 11 6 6.25 1 -

Native American 0.2 3 2 - - -

 2

Racial percentages were 53.3% African American, 42.5% White, 2.4% Hispanic, 0.8%

Asian, and 0.2% Native Americans. The target population consisted of eligible students

in Grades 11 and 12 who were enrolled in AP, honors, and average science classes. The

investigation of students’ attitudes towards studying science has been a concern for the

education-research community since the early 1970s (Osbourne, Simon, & Collins,

2003). Research regarding student attitudes toward science showed a decline in interest

(National Science Board, 2004).

Research Problem

As schools in the United States become more output driven, educators are being

held accountable for the academic achievement of all students. Researchers suggested

that if American schools do not develop more scientists and engineers, the nation’s

economic productivity, competitiveness, quality of life, and security might be

compromised (Building Engineering and Science Talent, 2004). The focus on improving

education in the United States has been based on standards, securing accreditation, and

achieving Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

Act, with schools being held accountable for students attaining minimum competencies.

However, challenges remain to move beyond minimum competencies and prepare

students in advanced studies such as chemistry, physics, and biology (College Board,

2009).

The College Board (2009) reported that there continue to be significant inequities

between minority students and their White counterparts in course enrollment and exam

participation in AP courses in United States public schools. According to figures from the

College Board, the total number of students taking AP exams increased from 133,702 in

1980-1981, to 1,017,396 in 2003-2004, a 600% increase. The total number of AP exams

 3

taken increased from 178,159 to 1,737,231, a 750% increase, during the same period

(College Board, 2009). Although the number of AP exams was increasing nationally (see

Appendices A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H), the increase was not proportional among minority

students, as presented in Table 2. There were large discrepancies in the participation rates

of African American, Hispanic, and Latino students as compared with White and Asian

students (College Board, 2009).

Table 2

AP Participation and Achievement Report to the Nation 2008

Test takers Exams taken Number of 3-5 scores

Change Change Change

from from from
Ethnicity Total last year Total last year Total last year

Asian 6,558 11.7% 13,854 12.6% 8,393 10.6%

African 5,319 21.0% 7,988 19.1% 2,545 16.2%

American

Hispanic/Latino 3,096 13.3% 5,099 12.4% 2,658 10.5%

White 35,03 7.0% 62,914 6.3% 38,796 3.5%

1
Note. Source: College Board (2008).

Minority students accounted for one-third of all Virginia public school students

taking AP exams in 2009. The AP test takers identifying themselves as either African

American, Asian, or Hispanic-Latino showed increases in the percentages of test takers,

exams taken, and scores of three or above. Achievement on AP tests in Virginia increased

by 1.6 points in 2009 compared with similar scores in 2008. The number of African

American public school graduates in Virginia taking at least one AP test increased by
 4

21%, Hispanic-Latino participation was up 13.3 %, and Asian participation rose by

11.7% (College Board, 2009). Virginia exceeded the national average by nearly 10

points, 36.4% as compared with 26.5% nationwide (Virginia Department of Education,

2010). However, the trend toward an increase in the number of minority students taking

AP science courses in Virginia high schools was not evident at the school that was the

site of the applied dissertation.

Significance of Problem

College Board, 2002; ,

2001; Johnson & Kritonis, 2006; Klopfenstein, 2004; Ndura, Robinson, & Ochs, 2003;

Solorzano & Ornelas, 2004).

Table 3 presents the percentage of student participation in AP science courses.

Table 3

Student Enrollment in AP Science Courses by Percentage

Group 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11

Asian 14 10 25 25 - 1

African American 43 - 25 25 6 6

Hispanic/Latino - - - - 9 8

White 62 66 55 55 14 35

Total population 2,088 2,112 1,300 1,300 1,059 1,318

 5

The data are listed by ethnicity from 2005-2006 to 2010-2011 years in the study school.

Table 4

Student Enrollment by Gender in AP Science Courses 2005-2008

2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008

Group Male Female Male Female Male Female

Asian - 1 1 2 1 -

African American 1 4 1 3 - 1

Hispanic/Latino 1 - 1 - - -

White 5 6 6 9 7 7

Total AP participation 7 11 9 14 8 8

Table 5

Student Enrollment by Gender in AP Science Courses 2008-2011

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

Group Male Female Male Female Male Female

Asian 1 - - - - -

African American - 1 2 2 1 1

Hispanic/Latino - - - - - 1

White 7 7 4 6 1 3

Total AP
participation 8 8 6 8 2 5
 6

There were seven high schools in the study district. The high school that was the site of

this applied dissertation had the lowest participation rate of minority students taking AP

science exams and the lowest student enrollment of these seven high schools. Tables 4

and 5 present student enrollment by gender who took AP Science classes from 2005-2006

through 2010-2011 school years.

Background and Justification

The AP Program, which began in the early 1950s, is a program with high

academic standards that introduces students to a college curriculum and allows them to

earn college-level credit while attending high school. The AP program offers 37 college-

level courses and exams in 19 subject areas for highly motivated students in secondary

schools. Approximately 13,000 high schools throughout the world participate in the AP

program. In May 2000, more than 1.3 million AP exams were administered (Holstead,

Spradlin, McGillivray, & Burroughs, 2010).

In its sixth annual AP Report to the Nation, the College Board report documented

that of the estimated 3 million students who graduated from U.S. public schools in 2009,

more than 479,000 (15.9 %) earned an AP exam score of at least a 3 on one or more AP

exams during their high school tenure. This figure rose in 2009 from 15.2 % in 2008 and

12.7 % in 2004 (College Board, 2009). Out of all 50 U.S. states and the District of

Columbia, Maryland led the nation for the second straight year with the highest

percentage (24.8%) of public school students scoring at least a 3 on an AP Exam. Florida

attained the largest single-year increase in the percentage of high school graduates who

scored a 3 or higher on an AP Exam, whereas Virginia achieved the largest 5-year gain.

The seven states with highest 5-year gains included Virginia, Maryland, Georgia, Maine,

Colorado, Vermont, and Florida. Additionally, Maryland, New York, Virginia,

 7

Massachusetts, Florida, Connecticut, California, and Colorado all had more than 20% of

their public school students’ graduate from high school having earned an AP Exam score

of 3 or higher (College Board, 2009).

The 2009 report from the College Board noted that an equity and excellence gap

appears when traditionally underserved students such as African American, Hispanic-

Latino, or American Indian students constitute a smaller percentage of the groups of

students experiencing success in AP than the percentage these students represent in the

overall graduating class. Although the gap has been closed in some places, inequity in

preparation and access continue to exist in many states across the country (College

Board, 2009).

Sixteen states have successfully closed the equity and excellence gaps for

Hispanic-Latino students, and as of 2009, two states, Hawaii and Montana, have

eliminated the gap for African American students. Although 18 states have closed the gap

for American Indian or Alaska Native students, no state with a substantial student

population in this demographic has eliminated the gap. Additionally, 15 schools lead the

nation in the number of African American and or Hispanic-Latino students succeeding in

particular AP subjects. The report celebrated the example these schools are setting in

California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan and Texas (College Board,

2009).

The report also highlighted that more low-income students are participating and

experiencing success in AP than ever before. In the 2009 graduating class, 18.9% of AP

examinees were low-income students, up from 17.0% in the class of 2008 and 13.7% in

the class of 2004. Low-income students made up 14.7% of the students experiencing

success in AP from the graduating class of 2009 compared to 13.4% from the class of
 8

2008 and 11.7% from the class of 2004 (College Board, 2009).

Deficiencies in the Evidence

Ethnic groups differ substantially in participation in the AP program. Ethnic

participation in the AP program has changed little from that observed in previous years.

African Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanics participate at much lower rates

than Asians and Whites. Asian participation is more than two and a half times what it

would be if their participation were proportional to their enrollment. African Americans,

Native Americans, and Hispanics participate at rates from 30% to 61% of proportionality.

White participation is almost exactly proportional to their enrollment in high schools

across the State (College Board, 2009).

Audience

Minority and White students in Grades 11 and 12 enrolled in AP or honors and

average science classes were participants in this study. The problem that the researcher

investigated was that minorities were disproportionately absent from AP biology,

chemistry, and physics science courses in the high school.

The College Board (2009) found that experience in AP courses offers numerous

tangible and intangible benefits to academically prepared students. AP enables students to

(a) pursue college-level courses, (b) experience academic challenge, (c) improve skills

above their peers, (d) have long lasting and long reaching positive influences, and (e)

transcend the present into the immediate future and beyond. Additionally, taking AP

courses demonstrates to college admission officers that students sought the most rigorous

curriculum available to them. Therefore, the school, the district, and policymakers must

ensure that students are adequately prepared to benefit from these courses and to be

cognizant of the promotion of their enrollments.

 9

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this correlational research study was multifaceted. First, the

researcher sought to investigate if there were differences resulting from gender and

ethnicity in the attitudes toward science of students in Grades 11 and 12. A second

purpose related to the levels of curriculum received in average or honors, AP classes. A

third purpose was to determine if students’ responses to the TOSRA differed based on

gender, ethnicity, and grade level. Research suggested that grade level is a significant

predictor of students’ attitudes toward science (Osbourne et al., 2003; Papanastasiou &

Papanastasiou, 2002).

Definitions of Terms

The following terms were used in the context of the study.

Achievement gap. This term refers to the disparity in academic achievement that

exists between two populations of students, as evidenced by standardized test scores

(Rothstein, 2004b).

Advanced curriculum. This term refers to courses that place students ahead of

the minimum requirements or standards for a particular course or grade level. The term is

synonymous with the honors courses.

Advanced placement (AP). This term refers to the College Board program that

offers students the opportunity to take college level courses while enrolled in high school.

Materials are covered at an accelerated pace and more detail than honors courses.

Advanced placement biology. This term refers to a course that provides students

with the conceptual framework, factual knowledge, and analytical skills necessary to deal

critically with the rapidly changing science of biology (College Board, 2009).

Advanced placement chemistry. This term refers to the type of course that
 10

integrates conceptual understanding of chemical phenomena and improves ability to think

and solve chemical problems. High scores on the AP exam may result in earning as many

as eight college credits (College Board, 2009).

Advanced placement physics. This term refers to the type of course that expands

upon topics such as kinematics, dynamics, forces and energy, work-energy theorem,

momentum, rotation, gravitational field and forces, conservation laws, rigid bodies and

equilibrium. Students develop advanced lab and problem solving skills that require the

use of calculus (College Board, 2009).

American Indian/Alaska Native. This term refers to individuals who have

origins (ancestry) in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including

Central American) and who maintain cultural identification through tribe affiliation of

community recognition (Chesapeake Public Schools, 2009).

Asian. This term refers to the racial designation for one having origin in any of

the original peoples of the Far East, south East Asia, the Indian Subcontinent

(Chesapeake Public Schools, 2009).

Attitudes. This term refers to positive and negative feelings of moderate intensity

and reasonable stability, such as curiosity, boredom, likes, or dislikes (McLeod, 1992).

Black or African American. This term refers to the racial designation for one

having origins of the Black racial groups of Africa. The terms “Haitian” or “Negro” can

be used in addition to “Black” or “African American” (Chesapeake Public Schools,

2009).

Hispanic. This term refers to one who traces his or her origin or descent to

Mexican, Puerto Rico, and other Spanish cultures, regardless of race (Chesapeake Public

Schools, 2009).
 11

Minority. This term refers to any racial/ethnic group categorized as nonWhite.

Native Hawaiian-Pacific Islander. This term refers to the racial designation for

one having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other

Pacific Islands (Chesapeake Public Schools, 2009).

Socioeconomic status (SES). This term refers to a measure of an individual’s or

family’s relative economic and social ranking (high, middle, or low). Students’ SES is

determined by their categorization as receiving free or reduced-price lunch or paying full

price for lunch, as determined by their parents’ income.

Test of Science Related Attitudes (TOSRA). This term refers to a 70-item,

Likert-type attitude instrument, developed by Fraser (1981), for the purpose of collecting

data related to high school students’ attitudes toward science.

Underrepresentation-Disparity index. This term refers to the ratio of the

percentage of minority students in advanced courses or programs to the percentage of

minority students enrolled in school.

Unspecified. This term refers to any person who cannot be classified according to

the definitions of any of the six-racial-ethnic categories (Chesapeake Public, 2009).

White: This term is the racial designation for one having origins in any of the

original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East (Chesapeake Public, 2009).

Overview

Chapter 1 provided a discussion of the research problem, and the purposes of the

study. In addition, the significance of the study was explained. Chapter 2 provides an

extensive review of literature applicable to this study followed by chapter 3, which

presents the research design and methodology, site, participants, and techniques used to

collect and analyze data, and procedures used to conduct the study. Chapter 4 synthesizes
 12

the results of the study. The final chapter presents themes that emerged from the research

questions and implications for the study.

 13

Chapter 2: Review of Literature

Researchers acknowledged the disparity in student achievement among minority

students and their White counterparts (Bali & Alvarez, 2004; Burris & Welner, 2005;

Card & Rothstein, 2007; Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2005; Darity et al., 2001; Ferguson,

2003; Ladson-Billings, 2006; Lee, 2002; Singham, 2003). Researchers found that

minority students lacked participation in advanced and honors classes (Archibald,

Glutting, & Qian, 2009; Ford, 1998; Johnson & Kritsonis, 2006; Ndura et al., 2003;

Taliaferro & Decuir-Gunby, 2008). A substantial body of research provided information

related to the achievement and enrollment gaps in AP honors courses (Barton & Coley,

2010; Haycock, 2001; Ladson-Billings, 2006; Murphy, 2009). Very few studies,

however, have provided solutions for the problem.

The review of literature explored existing research that was pertinent to this study

and is organized as to (a) where the achievement gap began, (b) a discussion of the

interrelationship of achievement gap and the gap in AP enrollment, and (c) explanation of

the contributing factors. The researcher explored the history of the achievement gap and

its relation to the enrollment gap of minority students in advanced and honors level

courses. A discussion of the conceptual framework of AP and discussion of students’

attitudes toward science were included in the chapter. The concept of Attitude Theory as

a possible framework to explain the differences in students’ decisions to enroll in AP or

honors courses was explored. In addition, learning environment variables were presented

that might affect students’ attitudes toward science as an explanation for decreasing

enrollment in advanced and honors courses among minority students.

Where the Achievement Gap Began

The focus on reading and literacy in the United States dates to as early as the one-
 14

room schoolhouse in the late 19th century. Most significantly, literacy was more

important than ever and has been cited as a fundamental and foundational life skill.

Hauser, Edley, Koenig, and Elliott (2005) addressed the importance of literacy:

Literacy skills are critical both for individuals’ functioning and for a well-
functioning society. Literacy has an impact on a nation’s economic status, the
well-being of its citizens, the capabilities of its workforce, and its ability to
compete in a global society. Deficiencies in literacy and mismatches between the
skills of citizens and the needs of an economy can have serious repercussions.
(p. 1)

Consequently, when literacy development is not recognized at an early age, there

are predictable and unintended consequences that may be seen in children as early as

elementary and middle school (Landry, Swank, Smith, Assel, & Gunnewig, 2006). A

child’s ability or inability to read impacts numerous aspects of his or her life through

adulthood including (a) success in school, (b) access to AP or honors courses, (c) college

education, (d) employment opportunities, (e) capacity to compete successfully in a global

economy, and (f) ability to contribute fully in the community and society in a meaningful

way (Landry et al., 2006).

Researchers agreed that illiteracy increases power to the elitists, significantly

widens the divide between rich and poor, and increases the racial gap in learning and

employment opportunities that influence wages and earnings if left unaddressed

(Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2003). For this reason, public education has been forced to

undergo many changes since the days of the rural one-room schoolhouse, and is

continually adapting to address concerns over literacy-illiteracy rates in an effort to meet

the academic, economic, and social needs of each new generation of learners. Twenty-

first century learners come to school with interests, personal experiences, and basic skills

that differ greatly from those of students in the 20th century. Further, 21st century
 15

schools are institutions of global learning that extend far beyond the classroom or the

school building and offer students access to a world of information (Thernstrom &

Thernstrom, 2003).

According to O’Conner, White, and Swanson (2007), elementary school

struggling readers have difficulty catching up with good readers and are at risk for

academic failure. Struggling readers encounter negative consequences like grade

retention, assignment to special education classrooms, or participation in long-term

remedial services. Minority and impoverished students are among the highest populations

of struggling readers. Of struggling readers, 29% are Black and 34% are Hispanic

Moreover, if elementary school children do not learn how to read, hope for a fulfilling

and productive life diminishes greatly (O’Conner et al., 2007).

Closing the reading, math, and science achievement gaps has been a goal for

many years (Bali & Alvarez, 2004; Bruce, 2009; Lee, 2002; Thernstrom & Thernstrom,

2003; Viadero & Johnston, 2000). Teachers, administrators, school districts, and states

have struggled to bridge the gap that separates affluent and White students from poorer

students and students of color. The most difficult aspect of combating the achievement

gap is its early start. The gap between White and minority students exists as early as

kindergarten and widens as the students progress through school. The National

Association of Elementary Principals, which showed a significant difference in

achievement between White and minority students at both 9 and 17 years of age,

supported this claim (Williams, 2011). Underenrollment in gifted programs at the

elementary school level leads to underenrollment in rigorous science courses at the high

school level (Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2003). The achievement gap in science not only

persists, but also continues to grow (Bacharach, Baumeister, & Furr, 2003). Studying the
 16

achievement gap is essential to exploring the gap in minority student enrollment in

rigorous courses, as it is plausible that both phenomena are interrelated. Thermstrom and

Thernstrom claimed that racial achievement gaps are a reflection of proportional

percentages of students identified and selected in middle and junior high schools for

gifted and advanced programs.

The Coleman Report (Coleman et al., 1996), the first national study to describe

ethnic differences in academic achievement among children at various stages of

schooling, documented that on every academic measure of achievement, African

American students fall behind their White counterparts. Although a primary concern for

educators, the goal of narrowing the achievement gap has been in place for a number of

years with only occasional success.

Between 1970 and 1988, the achievement gap between White and minority

students decreased by 50%, with the Hispanic-White gap showing a decline as well

(Haycock, 2001; Rothman, 2001). That same period had gains as the gap between 13-

year-old White and African American decreased in reading by two grade levels

(Rothman, 2001). Similarly, the gap that existed in mathematics narrowed between 1973

and 1986 (Haycock, 2001). Both situations saw an increase in African American

students’ performance while White students’ performance remained stable. That progress

came to a standstill in 1988, and the remaining differentials became larger. Examining

the large gap narrowing from 1970 to 1990, Phillips (2000) measured the effect of the

several factors. Factors included (a) the education of the mother and father, (b) family

income, (c) whether the mother was working, (d) the mother’s age at birth of the child,

(e) the number of siblings, (f) whether the mother was single or married, and (g) whether

the parents were Hispanic, Black, or White. In mathematics, these changing family
 17

characteristics accounted for about a third of the gap narrowing between African

American and White students. In verbal-reading score gaps, these factors accounted for

somewhat less of the narrowing (Phillips, 2000). In the 1990s, the gap again began to

increase when White students began performing better on achievement tests and African

American students began performing worse (Lee, 2002).The gaps have since widened

(Haycock; Lee, 2002; Murphy, 2009; Snyder & Hoffman, 2001).

According to the Stanford Achievement Test, a norm-referenced test widely used

by school districts throughout the United States, the gap separating minority students is

wide and increasing at a steady pace. In 2009, only 12% of African American fourth-

grade males were proficient in reading, compared with 38% of White males, and only

12% of African American eighth-grade males were proficient in math, compared with

44% of White males. The analysis of results on the national test found that math scores in

2009 for African American males were not much different from those for African

American females in Grades 4 and 8. However, African American males lagged behind

Hispanics of both sexes, and fell behind White males by at least 30 points, which is a gap

interpreted as three academic grades (Murphy, 2009).

In the state of North Carolina, the gap between minority students and their White

counterparts is significant and widespread. National Association of Elementary Principals

results showed that African American, Hispanic, and American Indian students lagged

28, 24, and 21 percentage points behind their White counterparts in the verbal-reading

assessments (Thompson & O’Quinn, 2001). These gaps in achievement, as significant as

they appear, are contributing factors to decreased minority enrollment in advanced and

honors courses (Darity et al., 2001).

On the other hand, Virginia’s 2010 public school graduates increased their
 18

achievement and outperformed their peers nationwide on all three sections of the

Standard Achievement Test (College Board, 2009). The average reading score of 511 for

Virginia public school students was 13 points higher than the national average. The

average mathematics score of 513 for Virginia public school students was two points

higher, and the average writing score of 496 for Virginia public school students was eight

points higher. Table 6 shows the 2010 SAT Virginia school mean scores.

Table 6

Standard Achievement Test Virginia Public School Mean Scores 2010

Critical reading Mathematics Writing

Group Virginia Nation Virginia Nation Virginia Nation

All public
school students 511 498 513 511 496 488

African
American 436 427 429 427 423 416

Hispanic 493 451 492 462 477 433

Asian 535 522 578 577 533 523

White 536 525 535 536 518 513

Note. Virginia Department of Education 2010.

Researchers agree that the existing gaps in learning and achievement in middle

and junior high schools lead to lower identification of minority students for gifted,

honors, and advanced programs. This situation leads to underenrollment in high school

advanced and honors courses (Archibald et al., 2009; Card & Rothstein, 2007; Darity et

al., 2001; Decuir & Dixson, 2004). For example, the Chicago Public School System,
 19

through the Annenberg Challenge, initiated a study documenting the achievement gap

and providing support-linking access to rigorous courses as a viable option for reducing

the existing gap. The goal of this initiative was to promote challenging rigorous work for

all students in an effort to close the achievement gap (Smylie & Wenzel, 2003). .

Table 7 presents the 2010 AP Virginia public school participation and

achievement percentages.

Table 7

AP Virginia Public School Participation and Achievement 2010

% % %
increase increase increase
from from last Total from last
last year Total year number year
Total test test exam exam of 3-5 number of
Group takers takers takers takers scores 3-5 scores

All students 61,749 6.6 112,347 7.8 66,822 7.1

African
American 6,883 10.6 10,572 11.6 3,324 9.3

Hispanic 3,929 13.3 6,529 11.8 3,507 13.0

Asian 7,679 9.6 16,542 13.2 10,391 10.4

White 37,791 4.1 68,429 4.6 43,781 5.0

Note. Virginia Department of Education 2010.

In further study of the so-called race gaps, researchers have attempted to examine

when these gaps in student achievement appeared, at what point the disparities

commenced, and how they evolved. Studies found that the achievement gap in reading

scores began as early as first grade (Fryer & Levitt, 2003; Phillips, 2000), whereas others

found the gap developed in later elementary years (Murphy, 2009; Singham, 2003).
 20

Although there is controversy regarding when the achievement gap first begins, the

majority of literature suggested that the achievement gap in reading first arises in the

elementary years, specifically in Grades 4 and 5, progressively widening as students age

(Bali & Alvarez, 2004; Murphy, 2009; Singham, 2003). Specifically, data gathered

showed that the gap in math and reading between Hispanic and White students tends to

develop in higher grades, whereas gaps in reading and math between African American

and White students develops in early elementary, with those gaps being twice as large as

the former group (Bali & Alvarez, 2004; Phillips & Chin, 2004). Because these gaps in

reading develop during elementary years, the likelihood of minority students receiving

the prerequisite skills needed to enroll in advanced and honors level courses decreases.

This directly impacts the number of minority students referred and enrolled in rigorous

classes, and connects the achievement gap and the student enrollment gap in AP or

honors courses (Murphy, 2009).

Laden-Billings (2006) contended that when focusing on the achievement gap,

educators and policymakers tend to look toward short-term remedies as opposed to long-

term solutions. Laden-Billings charged educators and researchers to change how they

view disparities in student achievement and suggested that the term “achievement gap”

places the burden on those children born in disadvantaged situations. Ladson-Billings

recommended that educators view disparities as an “education debt” (2006, p. 5), owed to

the disadvantaged and traditionally marginalized populations, shifting the focus on long-

lasting improvement addressing the underlying problem. This debt, according to Ladson-

Billings, includes historical, political, and moral variables, and only when viewed from

this lens can educators and policymakers begin to accurately assess the situation and

move toward sustained improvement.

 21

Fryer and Levitt’s (2003) study included schools with diverse populations in

which they recognized the value in gathering data from schools where minorities

represented the larger portion of the student population. Also noted was the opportunity

to use such studies to explore the dynamics of the achievement gap in situations where

minorities are among the majority group (Bali & Alvarez, 2004; Fryer & Levitt, 2003).

Herbert and Reiss (2009) conducted a 3-year study that investigated high-achieving

students in an urban high school. The results revealed one of the main contributing

factors to students’ success was the enrollment in challenging, rigorous courses.

Overall, there has been only occasional success in narrowing the gap that separates

minority students’ achievement from their White counterparts. Educators have yet to find

sustained improvement in decreasing disparities that exist in student achievement. The

problem is widespread, occurring throughout the United States (College Board, 2008).

Conceptual Framework of the AP Program

The College Board (2009), a not-for-profit educational organization, created the

AP program, a college-level curriculum option offered in high school, which aims to

prepare students for the academic rigor of a college environment (Klopfenstein, 2009).

Originally, the program was limited to students with gifted or high-scholastic

achievement. Since its inception, the goal of the AP program has been to provide gifted

college-bound students the opportunity to take college-level courses in a high school

setting (Klopfenstein, 2009). However, according to College Board Report to the Nation

(2009), “The purpose of AP changed to provide willing and academically prepared high

school students with the opportunity to study and learn at the college level” (para. 5).

Organization of the AP Program

The College Board provides high school educators with resources for their
 22

subject-specific AP program course, including a topic outline, examination examples, and

scoring information on the AP Exam. The AP program course is divided into two parts,

curriculum content and cumulative assessment. A committee of secondary school

educators and college professors developed the content, which includes outlines and

curricula. Although the prescribed content standards do not require a specific college-

level text, the courses adopt an appropriate and updated college text as the course text

(College Board, 2009).

The culminating assessment exam, which is a tool used to assess the students’

performance, is an integral part of the program. The assessment exam consists of two

sections, multiple-choice objective questions, and subjective essay-based questions. The

second section may be divided into free-response questions and document-based

questions. The AP exams are graded using a standard rubric agreed upon by readers

comprised of high school and college educators. The two sections are combined and

converted into a 5-point scale, ranging from 5 = extremely well-qualified to 1 = no

recommendations. Scores of 3 and above are accepted for college credit at participating

colleges and universities (College Board, 2009).

If a student chooses to participate in AP examinations, college credit is awarded

only if one receives a desired score of the college or university (Welsh, 2009). Although

a score of 3 is passing, most selective institutions award credit only for scores ranging

from 4 - 5, depending on the institution. The College Board uses a policy to ensure that

the high school AP course aligns with college level curriculum, auditing each course’s

syllabus to assure that all syllabi meet or exceed the college level curricular and resource

requirements for each AP course. Only those classes are authorized to carry the AP label.

However, taking a final examination is not mandatory for students to pass their high
 23

school AP course (Welsh).

Inception of the AP Program

According to DiYanni (2002), the AP program began as a pilot project in 1951 at

Kenyon College. The first AP examinations were developed in the 1953-1954 academic

year. The College Board AP program began in the middle of the 20th century through the

convergence of two separate but parallel efforts, both funded by the Ford Foundation.

The College Board took over the AP program and offered the first AP examinations in

May 1956. The AP program grew, and by 1960, the College Board offered five times the

original number of examinations. In 1960, approximately 10,000 examinations were

administered, and by 2002, students took approximately 1.5 million AP examinations

(Lichten, 2000).

The profile of the AP program was raised significantly in 2006 when singled out

by President Bush in his State of the Union address as an important mechanism for

reinvigorating the growth of the U.S. science and technology workforce (National

Science Board, 2008). The role of the AP program in the President's American

Competitiveness Initiative was to increase the number of high school graduates entering

the "science pipeline," the academic and professional pathway leading to work at the

cutting edge of science and technology. The 122 million dollar initiative was aimed, in

part, at broadening the accessibility of the AP program for underserved and

underrepresented groups across the United States.

The numbers of AP courses have grown significantly since inception.

Understanding the benefits of taking AP courses, an increasing number of students are

requesting AP classes and compelling secondary schools to increase the availability of

course offerings. Additionally, because AP courses are among the most rigorous courses
 24

students can take, college bound students gain skills needed for success in college. These

courses have become the preferred courses for students with aspirations of attending a

college or university upon graduation from high school.

Honors courses provide students the opportunity to prepare for the rigor of AP

courses and the challenging college environment. Some studies have reported that

advanced level courses place extreme pressure on students to achieve. However, the vast

majority of research presents honors and AP courses as strong indicators of students’

potential to gain entry into college, opportunities for scholarship, and success in college

(Archibald et al., 2009; Geiser & Santelices, 2004; Sadler & Tai, 2007; Wakelyn, 2009).

Minority Student Participation in AP Courses

A number of reports suggested that underenrollment of minority students in AP or

honors courses is directly a result of the existing achievement gap, suggesting that an

increase in the number of students in advanced classes would narrow the enrollment gap

(Darity et al., 2001; Sadler & Tai, 2007; Wakelyn, 2009). Because of the achievement

gap, fewer minority students are enrolled in preAP classes at the middle and junior high

level, and less equipped with the skills needed to be successful in AP or honors courses in

high school.

Minorities such as African American and Hispanic students are much less likely

than their White counterparts with the same test scores to be enrolled in honors and AP

courses (Bali & Alvarez, 2004; Ford, 1998; Lee, 2002). Although African American and

Hispanic participation in AP programs is on the rise, a substantial gap separates the

participation of White and African Americans students (Darity et al., 2001; Johnson &

Kritsonis, 2006; Klopfenstein, 2004; Ndura et al., 2003).

To compare the extent to which minorities are underrepresented in AP and honors

 25

classes, Darity et al. (2001) explained the disparity index as a standard to use across

schools, districts, and states to compare the percentage of minority students enrolled in

honors or advanced classes to the percentage in the school population. Based on the

assumption that the proportion of African American, Hispanics, and American Indian

students enrolled in honors and advanced classes should match their proportion of

representation in the student enrollment, the disparity index is a statistic to assess the

depth of the existing gap. To calculate the disparity index, divide the percentage of

students in honors and advanced courses that are minorities by the percentage of

minorities in the student enrollment. The results display the level of representation of

minority students in the more rigorous courses. A low disparity index, .25 for example,

would indicate a significant level of underrepresentation of minority students in

advanced/ and honors courses. A disparity index of 1.00 is considered parity, when the

percentage of minority students in honors and advanced courses is equal to their

percentage in the school population (Darity et al., 2001).

A study including data gathered from a school of over 58,000 students attending

eight high schools revealed that whereas minority students make up 30% of the school’s

population, they represent 17% of the students in advanced placement courses (Ndura et

al., 2003). Related to this minority enrollment gap are a number of systemic barriers,

some resting within the individual and family, and others within schools. Barriers

identified as affecting the minority enrollment gap may include socioeconomic and

family variables, youth culture and student behaviors, and school environment and

instructional practices (Lee, 2002).

Contributing Variables of the Achievement Gap and AP-Honors Enrollment Gap

A number of studies have attempted to explain the academic achievement gap

 26

between minority students and their White counterparts. Although there have been

periods where the gap narrowed, both the achievement and enrollment gaps are realities

throughout the nation and consistent from kindergarten to high school (Kemple & Snipes,

2000; Lee & Burkam, 2002; Plucker, Burroughs, & Song, 2010). The following review of

literature explored the various variables researchers have associated with these gaps,

categorized by (a) home-related variables, (b) variables related to the educational

institution, and (c) student attitudes toward science.

Home-Related Variables

Although difficult for schools to address, a number of factors contribute to the

academic achievement and AP or honors enrollment gap that separates minority students

from their White counterparts. These factors, which are outside the school’s sphere of

influence, include parental involvement, student mobility, television, and socioeconomic

status (Barton, 2004).

Parental involvement. A number of studies revealed the impact of parental

involvement in students’ academic standing (Rothstein, 2004a; Taliaferro & DeCuir-

Gunby, 2008; Zhao & Akiba, 2009). These researchers found that students whose parents

are actively involved are more likely to experience academic success than students whose

parents are not involved in their schooling. Taliaferro and DeCuir-Gunby (2008) noted

that parental involvement is described as being informed, abreast, and an active

participant both at home and at school. Taliaferro and DeCuir-Gunby claimed that this

delineation is important in that the teachers often describe minority parents as uninvolved

in their children’s schooling because their participation is not seen at the school level.

Taliaferro & DeCuir-Gunby found sufficient research stating that African American

parents are involved in their children’s school, but their involvement is at home and not
 27

school. Shumow and Miller (2001) found that parents of low-achieving adolescent

students are more likely to be involved at home than parents of successful students. On

the other hand, parents of high achieving students are more likely to participate in school

governance and school activities than are parents of average or struggling students.

Parental involvement both at home and at school is correlated positively to the

educational level of the parent (Shumow & Miller, 2001). In addition, minority students

whose parents are highly involved with their education tend to do better in school than

peers of less involved parents. Among African-American, Latino, and Asian American

students, greater parental involvement is associated with higher levels of academic

achievement including, grades, standardized test scores, teachers’ reports, and academic

behavior (Jeynes, 2003).

In a 5-year qualitative study of educators throughout the United States, Haycock

(2001) asserted that teachers’ primary concern with parental involvement is that “the

parents don’t care, the kids come to school without needed materials, the parents don’t

have books in the home, and they aren’t home to witness what their children are doing”

(p. 7). The level of parental involvement also affects the enrollment gap, as the parents of

minority students are less visible at the school. Although their absence from the

educational environment is viewed as a lack of concern, research indicates that these

parents are often dealing with financial and family concerns. They often place their trust

in the hands of the educators, relying on them to make the best decisions for their

children. These parents are more likely to be unknowledgeable regarding the educational

system, and will not advocate for their children’s placement in AP and honors courses,

which can result in underenrollment of students in advanced and honors courses.

Student mobility. Student mobility, referring to students who change schools

 28

frequently or throughout the school year, has an effect on academic achievement. Internal

mobility refers to students moving within the school district and external mobility refers

to students moving into and out of the school district. Both negatively impact student

achievement; however, low achievement is associated more with internal mobility than

external mobility (Wright, 2001). Numerous studies detailed the negative impact mobility

has on student achievement, stating that students who move frequently tend to have lower

test scores and grades, and tend to be retained more often and placed in special education

classes (Rothstein, 2004a; Viadero & Johnson, 2000; Wright, 2001).

According to Viadero and Johnston (2000), the rate of student mobility is directly

related to students living in poverty or in a single-parent home. In the study by Viadero

and Johnson, of the students who frequently changed educational environments, 41%

were below grade level in reading, with 33% functioning below grade level in math.

Rothstein (2004a) found that students with high mobility have to readjust to new

teachers, classmates, and curriculum, which contribute significantly to their decline in

student achievement.

Wright (2001) emphasized that although the negative effects impact students of

all levels, it is profound during the elementary years and especially within urban settings.

According to Wright, the level of emphasis on student mobility is apparent as some states

have measures in place where standardized assessments exclude the results of students

considered highly mobile, in terms of evaluating schools and districts. There is

conflicting literature explaining the level of significance assigned to student mobility and

its effect on student achievement.

SES status. The Black-White achievement gap is confounded by disparities in the

economic resources that families and communities can direct toward the education of
 29

children. Coleman and his colleagues, in their 1966 “Equality of Educational Opportunity

Report,” documented the effects of economic advantage and disadvantage on the

achievement of African American and White children. Advantaged homes are better able

to “pass on” their advantages to their children through publicly supported and privately

supported educational opportunities. Higher income families tend to have and devote

more resources to their children’s education. Growing up poor often means having fewer

educational resources in the home, as well as less advantageous educational opportunities

at school (Lareau, 2000; Lee & Burkam, 2002). The Coleman report was authorized as

part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition, it was conceived within the context of

the legal system’s growing reliance on social science to inform legal decisions, most

notably Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.

Socioeconomic status (SES) also affects student achievement and the AP or

honors enrollment gap. Kaushal and Nepomnyaschy (2009) asserted that differences in

family SES are a significant factor in minority children's lack of participation in gifted

programs. Likewise, Ndura et al. (2003) identified students' SES as the primary factor in

underrepresentation of minority students in AP programs.

Researchers provided critical insight and revealed that low SES parents often lack

adequate knowledge about these programs and the processes leading to inclusion, and

this limits their ability and willingness to challenge the system on behalf of their children

(Taliaferro & DeCuir-Gunby, 2007; Whiting & Ford 2009). Similarly, Ford (1998)

alleged that low-SES parents are often hesitant to interact with school personnel whom

they fear might view them negatively because of low incomes and educational levels.

Overall, students from homes with low SES traditionally perform lower

academically than those from middle or upper class homes. In homes where the parents’
 30

level of education is higher, more emphasis is placed on the value and importance of

academic achievement. On the other hand, students from low-income homes may want to

achieve academically and in most cases are able to produce high-quality work. However,

the problem exists when parents who do not understand the benefits of taking AP or

honors courses (Whiting & Ford, 2009). These students may not be selected to take

rigorous courses because many parents are not aware of the educational system, and may

have difficulty challenging decisions made by school counselors, teachers, and

administrators.

Researchers believed SES plays a vital role in the achievement gap between

minority students and their White counterparts. Although unable to influence the

previously mentioned variables, other variables directly related to the achievement and

enrollment gap are within the school’s realm of influence. These variables are solely

within the school’s ability to change or adjust practices and procedures or policies to

increase the number of minority students enrolling in AP or honors courses (Dahl &

Lochner, 2005; Evans, 2004).

School-Related Variables

The variables of teacher experience and qualifications, class size, access to

technology, rigor of the curriculum, and testing contributing to the achievement and

enrollment of AP or honors gap are within the confines of the school (Barton, 2004).

These critical elements are important for educators to examine as they present the most

practical opportunity to continue narrowing the achievement gap and AP or honors

enrollment gap.

Teacher experience and qualifications. Research showed that teachers are the

single most important element making a difference in students’ academic growth. The
 31

qualifications and experience of teachers are also important factors in narrowing the gaps

that separate minority students and their White counterparts in both areas of academic

achievement and enrollment in AP or honors courses. Research showed that students in

high-poverty and high-minority schools are more likely to be taught by teachers who are

out-of-field (Barton, 2004; Borman & Kimball, 2004; Haycock, 2001; Klopfenstein,

2004; Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2002). Highly qualified teachers with advanced

degrees and training are teaching students in affluent districts while poorer districts

struggle to recruit teachers with the appropriate training for a particular subject or

placement. These teachers serving disadvantaged, at risk populations are not equipped to

meet their needs. Even well intended teachers hired by these districts are often not

equipped to offer the level of quality instruction and attention needed to begin to close

the achievement gap (Barton; Haycock; Klopfenstein).

According to Borman and Kimball (2004), when students have a nonqualified or

inexperienced teacher, it takes years to overcome the effects, get students back on grade

level, and lessen the possibility of these students being able to enroll and succeed in AP

or honors courses. Minority and low-income students are taught by underqualified

teachers which provides additional evidence that minority students who lag behind their

White counterparts academically in elementary years are not likely to progress to the

point where they are performing at grade level by the time they reach high school.

Class size. Although studies have shown that smaller classes improve student

achievement, particularly with minority students (Borman & Kimball, 2004), classes with

a high percentage of minority students are more likely to have 25 or more students

(Barton, 2004). Additional studies concur with the previous statement that schools with

large minority populations tend to have larger classes (Borman & Kimball; Camara &
 32

Schmidt, 1999; Lankford et al., 2002). The more students a teacher is responsible for

equates to less individual attention the students may receive. Students benefit from

having the ability to participate and interact with their teacher. This benefit is negated

when students are forced to learn in large class settings (Talbert-Johnson, 2004).

Access to technology. Access to technology is vital in narrowing the achievement

gap and the AP or honors gap. Schools with high populations of minority students have

computers but students in these schools are less likely to have access to computers in the

classroom (Barton, 2004). Students in all types of schools gained better access to

computers between 1998 and 2006. In 2006, for the first time in that time span, students

in high poverty schools had better access to computers than students in the average

school. Despite improvements over time, levels of access in high-minority schools

continue to lag behind the national average (Barton).

The "digital divide" substantially diminished over time. However, gaps exist in

the availability of Internet access in the homes of minority and nonminority students.

Minority students are less likely to use the Internet for conducting research at home but

have the same access to computers in school as their advantaged peers. Barton (2004)

found that 61% of students in schools with low minority enrollments were assigned

internet-based research assignments while only 35% of students in schools with a high

minority enrollment were assigned those same types of research assignments. High

minority enrollment is defined as 80% or more while a low minority enrollment is

defined as less than 20% according to the U.S. Department of Education.

Researchers argued that computers have positive effects on children’s cognitive

development, improves visual attention, and allows children to read and utilize

information on the computer screen. In addition, parents believe that using computers
 33

may increase their children’s academic achievement and future employment

opportunities (Jonassen, 2003; Kim & Reeves, 2007). On the other hand, Papanastasiou

and (2002) argued that students who have access to computers at home

and in the library have higher levels of science literacy. According to Notten and

Kraaykamp (2009), science performance is positively affected if there is a positive

reading climate and computer access at home.

Academic rigor. Rigor of the curriculum contributes to the achievement and AP

or honors enrollment gap. Researchers have suggested that although all racial or ethnic

groups are now taking more challenging courses than in the past, minorities still lag

behind, and are underrepresented in AP examinations (Archibald et al., 2009; Burton,

Whitman, Yepes-Baraya, Cline, & Kim, 2002; Darity et al., 2001). Despite the rise in the

number of students taking AP and honors courses, African American students and

Hispanic students, in particular, are not receiving the encouragement and support to

enroll in rigorous AP classes. Although there are more minority students entering AP

classrooms, significant gaps in equity and excellence remain (Darity et al., Ford, 1998;

Johnson & Kritsonis, 2006).

Testing and assessment. Test scores play a dominant role in identification and

placement decisions. Research showed another area where cultural bias negatively

impacts minority representation in advanced programs as in the use of intelligence or

standardized test scores in determining admittance to those programs. Ford, Grantham,

and Whiting (2008) suggested that for African American students, poor standardized test

scores, which Ford et al. attributed in part to a lack of high quality educational

opportunities, hinder entrance into advanced and gifted programs. Ford et al. asserted that

test scores are the primary identification tool for advanced and gifted education, and this
 34

dependence on intelligence and achievement test scores as placement tools has increased

since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001.

Ford et al. (2008) cited numerous researchers in suggesting that while these tests

accurately assess White, middle-class students, they have been less effective in assessing

minorities, regardless of SES. On this basis, Ford et al. claimed that use of standardized

tests keeps advanced and gifted programs disparately composed of White and middle

class students. Similarly, Bonner (2000) asserted that use of standardized test scores for

gifted identification is disadvantageous to minority students because these tests are

influenced by the White, middle-class culture of test makers and tend to measure an

individual's understanding of that culture rather than intended knowledge. Ford (1998)

contended that it is not only test bias but also disproportionate test anxiety among African

American students that limit their opportunities.

Teacher as referral source. Teacher referral contributes significantly to the

underrepresentation of minority students in AP or honors courses. Teacher referral

intentionally or unintentionally serves as a gatekeeper, closing doors to minority students

in AP and honors courses. Addressing teacher referral as a gatekeeper is not an

insignificant matter, as most states rely on teacher referral or completed checklists and

forms for selecting students for AP or honors and gifted education placement accounting

for almost 60% of eventual placement (College Board, 2002; Davidson Institute, 2006;

National Association for Gifted Children and State Directors of Gifted Education, 2005).

Teachers as referral sources for AP or honors and gifted education assessment fall

under the umbrella of teacher expectations or perceptions, and subsequent student

achievement and outcomes in which studies suggest that teachers have specific beliefs

concerning students based on their ethnicity and act according to those beliefs (Ferguson,
 35

1998; Johnson & Kritsonis, 2006). Believing that African American students are less

capable than others, teachers might expect less and discourage them from pursuing

courses that are more challenging and different careers. Klopfenstein (2004) suggested

that an increase in African American teachers might bring an increase in expectations for

African American students. Klopfenstein also posited that teachers with similar

backgrounds may take more interest in working with these students and raise their

expectations.

Continuing the research on teacher referral and culturally diverse students,

Elhowerism, Mutua, Alsheikh, and Holloway (2005) examined the effects of students’

ethnicity on teachers’ decision making, using three vignettes of advanced level students.

Elhowerism et al., (2005) noted that only the ethnicity of the student in the vignette

changed which impacted teacher referrals, specifically, “elementary school teachers

treated identical information contained in the vignettes differently and made different

recommendations despite the fact that the student information was identical in all ways

except for ethnicity” (p. 29). In a study of referral resources using all elementary students

in Georgia, McBee (2006) reported teacher referrals as more accurate for White and

Asian students than for African American and Hispanic-Latino students. McBee

concluded that the results suggested inequalities in nomination rather than assessment

may be the primary source of underrepresentation of minority students in AP or honors

and gifted programs. McBee also noted that the findings could be interpreted in a number

of ways, such as the low rate of teacher nomination could indicate racism, classism, or

cultural ignorance on the teacher’s part.

A range of research discussed an abundance of variables that contribute to the

achievement and enrollment gaps in AP or honors classes and variables that can influence
 36

minority students’ academic decisions. Despite the challenges, public schools are not in

the position to address all variables and bring about change in all cases. For home-related

variables that are beyond the school’s control, educators can only work with the students

as they present themselves. Therefore, educators must become culturally aware, sensitive,

and competent, provide a supportive and nurturing classroom environment, and focus on

student outcomes (Banks & Banks 2006).

One of the most commonly discussed outcomes has been attitude. The

investigation of students’ attitudes towards studying science has been a substantive

feature of science education research for the past 30 to 40 years. Consequently, the

promotion of favorable attitudes towards science, scientists and learning science is

increasingly a concern for science education. However, the concept of attitudes towards

science is somewhat nebulous, often poorly articulated and not well understood

(Osbourne et al., 2003).

Student attitudes. Science educators have long agreed that attitudes are as

important as cognitive variables in influencing learning outcomes and career choices

(Lyons, 2006). Other researchers emphasized the fact that attitudes students have towards

what they study in school may be more crucial in influencing career choices than

knowledge that they accumulate (Estes, Estes, Richards, & Roettger, 1981). In addition,

science educators recognized that attitudes are not only important because of their

influence on outcomes, but the development of positive attitudes is in itself an important

goal of science education regardless of individual differences (Myers & Fouts, 1992).

According to Degenhart, Wingenbach, Dooley, and Lindner (2007) students’

classroom experiences are important factors for continued study in specific subjects.

Research has shown that subject matter and poor teaching negatively affect the
 37

persistence of students in science and engineering. Moreover, as students’ progress

through school, their interest and attitudes toward science becomes more negative,

especially during middle school years. Osbourne et al. (2003) indicated that students’

positive experiences in science increase their enthusiasm for science and their belief in

their ability to pursue science careers.

Historical Overview of the Attitude Concept

Historically, the concept of attitude has moved from a physiological to a

psychological connotation. In the early 18th century, the attitude concept was used to

describe the posture of motionless figures in space, and subsequently, the movement of

actors and dancers. Further evolution of the term attitude is illustrated in the work of

Darwin, who extended its usage from theatrics to actual life situations (Shrigley, Koballa,

& Simpson, 1988). According to Shrigley et al., Darwin was the first to associate emotion

with attitude and provide the first hint regarding the evaluative quality of attitude by

using the term to describe the emotional readiness of animals during a crisis situation of

fight to defend themselves. The British physiologist, Sherrington (as cited in Shrigley et

al.) used the attitude concept as a measure of the human motor reflexes with physical

connotation still predominating. In Freedman’s (1997) review of literature, attitude

represented the emotional orientation of an individual toward science.

According to Shrigley et al. (1988), the work of Spencer and Brian transformed

attitude from its physical moorings by conceptualizing it as a mental concept, an internal

state of triggering action. Numerous authors viewed 1918 as the origin of the use of

attitude as a modern concept. However, Allport (1954) emphasized attitude as a mental

and neural state of readiness organized through experience, exerting a directive, and

influence upon the individual’s response to all objects and situation.

 38

Thomas and Znaniecki (1918) wrote, “The Polish Peasant in Europe and

America” that set in motion an era where it was necessary to study feelings, therefore,

initiating the use of attitude as a psychological concept. In order to explain the

differences in lifestyle that Polish peasants adopted in the industrialized cities of

America, Thomas and Znaniecki used attitude as a psychological construct. They

analyzed several letters exchanged between old country and American Poles. The study

revealed the evaluative quality and social influences on attitudes that remain central

attributes to the concept of attitude. In discussing worker fatigue, industrial psychologists

in the Western Electric’s Hawthorne plant also ascribed a mental concept to attitude in

the late 1920s. Thurstone’s design of a scale in his manifesto “Attitudes can be

measured” to measure general attitudes triggered numerous theoretical studies with an

evaluative definition of attitude. Attitude as conceived originated in the early 1920s

(Shrigley et al., 1988).

Attitude Concepts

Gall, Borg, and Gall (2007) defined attitude as an individual’s viewpoint or

disposition toward a person, thing, or idea. Attitude contains three domains including (a)

affect, (b) cognition, and (c) connation. Affect refers to the person’s feelings about the

object. Cognition is one’s beliefs and knowledge about the object, and connation is the

behavior that an individual shows towards the object The three attitudinal components

have been taken into consideration in the instrument being used to measure and evaluate

student attitudes toward science.

Researchers and theorists defined attitudes as a learned predisposition to behave

in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner towards an object (Aiken, 2002;

Shrigley et al., 1988). According to Shrigley et al., attitudes are learned, predict behavior,
 39

are evaluative, social, and indicative of readiness to respond. Despite the wide range of

definitions regarding attitude, the consensus is that attitude is a learned disposition to

feel, think, or behave favorably or unfavorably towards science for example (Gall et al.,

2007; Osbourne et al. 2003). Science educators must carefully define the term attitude

when used with science as the attitude object in order to better understand and predict the

science-related behaviors of students and teachers. Attitude toward science includes the

feelings, beliefs, and values held about the enterprise of school science, science, and the

impact of the science on society (Osbourne et al.).

The term “attitude toward science” has led to a wide range of definitions. Klopfer

(1971), an early contributor in explaining the concept, provided a conceptual definition

and categorized attitudes toward science as a set of affective behaviors. Those affective

behaviors consist of (a) the manifestation of favorable attitudes toward science and

scientists; (b) the acceptance of scientific inquiry as a way of thought; (c) the adoption of

scientific attitudes, the enjoyment of science learning experiences; (d) the development of

interests in science and science-related activities; and (e) the development of an interest

in pursuing a career in science or science-related activities.

According to Francis and Greer (1999), the range of definitions resulted in

difficulty integrating findings from previous research. Francis and Greer found that

definitions may be categorized as either operational in terms of the instrument of

measurement, or conceptual. The definition of attitude toward science, presented by

Freedman (1997), and Simpson and Oliver (1990), contained both conceptual and

operational elements. Conceptually, these researchers defined attitudes toward science as

an emotional orientation of an individual to respond favorably or unfavorably to things,

people, places, events, or ideas (Papanastasiou & s, 2002). Similarly,

 40

Osbourne et al. (2003) conceptualized attitudes toward science as feelings, beliefs, and

values held about the enterprise of school science, science, and the impact of science on

society or scientists themselves. Simpson and Oliver operationally defined attitudes

toward science as the degree to which a student likes science. For example, when

questioned about science, the responses to statements may be “I like science” or “I enjoy

science” as indicators of attitudes toward science. Dhindsa and Chung (2003) defined

attitudes towards science in terms of the instrument of measurement that measured

responses on six attitudinal constructs. Table 8 presents the six attitudinal constructs and

their definitions.

Table 8

Six Attitudinal Constructs

Attitudinal constructs Definition

Science enjoyment The extent to which a student enjoys science lessons.

The extent to which a student is anxious about a science lesson.

Science anxiety
The extent to which a student develops interest and its related
Science interest activities.

The extent to which a student is confident and successful doing

Science confidence science.

The extent to which a student is motivated to learn and pursue

Science motivation science in the future.

The extent to which a student perceives science is important to

Importance of science everyday life and activities.

Note. Source: Dhindsa and Chung (2003)

Definitions of attitude toward science vary in description of the attitude object.

Klopfer’s (1971) definition of the attitude object included (a) scientific inquiry as a way
 41

of thought; (b) science-learning experience; and (c) careers in science, school science,

and scientists. Hassan (1985) defined the attitude object as it relates to scientists, science

as enterprise, the social implications of science, science as a subject, normality of

scientists, importance of science and ethical standards of the scientific community. A

common definition has involved describing attitudes as including the three components

of cognition, affect, and behavior. Reid (2006) provided a clear definition of these

components, which included (a) a knowledge about the object, the beliefs, ideas

component (cognitive); (b) a feeling about the object, like or dislike component

(affective); and (c) a tendency-towards-action, the objective component (behavioral).

Student Attitudes Toward Science

Although researchers have defined attitudes toward science differently in the

review of literature, the definitions are not completely distinct. Attitudes toward science

are positive and negative feelings, behaviors, and knowledge learned through interaction

with various aspects of science. Attitudes influence achievement, rather than achievement

influencing attitudes. Students with positive attitudes toward science tend to have higher

scores on achievement measures (Jones, Howe, & Rua, 2000; Simpson & Oliver,1990;

Weinburgh, 1995a).

Research related to attitude indicated that an important and increasing percent of

students are not interested in science. Many students, especially females, associate

science with negative feelings and attitudes that discourage them from continuing with

scientific inquiry. Jovanovic and King (1998) suggested that one of the major variables in

females’ antipathy towards science is their perception that they are better at other

subjects. Moreover, there is a decrease in positive attitude toward science with increasing

grade level for both boys and girls (Catsambis, 1995; Parker & Gerber, 2000; Weinburgh,
 42

1995b). On the other hand, Oh and Yager (2004) stated that students’ positive attitudes

toward science are associated with the constructivists’ classrooms while negative

attitudes toward science are related to the traditional approach in science instruction.

Miller, Lietz, and Kotte (2002), for example, showed that attitudes toward science

have the strongest influence on a students’ desire for employment in the field. Therefore,

educators agree that attitudes are as affective as cognitive variables in learning outcomes.

However, several factors affect student attitudes toward science like science achievement,

gender difference, student-student and student-teacher interaction, and classroom-

learning environment.

Student attitudes toward science have been a topic of concern for decades, but

little progress has been made in moving generations of students toward a more positive

attitude toward science. Morrell (1998) conducted a study to examine students in Grades

5, 7, and 10 and their attitudes toward school and classroom science. This study was

designed to determine attitudes concerning the relationship between the school and

classroom science attitudes, and what relationships exist between attitudes toward school

and science to students' grade level, gender, ethnicity, school/community type, expected

grade point average and science grade. Approximately 1,000 students participated in the

study. The initial sample for this study included all students in Grades 5, 6, 7, and l0 from

districts representative of rural, urban, and small city Northwest communities. In general,

students' attitudes toward school were positive at all levels and students' attitudes toward

science were neutral. The results indicated that, although a statistically significant

relationship did exist between students ' attitudes toward school and toward classroom

science, the relationship had no practical meaning. Females were slightly more positive

about school than males. No gender differences were found with respect to classroom
 43

attitudes. Fifth graders held significantly more positive attitudes toward science than

upper-grade students. None of the grade levels sampled had clearly positive attitudes

toward classroom science. Similar results found by different researchers concurred that

students in upper grades have less positive attitudes toward school and science when

compared with students in lower grades (Finson & Enochs, 1987; Levin & Fowler, 1984;

Simpson & Oliver, 1990; Yager & Bonnstetter, 1984; Yager & Penick, 1986).

Conversely, student attitudes are not the same and vary in different parts of the

world depending on nationality (Ye, Wells, Talkmitt, & Ren, 1998). Compared to

developed countries, children in developing countries appear to be more interested in

science and science-related topics. On the other hand, children in developed countries

show little or no interest in science. According to Pine et al. (2006) students’ attitudes

about inquiry science varied across the different schools.

Contributing Variables That Influence Student Attitudes Toward Science

Research has identified a number of variables that may influence the development

of student attitudes toward science. These variables include career interest, gender

differences, classroom environment, teacher impact, self-concept of ability, science

enjoyment, and usefulness of science, student motivation, and perceived difficulty of

science, personal relationships, student-teacher rapport, and socioeconomic status. These

variables are classified as internal (within the school environment) and external (outside

the school).

Career interest. Career interest is a determining variable of student attitudes

towards science. Munro and Elsom (2000) observed that students are more inclined to

enroll in science courses when needed for a career of interest. Additionally, studies

revealed a relationship between career interests and culture that fostered gender role
 44

attitudes. Research showed that certain areas of work closely related to physics were

perceived by students to be the kind of work that males would do as opposed to females.

These perceptions may account for lower enrollment of females in physics and other

advanced level courses. Greenfield (1996) noted that males in each of four ethnic groups

were less inclined than females to regard science as a course of study.

On the other hand, several studies have shown (Jarvis & Pell, 2002; Jones et al.,

2000) that students do not want to relate their future careers to science and technology

nor do they aspire to be scientists. However, Powell (2003) suggested raising student

interest in the science-related workforce by allowing them to acquire skills, attitudes, and

knowledge needed to be successful in industry and by teaching students the history of

science and technology.

Gender differences. One of the most significant factors that influences attitude

toward science is gender (Catsambis, 1995; Greenfield, 1996; Jones et al., 2000; Oakes,

1990; Simpson & Oliver, 1990). Many attitudinal studies focused on middle and high

school students. Schibeci (1984) reported that of all variables that may influence attitude

toward science, gender has shown to have a significant influence.

Researchers of the various studies have gathered data confirming gender

differences in some cases and rejecting the idea of gender differences in other cases. For

example, some literature on science education indicates that middle school male students

hold attitudes that are more positive and tend to be more interested in science than

females (Catsambis, 1995; Craker, 2006; Greenfield, 1996; Piburn & Baker, 1993). On

the other hand, some studies reported that there is no difference between males and

females with respect to attitude toward science (Catsambis; Dhindsa & Chung, 2003;

Miller et al., 2002).

 45

In a study by Catsambis (1995) of gender differences in science achievements and

attitudes among middle school students, Catsambis found that females tend to have less

positive attitudes toward science, participate in fewer relevant extracurricular activities,

and tend to aspire less often to science careers than male students from the same social

background and achievement characteristics. This study used data from a large nationally

representative sample of approximately 1,052 schools and 24,500 eighth graders.

Although females tend to have less positive attitudes toward science, participate in fewer

relevant extracurricular activities, and tend to aspire less often to science careers than

male students, surprisingly they did not lag behind males in science achievement tests,

grades, and course enrollment (Catsambis). Consequently, the study indicated that the

decline of gender differences in achievement might not be sufficient to ensure increased

enrollment of females in the areas of science and technology.

Different researchers have reported that females, more than males, regard science

as competitive, impersonal, abstract, rule-founded, certainty-bounded, deprived of

imagination and as a product of individual effort made exclusively by male scientists,

without moral or social inhibitions (Brickhouse, Lowery & Schultz, 2000; Gilbert &

Calvert, 2003; Steinke, 2005; Turkmen, 2008). Therefore, students’ perceptions of

science are related to their views of scientific knowledge and practice to their attitudes

towards science (Finson, 2002; Fung, 2002).

More particularly, some research indicated males have a more positive attitude

toward science and are highly motivated to achieve in science and more likely to select

science courses as electives in high school (Hykle, 1993). Moreover, males tend to opt

for scientific professions (Semela, 2010) and value careers with strong interpersonal and

communicative dimensions, and these preferences are correlated with students’

 46

stereotype images of scientists.

In an ongoing study conducted by Simpson and Oliver (1990) with 4,000 students

in Grades 6-10, they found that males showed significantly more positive attitudes

towards science than females. Kahle and Lakes (1983) suggested that the lack of positive

attitudes toward science among females begins in elementary years. Kahle and Lakes

argued that the data showed conclusively that a lack of experience in science leads to a

lack of understanding of science and contributes to negative attitudes towards science.

In a narrative review of literature, Schibeci and Riley (1986) revealed that females

showed a more positive attitude towards biology, whereas males showed a more positive

attitude towards physics and chemistry. This research revealed that students’ attitude

toward science is dependent on whether life science or physical sciences is interesting.

For example, findings of Jones et al. (2000) revealed that whereas males expressed an

interest in airplanes, cars, lights, electricity and sources of energy, females expressed an

interest in healthy eating, animal communication, and rainbows. This research supports

that males show positive attitudes toward physical science, and females show a more

positive attitudes toward biological science.

In another study, Osbourne et al. (2003) reported that an analysis of gender

revealed that male to female ratio remains high at 3.4:1 in physics, whereas it is

approximately equal in chemistry. Females with 1.6 females to every male, by contrast

still dominate biology, though the numbers choosing to study it have remained relatively

stable which is a reflection of the fact that it is the leading science of the late 20th

century.

Swiatek and Lupkowski-Shoplik (2000) found attitudinal differences in gifted

elementary school students, with males favoring science and technology and females
 47

favoring English, writing, foreign language, and reading. According to Ready, LoGerfo,

Burkham, and Lee (2005), girls enter school with better literacy skills, slightly increasing

the gap during the kindergarten years. In addition, this study suggested that negative

attitudes increase with age from third through sixth grade.

Evidence of gender differences in attitudes toward science was also found among

students in single-sex and coeducational schools. Dhindsa and Chung (2003) evaluated

the attitudes towards science and achievement of ninth graders in single-sex and

coeducational schools. Attitudes toward science in the study were conceptualized as the

combined influence of the six attitudinal constructs measured by the instrument of

enjoyment, anxiety, importance, interest, motivation, and confidence. Results from the

study revealed significant attitudinal differences toward science between male and female

students who attended single-sex schools and male students in coeducational schools in

favor of both males and females in single-sex schools. In comparing the attitudes toward

science between females in single-sex schools and those in coeducational schools,

females in single-sex schools had moderately better attitudes than those of females in

coeducational schools. Among males, attitudinal differences toward science were

marginal and in favor of males in single-sex schools over males in coeducational schools

(Dhindsa & Chung). On the other hand, Stables (1990) found that there were no gender

differences in attitudes toward science between males and females attending single-sex

schools. Dhindsa and Chung found that no gender difference exist in attitudes toward

science among students in coeducational schools.

Gender differences have been reported on AP examinations and achievement tests

indicating that there are differential items on these tests that can be associated more with

one gender (Buck, Kostin, & Morgan, 2002; Stumpf & Stanley, 1996). Contrarily, some
 48

research yield that females perform typically equal to or higher than males in science in

high school (California Postsecondary Education Commission, 2008; National Council of

Educational Statistics, 2007; Stipek, 2002).

A summary of research on gender differences in attitudes towards science showed

that males have more positive attitudes towards science as compared to females. Other

studies revealed no gender differences in attitudes towards science. Other research

suggested that it is possible for a student with an extremely positive attitude to all school

subjects to rank science as least popular, and to have a much more favorable attitude than

another student who has a strong dislike for all subjects and ranks science first (Osbourne

et al., 2003). Due to conflicting results, many studies indicated the need for more detailed

analysis. Further, the research demonstrated that as females grow older, they are less

interested in science than are males (Catsambis, 1995; Simpson & Oliver, 1990;

Weinburgh, 1995c; Wilson, 1983). Despite documentation that gender differences exist

in attitudes toward science, the process of how these attitudes affect science outcomes is

unclear (Simpson & Oliver, 1990; Weinburgh, 1995a; Wilson, 1983). Apart from gender

differences, other variables have been found to affect and influence student attitudes

toward science.

Classroom environment. The term classroom environment has been used

differently in the literature. The different terminologies used include school climate,

classroom climate, environmental variables, and the classroom environment. Classroom

environment has been identified as a significant determinant of attitude (Piburn & Baker,

1993; Talton & Simpson, 1987). The classroom environment is measured using an

instrument devised by Walberg (1968) and developed by Fraser (1981) and not

surprisingly reveals a positive correlation with attitude.

 49

Extensive research into classroom climate has been conducted in the United

States and around the world. Some researchers indicated that students’ perceptions of

their classroom environment can affect their attitudes toward science (Ebenezer & Zoller,

1993; Papanastasiou & Papanastasiou, 2002; Piburn & Baker, 1993). In addition,

research revealed that there is a positive and significant relationship between classroom

learning environment and students’ cognitive outcomes (Fraser & Chinonh, 2000; Goh &

Fraser, 2000). The most influential aspects of the science classroom have been found to

be the social and learning environments resulting from interactions between the

classroom teacher and students and among the students.

Fisher and Fraser (1982) identified the following classroom environment

variables as influencing attitudes of students’ towards science. These variables included

(a) support of the teacher, (b) task orientation, (c) order and organization, (d) rule clarity,

(e) teacher control, and (f) innovation. Classroom environment variables, for the purpose

of this literature review, consist of teacher impact, individual student characteristics, and

learning environment variables.

Teacher impact. According to Freedman (1997), teachers play a vital role in the

learning process of students. Freedman’s study suggested that the quality of instruction

correlates directly with the quality of science education, and the nature of instruction

strongly affects student attitudes toward science. A significant determinant of attitude

towards school science conducted by Woolnough (1991) suggested that the quality of

teaching school science is a major variable in continuing science education. Woolnough

conducted a more extensive study of subject choice with 1,180 students who had or had

not chosen to study science using a mix of attitudes questionnaires and interviews. The

participants included 132 science department chairs, 108 former teachers, and 84 staff
 50

members from 12 schools. Woolnough identified six variables that were responsible for

student choice or nonchoice of the sciences. Of these, the two strongest variables were

the influence of student’s positive experience of extracurricular activities and the nature

of class activities, that is, the quality of the science teaching.

A detailed study by Myers and Fouts (1992) used 699 students from 27 high

schools in America. The study revealed that most positive attitudes toward science were

related with a high level of involvement, high level of personal support, strong positive

relationships with other students and teachers, and the use of a variety of teaching

strategies and unusual learning activities with high teacher support and low levels of

teacher control. Therefore, the most influential aspects of science classrooms have been

found to be the social and learning environments resulting from interactions between the

teacher and students, and among the students.

Piburn and Baker (1993) conducted a qualitative study using 149 students (83

elementary students, 35 junior high students, and 31 high school students). Results

revealed that a major variable in declining attitudes toward science was the increasing

isolation that students experience as they move from lower to higher grades. Several

researchers indicated that the quality of teaching and teaching style variables (teacher

enthusiasm, respect for the teacher’s knowledge, teacher support for students, teacher

praise, and commitment to learning and fairness towards students) significantly affect

student attitudes toward science (Ebenezer and Zoller, 1993; Haladyna , Shaughnessy, &

Redsun, 1982; Miller et al., 2002; Osbourne et al., 2003; and Schibeci and Riley, 1986).

Among the classroom environment variables, teacher variables are most

instrumental in determining students’ attitudes toward science. Literature suggested that

students prefer social learning environments in which they interact with the teacher and
 51

other students, and where students feel ease and enjoyment (Baek & Choi, 2002; Hijazi &

Naqvi, 2006; Lizzio, Wilson & Simons, 2002; Turkmen, 2008). However, teacher quality

and teaching style also influence student attitudes towards science. Students prefer

teaching and learning in which they are actively involved as opposed to discussion and

note taking. Teacher qualities such as enthusiasm, teacher knowledge, teacher support for

students, teacher praise, commitment to learning and fairness towards students are all

factors that influence students’ attitudes toward science (Khine, 2002).

Individual Student Characteristics

Certain individual attributes of students have shown to influence attitudes

towards science. These characteristics include self-concept of ability, science enjoyment,

interest of science, interpretations of experiences of science, motivation in science,

perceived difficulty of science, influence of family and peers (Cavallo & Laubach, 2001;

Dhindsa & Chung, 2003; Simpson & Oliver, 1990; Simpson & Troost, 1982).

Self-concept of ability. According to Cavallo and Laubach (2001), self-concept

of ability relates to the student’s perception of ability to achieve in science. Freedman

(1997) described students’ attitudes toward science as the perceptions of their ability to

achieve or as self-concept of their ability in science. However, as students become less

confident regarding their abilities in science, their attitude toward that subject is

adversely affected.

Simpson and Oliver (1990) found that schools, particularly classroom variables,

are the most influential on attitudes toward science. Simpson and Oliver reported findings

from a longitudinal study that addressed variables of attitude and achievement. The three

major categories of variables addressed in this study were related to home, school, and

individual student characteristics. Simpson and Oliver investigated whether there was a
 52

relationship between the three categories of variables with attitudes and achievement in

science. With respect to self-related characteristics, the study addressed science self -

concept and general self-concept. Simpson and Oliver found that self-concept had a

modest positive relationship with both attitude and achievement (r = 0.2-0.3). In addition,

science self-concept at the 10th grade level was a positive predictor of both the number

and the type of science courses that students take during high school years.

Science enjoyment. Dhindsa and Chung (2003) interpreted science enjoyment as

the extent to which a student enjoys a science lesson and the happiness that students feel

resulting from their experiences in science (Baek & Choi, 2002; Cavallo & Laubach,

2001; Hijazi & Naqvi, 2006). Freedman (1997) noted that classroom activities involving

laboratory instruction have positive effects on students’ enjoyment of science. Freedman

conducted a study with two groups, experimental and control, of ninth-grade students.

The experimental group was given laboratory activities while the control group was

taught through the traditional method with no laboratory activities. The results indicated

that the students engaged in laboratory activities revealed a higher level of involvement

and enjoyment of the science over those students who did not receive laboratory

instruction. Dhindsa and Chung claimed that when students are engaged in laboratory

activities, it makes learning meaningful, supports the development of problem-solving

skills, and enhances motivation. Gibson (1998) conducted interviews with students

following an inquiry-based summer science program. The qualitative study revealed that

high interest students maintained their interest and preferred hands-on approaches of

science instruction to traditional classroom methods of teaching. According to Freedman

(1998), laboratory instruction was observed as a positive influence on students’ attitudes

towards science.
 53

A study conducted by Kahle and Lakes (2000) found that 9-year-old girls

responded that science did not make them feel successful. In addition to reporting a

failure to instill feelings of confidence, success, or curiosity, the students aged 13 to 17

years stated that science made them feel stupid. Female responses and opinions of science

were negative and consisted of descriptions of boring, facts to memorize, not fun, and

afraid to ask questions. The majority of students often view science as something that is

stagnant—a myriad of boring facts that scientists know and students are required to learn

(Heflich, Dixon, & Davis, 2001). In reality, science is dynamic in nature, but students do

not often experience it in such a way and thus have negative attitudes toward science.

Usefulness of science class. Cavallo and Laubach (2001) identified the usefulness

of science as students’ perceptions of the application of science to them at a personal and

societal level. Cavallo and Laubach noted that minorities and females often have negative

perceptions of the usefulness of science in real life and this attitude contributes to their

lack of participation in science activities. Females consider areas of science such as

biology, anatomy, physiology, and medicine more useful than physical sciences. Khoury

(1984) found that middle school students’ interest indicated that males were more

interested in physical science and females were more interested in biological sciences.

These findings are consistent with other related studies that female students, in particular,

perceive science as having immediate or future usefulness and relevance, and will likely

continue in science (Jones et al., 2000).

Student motivation in science. Student motivation in science has been defined as

the level of interest that students exercise toward participation in science-related activities

both inside and outside of the classroom (Cavallo & Laubach, 2001; Dhindsa & Chung,

2003). Students’ intrinsic motivation to learn is positively correlated with the teacher
 54

presenting lessons in an energetic, dynamic, and enthusiastic manner (Dhindsa & Chung).

To some degree, teacher enthusiasm makes learning more enjoyable while giving

students the impression that mastering concepts is achievable (Coleman, 2001). This

factor is under the greatest control of the classroom teacher. Enthusiasm exhibited by

teachers can have a direct impact upon student motivation not only in science, but also in

all subject areas. Studies by Simpson and Oliver (1990) revealed females as significantly

more motivated to achieve in science than male students. Studies suggested that when

teachers incorporate life experiences, hobbies, and other student interests into the lesson,

motivation is improved significantly (Parsons, 2000; Theobald, 2006).

Perceived difficulty of science. Studies by Piburn and Baker (1993) identified

that students’ perception of science as a difficult subject is a determinant of subject

choice. According to Piburn and Baker, the increasing difficulty of the science

curriculum continues to deter more and more students from taking advanced level

courses. The perceived difficulty of science influences students’ attitudes toward science.

In a qualitative study of attitudes towards science, Piburn and Baker indicated high

school students’ responses on the difficulty of science included “Physics doesn’t appeal

to me. It’s pretty abstract at some points. I guess I like concrete things better.”

“Chemistry is a lot harder because of math. It seems to me my problem is math” (p. 400).

Piburn and Baker found that the increasing abstractness and complexity of science

classes, especially in high school, engenders negative attitudes towards science.

Evidence from the literature indicated that individual student characteristics

which differ in males and females influences their attitudes towards science which

influences their decisions in high school and beyond concerning what elective to take and

career path to follow. According to Osbourne et al. (2003), rather than selling the aspects
 55

of being an engineer or research scientist, educators should emphasize that the loss

without science qualification can mean never being a doctor or engineer.

Personal relationships. Personal relationships have a strong influence on

students’ attitudes toward science. According to Andre, Whigham, Hendrickson, and

Chambers (1997), “The attitude-achievement relationship must be dynamically reciprocal

and continually evolve as the individual develops” (p. 4). This relationship between

attitude and achievement is a mutual one that is complicated by how attitude may have

been affected by early student achievement in science, teacher, and student relationships

as well as parental and peer influence. Woolnough (1994) observed that in spite of a low

regard extended to science-related careers in the United Kingdom, there were students

who were inclined to continue their interest in science because of early exposure to

mechanical toys and parental encouragement while growing up.

Student-Teacher Rapport

Developing relationships with students is an important aspect of effective

teaching. Theobald (2006) indicated that there are numerous motivational benefits in the

promotion of a positive teacher-student relationship. A caring attitude on the part of a

teacher goes a long way in developing this association and in supporting self-confidence

of students. In an effort to build relationships with students, teachers should support,

encourage, and show interest in their students as people (McCombs & Whisler, 1997;

Theobald, 2006). According to Brophy (2004), teachers should not only get to know

students, but to enjoy them. Research indicated that the more effectively educators

connect with their students, the greater their impact on motivation, learning, and positive

student attitudes (Coleman, 2001).

Educators have a unique role in communicating high expectations to their

 56

students. When such a practice is in place, students receive numerous motivational clues

that say, “You can do this!” Daniels and Arapostathis (2005) believed that support and

encouragement of teachers makes the journey to success more bearable for students and

builds positive attitudes. When students feel that the teacher is on their team rather than

an opponent, they also believe that the teacher’s ultimate goal for them is success. This

changes perceptions and student attitudes. Theobald (2006) posited that recognizing

students individually can translate into a greater understanding of their interests and

background, and taking time to build relationships with students initiates dialogue, which

sends a message of caring. Noddings (1995) indicated that much could be gained by

incorporating themes of caring into the school curriculum that can promote positive

student attitudes to science.

Parent education and SES. Stipek (2002) verified that participation in AP

programs and attitudes towards advanced-level science is highly correlated with family

income. Stipek contended that well-educated parents are more likely to instill college

expectations in their children and offer the necessary report to complete college-level

work while still in high school. The National Association of Education Statistics data

reported by Clowes (2003) confirmed that as parent education levels increase, so does the

student achievement. Also, student achievement declines with the incidence of poverty as

measured by the student eligibility of free and reduced-price meals. On the other hand,

Adelman (2006) noted that the parent education level in his longitudinal research

provided uneven and unreliable data, as one out of six students did not know their

parents’ education level. Although student achievement and positive student attitudes

may be affected by SES and parent education level, research found the greater influence

on student achievement and positive attitudes towards science are variables within
 57

students’ home environments (Trusty, 2002).

Attitudes and Achievement. The relationship between these two variables is a

key issue permeating much of the literature. Research findings indicated that attitude

toward science is related to and affects achievement in science (Cannon & Simpson,

1985; Freedman, 1997; Haladyna & Shauhnessy, 1982; Haussler & Hoffmann, 2000;

Simpson & Oliver, 1990; Soyibo & Hudson, 2000). These studies also demonstrated that

attitudes towards achievement in science are gender dependent.

Weinburgh’s (1995c) meta-analysis of the attitude research between 1970 and

1991 suggested a moderate correlation between attitudes towards science and

achievement, although this correlation is stronger for high and low ability females than

for males indicating that, for these groups, doing well in science is closely linked with

liking science. Simpson and Oliver (1990) found similar indications in their studies.

Freedman (1997) also reported a moderate, positive correlation (r = 0.406) between

attitudes toward science and achievement among ninth grade physical science students in

an urban high school in the United States. Schibeci and Riley (1986) found a low positive

correlation between science and achievement in science in an investigation of the

influence of students’ background and perceptions on science attitude and achievement

among 17-year olds from 1979. The results from these studies indicate that attitude

towards science influences achievement in science.

An exception to these findings is the research of Simpson and Oliver (1990). They

noted that the relationship of science attitude to achievement is less pronounced than that

between self-concept and achievement or between motivation and achievement. Further,

Simpson and Oliver looked at the social and psychological influences on science learning

and found that students’ self-concept of their ability in science is positively correlated
 58

with achievement.

Cannon and Simpson (1985) also examined the correlation between seventh-grade

students’ attitudes toward science and science achievement on a criterion-referenced test.

The students were enrolled in basic, general, and advanced life science classes. Data from

the study revealed the highest correlations between positive attitudes towards science and

higher achievement scores from females who were enrolled in the basic and advanced

level classes and for males enrolled in the general science classes. However, Soyibo and

Hudson (2000) found no relationship between students’ attitudes toward science and

science achievement.

Significant gender differences have been observed in the field of science.

However, there is disagreement about the nature of the causal link and whether it is

attitude or achievement that is the dependent variable. Research clearly revealed that

early childhood experiences serve as a major influence on academic interest (Osbourne et

al., 2003). Although the body of research conducted has identified variables that

contribute to the achievement gap, enrollment gap in AP or honors courses, and student

attitudes towards science, it is believed that the examination of gender-related issues

would be a useful addition to the worldwide request for strategies and environments that

can enhance the access of females to science-related occupations (Ogbu, 2003).

Therefore, this applied dissertation continued to examine issues of underenrollment of

minorities in AP or honors courses and focused on gender differences and student

attitudes towards science.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework used to measure the constructs of students’ attitudes

toward AP and honors science was based on the model developed by Haladyna et al.
 59

(1982). This model suggested that students, teachers, and learning environment variables

affect students’ attitudes toward science and arise from factors that cannot be controlled,

such as age of the teacher, gender of the student, or classroom variables, and from

variables that can be controlled, such as teacher praise, student reinforcement, the

relationship that students have with each other, and the tone of the classroom. Haladyna

et al. identified three variables that affect students’ attitudes toward science as (a) self-

confidence, (b) fatalism, and (c) feelings of the importance of science which suggested

that either the students enjoy science because of feelings of importance or enjoyment.

Students with high academic self-confidence who believe that they control their academic

fate have more positive attitudes toward science as compared to students with low

academic self-confidence. Haladyna et al. proposed four significant variables in

predicting students’ attitudes toward science as teacher enthusiasm, respect for teacher

knowledge, teacher support for students, and praise and commitment to learning fairness.

Haladyna et al. identified learning environment variables as overall satisfaction,

enjoyment of classmates, positive class environment, organized instruction, and

attentiveness.

The second theory used in this applied dissertation was the gender theory.

According to gender theory, males and females enter education with different behaviors,

attitudes, and values. Gender theory might provide explanations that attribute gender

differences in educational achievement between males and females in the educational

setting. Warrington, Younger, and Williams (2000) found that males were more likely

than females to be pressured by their peers for applying themselves in school and often

resorted to disruptive behavior, drawing attention to themselves, and challenging

authority. Warrington et al. noted that the gender theory perspective focuses on a range of
 60

complex and competing discourses regarding the interface between gender, education and

society.

Although there have been a substantial number of explanations of the origins of

gender differences in educational achievement, few studies have examined the extent to

which these differences are mediated by biological, sociocultural, or school-related

factors. This theme provides explanations that gender differences in attitude and

achievement are largely a reflection of gender differences in behavior. Another theme in

the literature centered on the claim that, rather than considering overall gender

differences in achievement, one should consider which males and which females are

underperforming (Pratt, 1999; Tinklin, Croxford, Ducklin, & Frame 2001).

The third theory used was Holland’s (1973) theory of occupational choice.

Holland’s theory sheds light on the underrepresentation of females and provides support

for continued research on gender differences in attitudes towards science. Holland’s

theory of occupational choice posits that individuals choose to pursue certain careers and

academic disciplines based on their attitudes, interests, values, personality type, and

abilities. If females form different attitudes toward science , they are expected to select

different occupational choices. According to Holland’s theory, an individual chooses to

learn and be successful in learning skills associated with an occupation if the individual’s

attitudes, interests, values, personality type, and abilities match the demands and

characteristics of that occupation and discipline. For example, Miller et al. (2002) showed

that attitudes toward science have the strongest influence on students’ desire for an

occupation in science.

Research in science education indicates inconclusive results on the personal

factors that correlate with attitudes toward science as they relate to middle and high
 61

school students. However, some studies indicated that personality traits of individuals

who enjoy science are characterized by an interest in ideas rather than in people or the

world with a tendency towards introversion, creativity, and intuitiveness, logical, and

analytical (Piburn &Baker, 1983). With respect to attitudes, Piburn and Baker (1983)

showed that individuals in science-related careers have a positive attitude toward science,

which indicates a link between attitudes and occupational choice.

Summary

The research reviewed in this chapter presented the theoretical basis for using the

attitude theory, gender theory, and the theory of occupational choice as the framework for

assessing the degree to which student attitudes and gender differences play a vital role in

AP or honors enrollment. However, despite the substantial body of research addressing

gender disparity in science and science education, the gender achievement gap in science

still exists.

The research clearly indicated that the achievement gap may be caused by a

variety of patterns found in classrooms. These patterns show that girls (a) have less

exposure to science equipment than boys, (b) become less active in science and

mathematics classes as they progress through grade levels, and (c) their positive attitude

toward and performance in these subjects decrease as they progress through grade levels

(Kahle & Meece, 1994). Overall, a high proportion of students in every country show

positive or very positive attitudes toward science. No or small gender differences were

found among students’ attitude variables.

Despite the findings documenting gender differences in achievement, interests,

attitudes towards science, and the enrollment gap of minorities in AP or honors science,

little is known about what positively impacts student attitudes and interest towards a
 62

particular science and careers in that subject area. Most important is the issue of

presenting science in a more interesting, meaningful way, and relevant to students’ lives

for increasing enrollment and retention in the field. In many nations, students often

indicated that science content is often boring and irrelevant to their interests and

aspirations without trying to engage their interest or establish relevance with familiar

every-day life contexts. These are similar to U.S. students who revealed that science is

too much memorization and give it up (Lyons, 2006). Consequently, policymakers must

focus on outdated textual curriculum and replace it with more challenging and rigorous

content that involves the latest developments in the field of science and technology to

meet demanding challenges of the 21st century.

The researcher of the applied dissertation examined student attitudes toward AP

or honors science, ethnicity differences and gender differences of students in Grades 11

and 12. This study allowed the researcher to gain a better understanding of high school

students’ attitudes towards science.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

There were two research questions and two hypotheses posed for this study:

Research Question 1. Are there significant differences between Grade 11 and 12

students’ attitudes toward science in terms of gender as measured by the Test of Science

Related Attitudes (TOSRA)?

Research Question 2. Are there significant differences between Grade 11 and 12

students’ attitudes toward science in terms of ethnicity as measured by the TOSRA?

Hypothesis 1. There are no significant differences between Grade 11 and 12

students’ attitudes toward science in terms of gender as measured by the TOSRA.

Hypothesis 2. There are no significant differences between Grade 11 and 12

 63

students’ attitudes toward science in terms of ethnicity as measured by TOSRA.

 64

Chapter 3: Methodology and Research Design

Program Goal and Objective

The objective of this correlational research design was to determine differences of

students’ attitudes in Grades 11 and 12 toward science based on gender and ethnicity.

The TOSRA instrument was used to compare students’ attitudes toward science in terms

of gender and ethnicity.

Participants

The sample selected included students from three honors, three AP, and three

average science classes, totaling nine classes of 50 randomly selected high school

students (25 males and 25 females). Minority students enrolled in these Grade 11 and

Grade 12 classes included 40% African American male and female; 10% American

Indian and Asian male and female; and 10% Hispanic-Latino male and female, as well as

40% White male and female students ranging in ages from 16-18 were participants in this

study. Stratified random sampling was used for selection of participants.

Instruments and Measures

The TOSRA instrument was used to measure student attitudes in terms of gender

and ethnicity toward science. It is a multidimensional instrument with a strong theoretical

foundation. TOSRA is a 70-item instrument designed to measure seven distinct science-

related attitudes among secondary students. These scales are referred to as (a) Social

Implications of Science, (b) Normality of Scientists, (c) Attitude to Scientific Inquiry, (d)

Adoption of Scientific Attitudes, (e) Enjoyment of Science Lessons, (f) Leisure Interest

in Science, and (g) Career Interest in Science.

The selected instrument was developed by Fraser (1981), and according to Fraser,
 65

“yields a separate score for a number of distinct attitudinal aims instead of single overall

score” (p. 1). The test is based on a 5-point scale and contains responses ranging from 5

(strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree). Use permission was granted (see Appendix I).

Fraser (1981) designed the questionnaire to measure seven science-related

attitudes among secondary school students. The TOSRA was chosen because it has been

widely used in Australia and the United States by educators and researchers to measure

attitudes toward science of students in Grades 7, 8, 9, and 10 (Cavallo & Laubach, 2001;

Fraser, 1981). The instrument was suitable for group administration and all seven

subscales were administered within the duration of a normal class lesson. The instrument

was carefully developed, field-tested and validated with students in Sydney Australia

from all four junior high school grade levels of 7, 8, 9, and 10 by Fraser (1981).

The TOSRA was also found to be highly reliable for all four junior high school

levels in Australia using Cronbach’s alpha as the test of reliability (Cronbach, 1951). The

reported mean alpha reliability coefficient values for the seven different subscales in

these populations were 0.82 for the Grade 7 samples, 0.80 for the Grade 8 samples, 0.81

for the Grade 9 samples, and 0.84 for the Grade 10 samples (Fraser, 1981). This indicated

that each TOSRA subscale had good internal consistency at each grade level.

Each of the subscales of TOSRA measures a distinct science-related attitude. The

first subscale, Enjoyment of Science Lessons (E) measures students’ enjoyment of

science learning experiences. The second subscale, Career Interest in Science (C)

measures students’ development of interest in pursuing a career in science. The third

subscale, Adoption of Scientific Attitudes (A) measures students’ adoption of scientific

attitudes such as open-mindedness, willingness to revise opinions, etc. The fourth

subscale, Leisure Interest in Science (L) measures how students’ develop interest in
 66

science and science-related careers. The Normality of Scientists’ (N) subscale measures

one aspect of the manifestation of favorable attitudes towards scientists having to do with

an appreciation of scientists as normal people rather than the eccentrics often depicted in

the mass media (Fraser, 1981). The sixth subscale, Attitude to Scientific Inquiry (I)

measures attitude to scientific experimentation and inquiry as ways of obtaining

information about the natural world. This subscale measures the students’ level of

acceptance of scientific inquiry as a way of thought.

The TOSRA instrument provided the researcher with the opportunity to obtain a

profile of attitude scores for ethic groups of students (African American, Native

American, Asian, Hispanic-Latino, and White), female and male student, and positive

and negative attitudes toward science. The TOSRA was designed explicitly for the

science classroom setting that lends itself to AP (Fraser, 1981).

Research Design and Procedures

Design. A correlational research design was used to employ quantitative research

methodology using the TOSRA instrument. Fraenkel and Wallen (2003) defined

correlational research as “research done to determine relationships among two or more

variables, and to explore their implications for cause and effect” (p. 12). The quantitative

research methodology used in this study was utilized to investigate high school students’

attitudes toward science. The TOSRA (see Appendix J) instrument was designed to

address multiple meanings related to science attitudes by using scales comprised of

statements to which students respond. Numerical values provide numbers according to

their level of agreement with those statements.

Procedure. The following procedures were used to recruit participants for this

study. Initial approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of Nova
 67

Southeastern University. All necessary approvals and permission were sought from the

school system superintendent, principal of the school, select classroom teachers, and

parents. Assents of the students were obtained for approval. In addition, participating

school personnel were informed of research procedures and assured anonymity in

reporting. Data collection began after all necessary approval and permissions were

granted. In an effort to minimize class disruptions, the researcher administered surveys to

all assenting students during the researcher’s planning time in the designated classroom.

Only data from randomly selected students were included in the analysis.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data analysis. Quantitative data analysis was obtained from the TOSRA

instrument and categorized students’ attitudes toward science into positive and negative

categories based on student responses to the TOSRA. Permission to use the instrument

was obtained (see Appendix I). The items on the seven subscales of TOSRA were

assessed using a Likert-type response format. This type of response consisted of five

response choices, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Each response

was assigned a value ranging from 1 to 5. Scoring involved allocating 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 for

responses strongly agree, agree, not sure, disagree, and strongly disagree, respectively,

for designated positive (+) items. Scoring was reversed for negatively (-) worded items

(see Appendix K). Mean scores and standard deviations for the total TOSRA and the

seven individual subscales were computed for each student and the entire sample (Fraser,

1981). Allocating a number ranging from 1 to 5 to the responses to each item on the

questionnaire and totaling the results over the 70 items produced a measure of each

student’s attitudes toward science.

The analysis of attitude data for questions one and two were computed using the
 68

Software Packet for Statistical Software (SPSS). Question one was answered using

descriptive statistics, and question two was answered using simple correlation and

multiple regression analysis to determine the significance of the relationships at the 5%

level. The mean class scores and standard deviation were calculated for each of the scales

of the TOSRA. These descriptive statistics were used to draw conclusions from the data

and determine if a relationship existed between the dependent variable (attitude toward

science) and the independent variables (grade level, gender, and ethnicity). The students

were assured of anonymity and that responses in no way would bear consequences for

their grades. This encouraged students to answer questions truthfully.

Limitations

Several limitations may have affected the results of the study. The study was

limited only to science courses and students from diverse family backgrounds that might

account for possible differences in responses given. Additionally, the study was limited to

one school in the district, and the researcher was a teacher in the district. The limitations

of the questionnaire survey adopted in this study included unavoidable constraints on

sample numbers and selection. The possibility that some of the responses made by

students might not be representative. Surveys such as the TOSRA admit the possibility

that some students might circle inaccurate responses. This was minimized by allowing

the students to remain anonymous and by stating clearly that students’ responses would

not be used for the purposes of grading.

Conclusions

The AP program offers students the opportunity to engage in college level

curriculum and has gained nationwide acceptance by high schools, colleges, and

universities. However, minority students are not proportionately represented in the AP or

 69

honors population. Equity remains a primary concern for educators and policymakers.
 70

Chapter 4: Analysis and Results

This chapter presents the findings of the quantitative components of this study.

Quantitative data provided a more detailed account of how students’ attitudes varied with

gender, grade level, and ethnicity in the AP or honors science curriculum when compared

to their White peers. Quantitative data were collected to provide answers to Research

Questions 1 and 2. These data were students’ scores on the TOSRA and numerical values

associated to categorical variables of gender and ethnicity. The analysis of these data

employed descriptive and inferential statistics.

Descriptive Statistics of TOSRA

Tables 9 and 10 provide a summary of descriptive statistics for the TOSRA. Table

9 shows the percentage of students by ethnicity.

Table 9

Percentage by Ethnicity

Ethnicity n %

Asian 7 14.0

African American 13 26.0

Hispanic 4 8.0

Indian 2 4.0

White 24 48.0

Total students 50 = N 100.0

Note. n = Number of student participants.

The sample size consisted of 50 students in which 25 were males and 25 were females.
 71

Participants consisted of Asians, 14.0%, African Americans, 26%, Hispanics, 8.0%,

Indians, 4.0%, and Whites, 48%. When compared to the school population, more Whites

were represented in the survey. Table 10 shows the percentage of students by grade level.

The grade level percentages were similar with only two more students in Grade 12 than

in Grade 11.

Table 10

Percentage by Grade Level

Grade level Students n %

Grade 11 24 48

Grade 12 26 52

Total students 50 = N 100

Note. n = Number of student participants.

Quantitative Results

The Cronbach-alpha value for the attitude instrument used in the study was

computed for the sample of male and female students in Grades 11 and 12. It was found

to be 0.83, well above the recommended criterion of 0.07. The results indicate that the

instrument was reliable for measuring the attitudes of this group of students. The level of

significance for this study was set at 95% confidence interval (p = 0.05).

Research Question 1. Are there significant differences between Grade 11 and 12

students’ attitudes toward science in terms of gender as measured by the TOSRA?

Much attention has been focused on gender differences in attitudes toward science in the

research literature. The mean attitude score for males in the sample was 33.10, with a

standard deviation of 6.215. For females, the mean score was 35.32, with a standard
 72

deviation of 7.152. In this study, it was found that there was no significant difference in

the overall mean attitude score for males and females (t = -1.071, p = .395). However,

there were significant gender differences for several of the attitude subscales.

Table 11 shows that there were differences in favor of females in the attitude to

scientific inquiry (t = .947, p < 0.05) and the adoption of scientific attitude subscales (t =

1.550, p < 0.05).

Table 11

Gender Differences in Total Subscale Mean Scores on TOSRA

Male vs. Female

Scale Male Female t values p values

39.04 x (4.430) σ 1.668 .808

Social implications of science 36.88 (4.720)

35.72 (4.514) -1.071 .395

Normality of scientists 37.12 (4.729)

38.44 (5.347) .947 .103

Attitude to scientific inquiry 36.76 (7.079)

39.20 (4.481) 1.550 .261

Adoption scientific attitudes 36.84 (6.155)

33.72 8.512 1.345 .226

Enjoyment of science lessons 30.28 9.542

28.56 (8.510) 1.203 .443

Leisure interest in science 25.52 (9.332)

32.60 (7.714) 1.863 .246

Career interest in science 28.32 (8.508)

247.28 (35.32) -1.071 .395

Total attitude scores 231.72 (33.10)

Note. *M and F* are codes for male and female students, x Mean and σ for (SD), p = statistical
significance level, * p < 0.05 (significant).
 73

The mean attitude scores for males were comparable to those of females on the other five

subscales; normality of scientists, enjoyment of science lessons, leisure interest in

science, career interest in science, and social implications of science.

The interpretation of the results for grade level differences is illustrated in Table

12, which provides the total subscale mean score on the attitude instrument in the sample

of students in Grades 11 and 12. Table 12 shows grade level differences in TOSRA mean

scores.

Table 12

Grade Level Differences in Total Subscale Mean Scores on TOSRA

Scale Gr. 11* SD σ Gr.12* SD σ

N = 24 N = 26

Social implications of science 36.54 x (4.644) σ 39.27 (4.359) σ

Normality of scientists 35.46 (4.755) 37.31 (4.416)

Attitude to scientific inquiry 37.67 (4.416) 37.54 (5.286)

Adoption of scientific attitudes 36.96 (4.658) 39.00 (6.033)

Enjoyment of science lessons 29.21 (8.930) 34.58 (8.668)

Leisure interest in science 26.29 (9.457) 27.73 (8.628)

Career interest in science 28.88 (7.669) 31.92 (8.777)

Total mean scores 231.01 (33.00) 247.35 35.33

Note. *11 and 12* are codes for Grades 11 and 12 students, x Mean and σ for (SD).

There were significant differences in favor of Grade 12 in adoption of scientific attitudes

with a mean score of 39.00 and a standard deviation of 6.033. Career interest in science
 74

showed a mean score of 31.92 and a standard deviation of 8.777. There were significant

differences in favor of Grade 11 in leisure interest in science, with a mean score of 26.29

and a standard deviation of 9.457.

Research Question 2. Are there significant differences between Grade 11 and 12

students’ attitudes toward science in terms of ethnicity as measured by the TOSRA? The

mean attitude score for students in Grade 11 was 37.67 with a standard deviation of 7.299

and for Grade 12 the mean score was 37.54 with a standard deviation of 5.286. In this

study, it was found that there were no significant differences in the overall mean attitude

scores for Grades 11 and 12 (t = -1.426, < 0.05). These scores were not significantly

different. The mean attitude scores for Grade 11 were comparable to those of Grade 12

on the other three subscales, normality of scientists, enjoyment of science lessons, and

social implications of science.

Statistical analysis of the class means indicated that the adoption of scientific

attitudes had the highest mean score with a value of 36.96, and the lowest mean score

with a value of 28.88 in career interest for Grade 11. For Grade 12, the highest mean

score with a value of 39.27 in social implications, and the lowest mean score with a value

of 27.73 in leisure interest in science. The data show that there were differences in favor

of students’ in Grade 12 in the social implications of science and the adoption of

scientific attitudes.

Regarding ethnicity differences, Table 13 displays the mean attitude to scientific

inquiry for each group. Asians had a mean score of 34.86, with a standard deviation of

3.761; African Americans mean score was 37.54, with a standard deviation of 6.450;

Hispanics mean score was 35.50, with a standard deviation of 4.509, Indians mean score

was 43.50, with a standard deviation of 4.950, and Whites mean score was 38.29 with a
 75

standard deviation of 6.925. The total mean for attitude to scientific inquiry was 37.60,

with a standard deviation of 6.266, and the total mean for adoption of scientific inquiry

for each group was 38.02, with a standard deviation of 5.460. There was little significant

difference.

Table 13

Mean Attitude Ethnicity Scores

African
Scale Asians Americans Hispanics Whites

Social implications 39.43 x 36.54 34.50 39.00 38.79

of science (3.823) σ (5.577) (7.141) (1.414) (3.845)

Normality of 36.14 35.92 34.00 33.50 37.42

scientists (4.375) (3.402) (4.397) (6.364) (5.233)

Attitude to scientific 34.86 37.54 35.50 43.50 38.29

inquiry (3.761) (6.450) (4.509) (4.950) (6.925)

Adoption of 39.29 38.77 33.25 36.50 38.17

scientific attitudes (3.817) (4.711) (12.971) (6.364) (4.410)

Enjoyment of 33.71 34.31 23.75 29.50 31.83

science lessons (4.645) (9.534) (10.844) (12.021) (9.277)

Leisure interest in 27.29 28.00 22.50 28.00 27.12

science (8.401) (9.566) (10.661) (14.142) (8.809)

Career interest in 32.57 34.62 26.50 24.00 28.79

science (5.769) (7.752) (11.619) (2.828) (8.320)

Total 246.29 245.70 210.00 234.00 240.41

Note. Mean score represented by x and (SD) represented by σ.

Statistical analysis of mean scores indicated that normality of scientists was

highest for the White students and lowest for the Indian students. Attitude to scientific
 76

inquiry was highest for Indian students and lowest for the White students. The adoption

of scientific attitudes was highest for the Asians and lowest for Hispanics. Social

implications, leisure interest in science, enjoyment of science lessons, and career interest

in science were comparable to all ethnic groups (see Appendix L).

In this statistical analysis of gender and ethnicity on each of the subscales based

on between subject effects, social implications of science was F = (3, 41) = .638, p =

>.05; attitude to scientific inquiry was F = (3,41) = .545, p > .05, p > .05; enjoyment of

science was F = (3,41) = .860, p > .05; leisure by gender was F = (3,41) = .634, p > .05;

and career interest in science was F = (3,41) = .970, p > .05. There were no statistical

differences. However, there were significant differences in normality of scientists, F = (3,

41) = .391, p = >.05; and adoption of scientific attitudes, F = (3, 41) = .292.

Pearson correlation was used to compare the means of females, males, and gender by

ethnicity to determine if there were significant differences of attitude scale score between

each group.

In the correlation between gender and the seven subscales, social implications r

(48) = -.234, p > .05, the p-value exceeds alpha. Therefore social implications were not

statistically significant. For normality of scientists, r (48) =.153, p > .05, normality of

scientists was not statistically significant. Attitude to scientific inquiry, r (48) = .135, p >

.05, was not statistically significant. Adoption of scientific attitudes, r (48) = .218, p >

.05, was not statistically significant. Enjoyment of science lessons, r (48) = -.191, p > .05,

was not statistically significant. Leisure interest in science, r (48) = -.171, p > .05, was

not statistically significant.

Table 14 displays correlations, p-value, mean, standard deviation, and total for

gender for each TOSRA subscale.

 77

Table 14

Correlations Between Gender and TOSRA Attitudes Subscales

Pearson Pearson Sig.

correlation correlation (2-tailed) Mean SD Total
Scale Gender M* F* P value x σ N

Social
Implications 1.50 -.234 .766 .102 37.96 4.660 50

Normality
of scientists 1.50 .153 .847 .290 36.42 4.629 50

Attitude to
scientific
inquiry 1.50 -.135 .865 .345 37.60 6.266 50

Adoption of
scientific
attitudes 1.50 -.218 .782 .128 38.02 5.460 50

Enjoyment
of science
lessons 1.50 -.191 .809 .185 32.00 9.116 50

Leisure
interest in
science 1.50 -.171 .829 .235 27.04 8.972 50

Career
interest in
1.50 -.260 .74 .069 30.46 8.323 50
science

Note. **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). **Correlation is Significant at the 0.05 level
(2-tailed). M* and F* are codes for Males and Females, N=Total Students, Mean x , (SD) σ

Career interest in science, r (48) = -.260, p < .05, the p-value was less than alpha which

means career interest in science was statistically significant and there appeared to be a

difference between variables. Positive correlations in favor of the females in the areas of

social implications of science, .766; normality of scientists, .847; attitude to scientific

 78

inquiry, .865; adoption of scientific attitudes, .782; and enjoyment of science lessons

.809; leisure interest in science with .829 at the .05 level were not significant.

In the correlations between grade level and the seven subscales, social

implications r (48) =.295, p >.05 was not statistically significant. Normality of scientists,

r (48) = .202, p > .05; attitude to scientific inquiry, r (48) = -.010, p > .05; adoption of

scientific attitudes, r (48) = .189, p > .05, were not statistically significant. Enjoyment of

science, r (48) = .297, p < .05, was statistically significant and there appeared to be a

difference between variables. Leisure interest in science, r (48) = .081, p > .05, and career

interest in science, r (48) = .185, p > .05, were not statistically significant. However,

positive correlations in favor of students in Grade 12 in the areas of social implications of

science, normality of scientists, attitude toward scientific inquiry, adoption of scientific

attitudes, enjoyment of science lessons, leisure interest in science, and career interest in

science were significant.

Multiple Regressions

For gender, normality of scientists from the TOSRA yielded the greatest number

of significant correlations of .29. Career interest in science was .26; social implications of

sciencewas .23; adoption of scientific attitudes was .21. All showed a weak positive,

linear relationship, followed by enjoyment of science lessons of .19, leisure interest of

.17, and attitude to scientific inquiry of .13 with negligible relationships.

For grade level, social implications yielded the greatest number of correlations of

. 37. Enjoyment of science lessons was .35; career interest in science was .31 with a

moderate positive relationship. In addition, adoption of scientific attitudes was .28;

normality of scientists was .25, with a weak positive relationship. Leisure interest in

science was .18; and attitude to scientific inquiry was .13 with negligible relationships.
 79

Table 15 displays the summary of the model and the correlation coefficient.

Table 15

Model Summary of Gender

Model R R2 Adjusted R2 Std. error of the estimate

1 .234a .055 .035 4.577

Table 16 displays positive and negative correlations for students in Grades 11 and

12 for each of the subscales.

Table 16

Pearson Correlation for Grades 11 and 12

Pearson Sig.
Grade correlation (2-tailed) M SD Total
Scale level 11 12 P value x σ N

Social implications 11.52 -.295 .705 .037 37.96 .660 50

Normality of
11.52 .202 .798 .160 36.42 4.629 50
scientists

Attitude to scientific
11.52 -.135 .99 .345 37.60 6.266 50
inquiry

Adoption of
11.52 -.218 .811 .128 38.02 5.460 50
scientific attitudes

Enjoyment of
11.52 -.191 .703 .185 32.00 9.116 50
science lessons

Leisure interest in
11.52 -.171 .919 .235 27.04 8.972 50
science

Career interest in
11.52 -.260 .815 .069 30.46 8.323 50
science

Note. **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). **Correlation is Significant at the 0.05 level
(2-tailed). M* and F* are codes for Males and Females, N = Total Students, Mean x , (SD) σ.

For ethnicity, social implications in science yielded the greatest number of

 80

correlations of .40, which showed a strong positive relationship. Table 17 displays the

summary of the model and the correlation coefficient for grade level.

Table 17

Model Summary of Grade Level

Model R R2 Adjusted R2 Std. error of the estimate

2 .377a .142 .106 4.407

Career interest in science was .39; enjoyment of science lessons was .35, which showed a

moderate positive relationship. The other subscales, adoption of scientific attitudes at .28;

normality of scientists was at .29; social implications at .23; and attitude to scientific

inquiry at .22, showed a weak positive relationship. Leisure interest in science at .19,

showed a negligible relationship. Table 18 displays a model summary of ethnicity.

Table 18

Model Summary of Ethnicity

Model R R2 Adjusted R2 Std. error of the estimate

3 .409a .167 .113 4.388

ANOVA for Regression and TOSRA Subscales

The total observed variability in the dependent variable is separated into

variability explained by linear regression (Residual) and variability not explained by

linear regression (Residual). The displayed significance of .05 indicated that there was a

significant relationship at the 5% level.

 81

For enjoyment of science, the final model presented statistically significant results

of F (2, 47) =3.347, p < .05 for grade level; F (3, 46) = 2.228, p < .05 for ethnicity which

failed to reject the null hypothesis. For gender, no statistically significant F (1, 48) =

1.809, p > .05, rejected the null hypothesis.

For leisure interest in science, the final model presented no statistically significant

results for gender, F (1, 48) = 1.448, p > .05; for grade level, F (2, 47) = .874, p > .05;

and ethnicity, F (3, 46) = .571, p > .05 which rejected the null hypothesis. For career

interest in science, the final model presented F (1, 48) = 3.472, p < .05 for gender; F (2,

47) = 2.658, p < .05; and F (3, 46) = 2.787, p < .05 which failed to reject the null

hypothesis. For attitude to scientific inquiry, F (1, 48) = .897, p > .05 for gender; F (2,

47) = .442, p > .05 for grade level; and F (3, 46) = .832, p > .05 for ethnicity rejected the

null hypothesis. For adoption of scientific attitudes F (1, 48) = 2.402, p > .05 for gender;

F (2, 47) = 2.134, p > .05 for grade level; and F (3, 46) = 1.398, p > .05 for ethnicity

rejected the null hypothesis. For normality of scientists, F (1, 48) = 1,147, p > .05 for

gender; F (2, 47) = 1.606, p > .05 for grade level; and F (3, 46) = 1.454, p > .05 for

ethnicity rejected the null hypothesis. For social implications of science, F (1, 48) =

2.784, p > .05 for gender rejected the null hypothesis; F (2, 47) = 3.892, p < .05 for grade

level; and F (3, 46) = 3.083, p < .05 for ethnicity are statistically significant and failed to

reject the null hypothesis.

 82

Chapter 5: Discussion of Results

In the preceding chapter, the presentation and analysis of data were reported. This

chapter examines each subscale in detail and discusses major findings of this research

highlighting insights provided by the quantitative components of the study. The final

section of the chapter presents implications, recommendations, and suggestions for future

research.

Explanation of TOSRA Subscales

Social Implications of Science scale measured the “manifestation of favorable

attitudes towards science” (Fraser, 1981, p. 2). This included attitude towards the social

benefits and problems associated with scientific progress and research. Normality of

Scientists scale measured the attitude toward scientists as normal people rather than

eccentrics. This scale measured how students perceive scientists as individuals and their

perceptions of scientists as having a normal lifestyle.

Attitude of Scientific Inquiry scale measured attitude toward scientific

experimentation and inquiry as methods of obtaining information about the natural world.

This scale measured the acceptance of scientific inquiry as a way of thought. Fraser

maintained the Klopfer classification based on the idea that “if a student accepts the

processes of scientific thinking, his behavior in approaching a problem or novel situation

will be sufficiently consistent for competent observers of his action to describe him as

behaving just like a scientist” (Klopfer, 1971, p. 577). Adoption of Scientific Attitudes

scale measured open-mindedness, willingness to reverse opinions related to scientific

investigation and inquiry. This scale showed how likely students are to change their way

of seeing the world based on scientific evidence.

Enjoyment of Science Lessons scale measured the enjoyment of science learning

 83

experiences. This includes participating in science labs as well as attending science

classes. According to Klopfer (1971), “The sight, sound, and smell of phenomena; the

uncovering of a new relationship, generalization, or explanation the spark of discussion

of conflicting ideas- these are all potential sources of involvement and enjoyment” (p.

578). The Leisure Interest in Science scale measured the development of interest in

science and science-related activities. This category was designed to reflect the students’

interest in hobbies and extracurricular activities outside of classroom related to science.

Major Findings of the Research

Research Question 1. Are there significant differences between Grade 11 and 12

students’ attitudes toward science in terms of gender as measured by the TOSRA

Instrument? Were there gender differences in attitudes towards science of students in

Grades 11 and 12 as measured by the TOSRA? Male and female students in Grades 11

and 12 had similar attitudes based on their total attitude science scores. On two of the

subscales of the instrument, the attitude to scientific inquiry, and the adoption of

scientific attitudes, males had higher mean scores than females. In addition, Grade 11 had

higher attitude scores to scientific inquiry and Grade 12 had higher scores on adoption of

scientific attitudes.

Regarding the level of curriculum received, the students enrolled in AP courses

displayed a more positive attitude toward science. This may be attributed to the

participation of only one female student enrolled in an average science course. However,

Adelman’s (2006) national study found academic intensity of high school curriculum to

be the most important precollegiate factor in providing momentum toward completing a

college degree.

Close analysis of the items in these subscales revealed that there is considerable
 84

overlap in the aspects of attitude toward science. It is likely that these attributes are

fostered and developed by engaging in hands-on, real-life, problem-solving challenges

and interactive learning experiences in science.

Research showed that conducting experiments in small groups allows students a

greater opportunity to share, justify, and negotiate their ideas in ways that may eventually

come to a consensus in scientific thinking (Ebenezer & Zoller, 1993; Tobias, 1990).

Additionally, research showed that students appear to make more sense of what they are

doing through these strategies. Therefore, such hands-on interactive approaches tend to

motivate students to learn more thereby fostering positive attitudes toward learning

((Brickhouse et al., 2000; Buck, Cook, Quigley, Eastwood, & Lucus, 2009; Ebenezer &

Zoller, 1993; Tan & Calabrese, 2008; Tobias, 1990).

The absence of significant differences in attitudes towards science between males

and females in this study made it difficult to explain less positive attitudes toward science

for females as the gender theory and Holland’s theory of occupational choice. Perhaps,

the explanation lies in the complex nature of the relationship between attitudes and

student behaviors. Attitudes happen to be only one of the many factors influencing

behavior. Tobias (1990) reported that females socialize in ways that do not allow them to

develop personal characteristics and interests that promote the successful pursuit of

scientific careers. Thus, although female students receive equal or better grades in science

courses, they show less positive attitudes toward science as compared to male students

(Jones et al., 2000). Even in elementary schools, where gender differences in attitudes

and loss of interest towards science do not exist, more males than females are engaged in

science-related activities (Jones et al., 2000).

Several factors were implicated in females’ low positive attitudes and

 85

underrepresentation in science in both school and occupation. Studies indicated that

equitable science teaching does not occur in many classrooms because the science

pedagogy is more aligned with male learning styles and the way relevant disciplines are

taught (Haussler & Hoffman, 2000; Semela, 2010; Weinburgh, 1995a, 1995b). The

increasing insulation that occurs as students progress through the grades is a function of

the tendency towards greater reliance on lectures and textbook-governed strategies by

teachers in higher grades. Females’ preference for more social interaction in the learning

environment might account for their low positive attitudes and underrepresentation in

science courses at this level, even though their attitudes to science might not be different

from those of their male counterparts. Teachers and schools might be failing to provide

the proper learning environment that is conducive to female achievement in science.

Different researchers reported that females more than males regard science as

competitive, impersonal, abstract, rule-founded, certainty-bounded, deprived of

imagination, and a product of individual effort made exclusively by male scientists

without moral or social inhibitions (Gilbert & Calvert, 2003; Steinke, 2005; Turkmen,

2008). Additionally, Seymour (1995) also identified several elements of gender-based

socialization among precollege science and mathematics students originating in social

milieus that perpetuate failure among females in the science and engineering workplace.

These elements of socialization include female students’ preference for cooperative

learning strategies which concurs with the results of this study. The tendency for females

(and their teachers) is to attribute success in science and mathematics to effort and failure

to lack of ability, with the reverse for males causes serious doubts about the value of

female achievements in science and math-based subjects (Seymour).

Research Question 2. Are there significant differences between Grade 11 and 12

 86

students’ attitudes toward science in terms of ethnicity as measured by the TOSRA

Instrument? The data gathered using the Pearson Correlation was analyzed to investigate

grade level and ethnic differences in the attitude subscales. Regarding grade level, student

attitudes toward science decreased with increasing grade levels. Hofstein, Maoz, and

Rishpon (1990) and Weinburgh (1995c) supported these findings and proposed that grade

level is a significant predictor of student attitudes toward science. Grade-level differences

in the attitudes toward scientific inquiry and adoption of scientific attitudes were noted

for Grade 12.

Small and statistically nonsignificant gender differences for each attitude subscale

were found. However, it is noteworthy that the trend for every statistically significant

correlation was stronger for the White males. Overall, the males consistently reported

attitudes and perceptions that were slightly more positive toward science than females.

However, with respect to normality of scientists, the correlation was stronger for

White females. This may attribute to their perceptions of scientist. Moreover, female

students engage in science in a variety of ways, which might diverge from the

conventional gendered identities promoted by school science teaching (Brickhouse et al.,

2000). With respect to normality of scientists, the correlation was stronger for White

females. Females’ scientific interests and experiences often have powerful affective and

interpersonal dimensions, that is, they are strongly influenced by the presence of other

people who they love and admire (Jones et al., 2000; Osbourne et al., 2003). There are

significant and interesting convergences between the interest of male and female

students. What interests females tend to interest males as well, but not the reverse. For

example, both genders regard topics related to biology, however, at the same time, female

interest in these areas is significantly higher than male interest (Osbourne et al.).
 87

Research in the field of students’ interest and attitudes towards science indicated

that these factors affect student achievement (Haussler & Hoffmann, 2000), as well as

their course and career choices. Young females are frequently uncertain about choosing a

scientific career because of the role that is required to balance a science career and

family. Females are more likely to have gendered self-concepts and perceptions of

science that keep them from a career in science. The stereotypic views of male-dominated

science seem to negatively affect adolescent females’ attitudes toward science (Dawson,

2000).

Factors Shaping Attitudes Towards Science

Analysis of quantitative results showed that teaching styles of teachers and the

types of activities selected for classes were major determinants of high school students’

attitudes towards science. Eleventh-grade students perceived that the predominant

teaching styles in their classrooms were lectures, notetaking, and textbook assignments in

which the teacher provides the knowledge and does not act as the facilitator. This is

contrary to the underlying assumptions in the standards for science teaching which

stipulate that science involves interactive, hands-on activities, and inquiry-based

approaches. The teacher makes the decision about the content and activities in the

classroom setting that, in turn, determine the types of interactions that take place in the

classroom. All of these factors have shown to affect the knowledge and understanding of

students in science (Jones et al., 2000).

The disproportionately lower participation of African Americans, Native

Americans, and Hispanics in science is attributable to a number of factors, including

barriers that are of cultural (social expectations for different groups), structural (historical

laws and regulations that barred the entry of minorities into education and employment),
 88

and institutional nature (discriminatory policies and practices). Although societal

transformations have reduced formal and legally sanctioned barriers, the lineage of

accumulated deficit opportunities within a socially stratified society continues to exert

negative impact (Campbell, Jolly, Hoey, & Perlman, 2002). For example, student

achievement in science and mathematics is enhanced by educational advantages such as a

rigorous mathematics and science high school curricula, teachers with superior science

and mathematics knowledge, access to equipment, and lab activities work (Campbell et

al.).

Implications for Educators

The findings derived from this study have implications for science education and

for society. However, because this study was conducted at one urban high school, the

results cannot be generalized to other populations. Whereas the implications discussed

are intended for the high school where the study took place, and because the literature

stresses the importance of the school-learning environment on student achievement, the

theoretical framework developed by Haladyna et al. (1982) can be used by all educators

to gauge the learning environment from the students’ perspectives.

It is vital that all educators realize the tremendous impact of the school

environment on student achievement and make the adjustments necessary to improve the

learning environment, instructional effectiveness, and teacher-student interactions

resulting in an increase in student achievement. A substantial amount of literature

stressed the importance of educators creating an environment necessary for growth and

development (Borman & Kimball, 2004; Burton et al., 2002; Carbonara, 2005; Darity et

al., 2001; DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Ferguson, 2003; Stanley , Juhnke, & Purkey, 2004;

Wakelyn, 2009) and increasing minority students’ participation and achievement (Ndura
 89

et al., 2003; Noguera, 2003; Salinas, 2002; Taliaferro & DeCuir-Gumby, 2008).

However, based on the results of this applied dissertation, administrators,

teachers, and guidance counselors at this Virginia high school can take specific,

intentional measures to improve the students’ perception of the learning environment and

increase the number of minority students’ participation in the AP or honors curriculum.

In an attempt to increase minority participation in AP or honors courses, it is imperative

that the schools and districts examine factors that may influence minority participation

and career choices in science, mathematics, and engineering.

Recruitment and Identification Procedures

In attempting to increase minority and female participation in honors and AP

courses, it is vital that schools and districts examine the process by which students are

identified and recruited (Wakelyn, 2009). Schools must examine barriers that

unintentionally discourage minority students from enrolling in such courses. Research

suggested open enrollment for more rigorous courses and teacher training to identify

students who possess the potential yet may not seek more rigorous courses. In addition, it

was also suggested that schools utilize a system of incentives to encourage student

participation in AP or honors courses and strive to be successful within rigorous courses

(Wakelyn, 2009).

Collaboration Among Educators

As supported by research, the key to ensure that minority students are prepared

for the rigor of AP or honors courses is to make certain both elementary and middle

schools adequately prepare students for high school courses (Burris & Welner, 2005;

Darity et al., 2001; Johnson & Kritsonis, 2006; Klopfenstein, 2004; Whiting & Ford,

2009; Yonezawa & Jones, 2006). While recruiting minority students into more rigorous
 90

courses, educators must work collaboratively across grade levels to facilitate student

learning. In addition, to support long-term sustained growth, a collaborative effort of all

educators is vital to ensure that students possess prerequisite skills at the middle school

level to be successful in AP or honors courses.

Parental Involvement

Research documented the importance of parental involvement and its effect on

student achievement (Crozier, 2001; Rothstein, 2004b; Taliaferro & DeCuir-Gunby,

2008; Zhao & Akiba, 2009), as well as the schools’ responsibility in encouraging parents

to maintain active involvement in their child’s education (Crozier, 2001; Taliaferro &

DeCuir-Gunby, 2008). Students whose parents are no longer involved in their educational

decisions leave decisions to the guidance counselors resulting in students being

misplaced in courses or selecting courses that are less difficult. Schools must not assume

that all parents are equipped with the tools necessary to support the educational

endeavors of their children. Parents and students must be educated on the benefits of

enrolling in AP courses (Klopfenstein, 2004; Taliaferro & De-Cuir-Gunby, 2008).

Classroom Environment

The model developed by Haladyna et al. (1982) was supported by research on the

classroom environment that promotes optimal student growth and development.

However, it is an appropriate measure to assess the learning environment as viewed

through the eyes of the students. In an attempt to increase minority student enrollment in

AP courses, it is suggested that schools regularly gauge the level to which students view

the learning environment as inviting.

Teacher Attitudes and the Learning Environment

In the classroom, science teachers play a crucial role in the formation and
 91

reorganization of students’ conceptions and attitudes towards science and scientists

(Turkmen, 2008). Previous research has confirmed that teachers with a positive view

toward science tend to inspire analogous positive stances in their students (Koch, 1990).

However, on the other hand, many teachers have been found to adopt stereotypic images

of scientists identical to those of students (Finson, 2002; Hatzinikita, 2007; Hatzinikita,

Christidou, & Bonoti, 2009). This often goes along with negative student attitudes toward

science and the likelihood of selecting and pursuing advanced level, rigorous science

courses or opting for a future career related to science (Finson, 2002; Quita, 2003).

Trained Classroom Teachers and Counselors

Because research documented teacher characteristics that are most beneficial to

minority students (Burton et al., 2002; Dee, 2004; Salinas, 2002), and that good teachers

of minority students are good teachers of all students, having trained personnel in place to

increase minority student achievement may increase achievement for all students .

Most important, having caring and outstanding guidance counselors is an area in

which school officials must improve. School counselors must be effective and provide

adequate counseling throughout the middle school years so that students are prepared for

the rigor of AP or honors courses (Johnson & Kritsonis, 2006). School counselors are

often the deciding factor in students being encouraged to participate in rigorous courses.

School counselors often have more of an influence in students’ course selection than their

parents (Ndura et al., 2003). However, changing the manner in which counselors handle

the scheduling of students into classes can bring about sustained improvements in

increasing minority students’ participation in AP or honors courses.

Precautionary Measures

It is not sufficient for schools to offer AP or honors courses and assume that the
 92

success is solely the responsibility of the student or parent. The schools must have

appropriate measures in place to promote student success. Specific precautionary

measures that schools can take to increase the success of minority students includes

implementing afterschool tutoring programs and peer tutoring for those students who are

enrolled in advanced level courses. There is a substantial amount of research

documenting the impact tutoring and remediation have on student achievement (Darity et

al., 2001; Taliaferro & DeCuir-Gunby, 2008; Wakelyn, 2009).

Gender and Attitudinal Differences Toward Science

In this study, female students’ attitudes were comparable to males in their positive

attitudes towards science. Females and minorities are still underrepresented in the science

classrooms and careers. To encourage more females and minorities in science and related

fields, the classroom teacher must focus on social aspects of learning which can be

fostered through hands-on interactive approaches that seem to be preferred methods of

learning of females.

The diversity of the urban high school populations with students from diverse

socioeconomic backgrounds and learning styles has created a need for the education

community and researchers to support varied opportunities for learning science and to

develop strategies that will motivate all students, especially minorities. This may foster

the development of positive attitudes toward science among students from all

socioeconomic backgrounds.

Recommendations for Future Research

The issue of gender differences in the attitudes towards science remains

inconclusive. This study as several others mentioned earlier in this study found no

significant differences. With respect to the relationship between attitudes to science and
 93

achievement in science, the findings are a little more consistent in favor of a positive

relationship, but other research reported no relationship between these constructs.

Adding qualitative studies that explore children’s attitudes toward science in

detail could provide a basis for better understanding and operationalizing of the construct

and lead to development of such measures. This could be used in quantitative studies of

the construct and its correlates as researchers work to create environments that are more

conducive to female attitudes toward science.

Conclusions

The success of minority students, according to research, is contingent upon the

learning environment. These students, more than others, excel academically when the

learning environment is such that student growth and development are encouraged and

promoted. Recommendations that could eliminate barriers to AP or honors courses for

minority students could positively affect achievement for all students. Although this

study took place at a Virginia high school, the AP or honors enrollment gap presented

accurately reflects gaps observed throughout the United States (College Board, 2009).

School and district administration must be committed to disrupting the current

power structures and patterns that present barriers and hinder minority students from

enrolling in honors and advanced level courses. Gathering the students’ perspectives is

the key to continuous improvement. The collective goal of a school must be to empower

all students through a rigorous, challenging, and relevant curriculum. Assessing the

learning environment and making changes to promote minority student achievement and

optimal student growth is where it all begins.

 94

References

Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited. Retrieved from www.aypf.org/forumbriefs

/2006/fb031706.htm

Aiken, L. R. (2002). Attitudes and related psychosocial constructs. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Andre, T., Whigham, M., Hendrickson, A., & Chambers, S. (1999). Competency
beliefs, positive affect, and gender stereotypes of elementary students and
their parents about science versus other school subjects. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 36, 719–747.

Archibald, D., Glutting, J., & Qian, X. (2009). Getting into honors or not: An analysis of
the relative influence of grades, test scores, and race on track placement in a
comprehensive high school. American Secondary Education, 37(2), 65-80.

Bacharach, V., Baumeister, A., & Furr, R. (2003). Racial and gender science
achievement gaps in secondary education. The Journal of Genetic Psychology,
164(1), 115-126.

Baek, S., & Choi, H. (2002). The relationship between students’ perceptions of
classroom environment and their academic achievement in Korea. Asia Pacific
Education, 3(1), 125-135.

Bali, V., & Alvarez, M. (2004). The race gap in student achievement scores: Longitudinal
evidence from a racially diverse school district. The Policy Studies Journal, 32,
393-415.

Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. M. (Eds.). (2006). Multicultural education: Issues and
perspectives (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Barton, P. E. (2004). Why does the gap exist? Educational Leadership, 62(3), 8-13.

Barton, P. E., & Coley, R. J. (2010). The Black-White achievement gap: When progress
stopped. Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center, Educational Testing.

Bonner, F. A. (2000). African American giftedness: Our nation's deferred dream.

Journal of Black Studies, 30, 643-663.

Borman, G. D., & Kimball, S. M. (2004). Teacher quality and educational equality: Do
teachers with higher standards-based evaluation ratings close student
achievement gaps? Washington, DC: Consortium for Policy Research in
Education.
 95

Brickhouse, N. W., Lowery, P., & Schultz, K. (2000). What kind of girl does science?
The construction of school science identities. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 37, 441-458.

Brophy, J. (2004). Motivating students to learn (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bruce, A. M. (2009). Closing the gap: A group counseling approach to improve test
performance of African-American students. Professional Schooling Counseling,
12, 450-457.

Buck, G., Kostin, I., & Morgan, R. (2002). Examining the relationship of content to
gender-based performance differences in advanced placement exams. New York,
NY: College Board.

Buck, G., Cook, K., Quigley, C., Eastwood, J., & Lucas, Y. (2009). Profiles of urban, low
SES, African American girls’ attitudes toward science. Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, 3, 386-410.

Building Engineering and Science Talent. (2004). The talent imperative: Diversifying
America’s science and engineering workforce. Retrieved from http://www
.bestworkforce.org/PDFdocs/BESTTalentimperative_FullReoprt.pdf

Burris, C. C., & Welner, K. G. (2005). Closing the achievement gap by detracking. Phi
Delta Kappan, 86, 594-598.

Burton, N. W., Whitman, N. B., Yepes-Baraya, M., Cline, F., & Kim, R. M. (2002).
Minority student success: The role of teachers in advanced placement courses.
Retrieved from www.collegeboard.com

California Postsecondary Education Commission. (2008). One third of states public high
school graduates now eligible for CSU. Retrieved from http://cpec.ca.gov

Camara, W. J., & Schmidt, A. E. (1999). Grouped differences in standardized testing and
social stratification. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.

Campbell, P. B., Jolly, E., Hoey, L., & Perlman, L. (2002). Upping the numbers: Using
research-based decision making to increase diversity in the quantitative
disciplines. Fairfield, CT: GE Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.ge.com/
foundation/GEfund_UppingNumbers.pdf

Cannon, R. K., & Simpson, R. D. (1985). Relationship among attitude motivation, and
achievement of ability grouped, seventh-grade life science students. Science
Education, 69, 121-138.

Carbonara, W. (2005). Tracking students’ efforts, and academic achievement. Sociology

of Education, 78, 27-49.
 96

Card, D., & Rothstein, J. (2007). Racial segregation and the Black-White test scores gap.
Retrieved from http://gsppi.berkeley.edu/faculty/jrothstein/published/
card_rothstein_jan07.pdf

Catsambis, S. (1995). Gender, race, ethnicity, and science education in the middle grades.
Journal of Research in Science Technology, 32, 243-257.

Cavallo, A. M. L., & Laubach, T. A. (2001). Students’ science perceptions and

enrollment decisions in differing learning cycle classrooms. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 38, 1029-1962.

Ceci, S. J., & Papierno, P. B. (2005, February–March). The rhetoric and reality of gap
closing: When the “have-nots” gain but the “haves” gain even more. American
Psychologist, 60(2), 149–160.

Chesapeake Public Schools. (2009). Chesapeake Public Schools scheduling information.

Retrieved from Chesapeake Public Schools Scheduling Information. Retrieved
from http://www.cpschools.com/general.php

Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. (2005). Who teaches whom? Race and the
distribution of novice teachers. Economics of Education Review, 24, 377-392.

Clowes, G. (2003). Just the facts: Parents and student achievement. Retrieved from
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/12139/just_the_facts_parents_and_student
_achievement

Coleman, G. (2001). Issues in education: View from the other side of the room. Westport,
CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfield, F., &
York, R. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.

College Board Press Release. (2002). Opening classroom doors: Strategies for expanding
access to AP. Retrieved from http://www.collegeboard.com/press/ releases
/152694.html

College Board Press Release. (2008). Participation in AP. Retrieved from http://www
.collegeboard.com/press/releases/152694.html

College Board Press Release. (2009). Participation in AP. Retrieved from http://www
.collegeboard.com/press/releases/152694.html

Craker, D. (2006). Attitudes toward science of students enrolled in introductory level

science courses at UW-La Crosse. Retrieved from http://www.uwlax.edu/URC/
JURonline/PDF/2006/craker.pdf
 97

Crawford, M., & Unger, R. (2000). Women and gender: A feminist psychology. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.

Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.

Crozier, G. (2001). Excluded parents: The deracialization of parental involvement. Race,

Ethnicity, and Education, 4, 329-341.

Dahl, G., & Lochner, L. (2005). The impact of family income on child achievement.
Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty. Retrieved from http://www
.irp.wisc.edu/publications/dps/pdfs/dp130505.pdf

Daniels, E., & Arapostathis, M. (2005). What do they really want? Student voices and
motivation research. Urban Education, 40, 34-59.

Darity, Jr., W. (2002). Intergroup disparity: Why culture is irrelevant. The Review of
Black Political Economy, 29(4), 77-90.

Darity, Jr., W., Castellino, D., Tyson, K., Cobb, C., & McMillen, B. (2001). Increasing
opportunity to learn via access to rigorous courses and programs: One strategy
for closing the achievement gap for at-risk and ethnic minority students.
Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12114-011-9101-7

Davidson Institute. (2006). State mandates for gifted programs as of 2006. Retrieved
from http://www.gtcybersource.org/StatePolicy.aspx?NavID=4_0

Dawson, C. (2000). Upper primary boys’ and girls’ interests in science: Have they
changed since 1980? International Journal of Science Education, 22, 557-570.

DeCuir, J. T., & Dixson, A. D. (2004). So when it comes out, they aren’t that surprised
that it is there? Using critical race theory as a tool of analysis of race and racism
in education. Educational Researcher, 33(5), 26-31.

Dee, T. (2004). Teachers, race, and student achievement in a randomized experiment. The
Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(1), 195-210.

Degenhart, S. H., Winegenbach, G. J., Dooley, K. E., & Lindner, J. R. (2007). Middle
school students’ attitudes toward pursuing careers in science, technology,
engineering, and math. North America Colleges and Teachers of Agriculture
Journal, 52, 271-279.

Dhindsa, H. S., & Chung, G. (2003). Attitudes and achievement of Bruneian science
students. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 907-922.

DiYanni, R. (2002). The history of the AP Program. New York, NY: College Board.
Retrieved from http://www.apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/courses
 98

/21502.html

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, 175-186.

Elhoweris, H., Mutua, K., Alsheika, A., & Holloway, P. (2005). The effect of the child’s
ethnicity on teachers’ referral and recommendations decisions in the gifted and
talented programs. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 25-31.

Estes, T. H., Estes, J. J., Richards, H. C., & Roettger, D. M. (1981). Estes’ attitude scales:
Manual for administration and interpretation. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Evans, G. W. (2004, February/March). The environment of childhood poverty. American

Psychologist, 59(2), 77-92.

Ferguson, R. F. (1998). Teachers’ perceptions and expectations and the Black-White test
score gap. Urban Education, 38, 460-507.

Finson, K. D. (2002). Drawing a scientist: What we do and do not know after fifty years
of drawing. School Science and Mathematics, 102, 335-345.

Finson, K. D., & Enochs, L. G. (1987). Student attitudes toward science-technology

society resulting from visitation to a science-technology museum. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 24, 593-609

Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1981). Validity and use of my class inventory. Science
Education, 65, 145-156.

Ford, D. (1998). The underrepresentation of minority students in gifted education:

Problems and promises in recruitment and retention. The Journal of Special
Education, 32(1), 4-14.

Ford, D., Grantham, T., & Whiting, G. (2008). Culturally and linguistically diverse
students in gifted education: Recruitment and retention issues. Exceptional
Children, 74, 289-308.

Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in
education (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Francis, L. J., & Greer, J. E. (1999). Attitude toward science among secondary school
pupils in Northern Ireland: Relationships with sex, age, and religion. Research in
Science and Technological Education, 17, 67-74.

Fraser, B. J. (1981). Test of science-related attitudes. Melbourne, Australia: Australian

Council for Educational Research.
 99

Fraser, B. J., & Chinonh, Y. N. (2000, April). Classroom environment, self-esteem,

achievement, and attitude in geography and mathematics in Singapore. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association.

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.

Fryer, R., & Levitt, S. (2004). Understanding the Black-White test score gap in the first
two years of school. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86, 447-464.

Fung, Y. T. H. (2002). A comparative study of primary and secondary school students’

images of scientists. Research in Science and Technological Education, 20, 199-
213.

Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (2007). Educational research: An introduction.
White Plains, NJ: Longman.

Geiser, S., & Santelices, V. (2004). Role of advanced placement and honors courses in
college admissions. Berkeley, CA: Center for Studies in Higher Education,
University of California Berkeley.

Gibson, H. (1998, February). Case studies of an inquiry-based science programs’ impact

on students’ attitudes towards science and interest in science careers. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in
Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.

Gilbert, J., & Calvert, S. (2003). Challenging accepted wisdom: Looking at the gender
and science education question through a different lens. International Journal of
Science Education, 25, 861-878.

Goh, S. C., & Fraser, B. J. (2000). Teacher interpersonal behavior and elementary
students’ outcomes. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 14, 216-231.

Greenfield, T. (1996). Gender, ethnicity, science achievement, and attitudes. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 33, 901-933.

Haladyna, T., & Shaughnessy, J. (1982). Attitudes towards science: A quantitative

synthesis. Science Education, 66, 547-563.

Haladyna, T., Shaughnessy, J., & Redsun, A. (1982). Correlates of attitudes toward
social studies. Theory and Research in Social Education, 10, 1-26.

Hassan, O. E. (1985). An investigation into factors affecting attitudes toward science of

secondary school students in Jordan. Science Education, 69, 3-18.

Hatzinikita, V. (2007). Images of the scientists held by educators in Greece. International

 100

Journal of Learning, 14, 145-154.

Hatzinikita, V., Christidou, V., & Bonoti, F. (2009). Teachers’ pictorial representations of
the scientists. In A. Selkirk & J. Tichenor (Eds.), Teacher education: Policy,
practice and research (pp. 233-249). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hauser, R. M., Edley, C. F., Koenig, J. A., & Elliott, S. W. (Eds.). Measuring literacy:
Performance levels for adults. Washington, DC: National Academies.

Haussler, P., & Hoffman, L. (2000). A curricular frame for physics education:
Development comparison with students’ interests, and impact on students’
achievement and self-concept. Science Education, 84, 689-705.

Haycock, K. (2001, November). Closing the achievement. Educational Leadership, 6-11.

Heflich, D. A., Dixon, J. K., & Davis, K. (2001). Taking it to the field: The authentic
integration of mathematics and technology in inquiry-based science instruction.
Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 20, 99-111.

Herbert, T. P., & Reiss, S. M. (2009). Gender and giftedness. In S. Pfeiffer (Ed.),
Handbook of giftedness in children (pp. 271-293). New York, NY: Springer.

Hijazi, S. T., & Naqvi, S. M. (2006). Factors affecting students’ performance: A case of
private colleges. Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology, 3(1) 12-18.

Hofstein, A., Maoz, R., & Rishpon, M. (1990). Attitudes towards school science: A
comparison of participants and nonparticipants in extracurricular science
activities. School Science and Mathematics, 90(1), 13-22.

Holland, J. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice Hall.

Holstead, S., Spradlin, T. E., McGillivray, M. E., & Burroughs, N. (2010). The impact of
advanced placement incentive programs. Retrieved from http://ceep.indiana.edu

Hykle, J. A. (1993, April). Template for gender-equitable science program. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in
Science Teaching, Atlanta, GA.

Jarvis, T., & Pell, A. (2002). Effect of the challenger experience on elementary children’s
attitudes to science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 979-1000.

Jeynes, W. H. (2003). A meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on

minority children’s academic achievement. Education and Urban Society, 35,
202-218.

Johnson, C., & Kritsonis, W. A. (2006). A national dilemma: African American students
 101

underrepresented in advanced mathematics courses. National Journal for

Publishing and Mentoring Doctoral Student Research, 3(1), 56-59.

Jonassen, D. H. (2003). Using cognitive tools to represent problems. Journal of Research

on Technology in Education, 35, 362-379.

Jones, G. M., Howe, A., & Rua, M. J. (2000). Gender differences in students’
experiences, interests, and attitudes towards science and scientists. Science
Education, 84, 180-192.

Jovanovic, J., & King, S. S. (1998). Boys and girls in the performance-based science
classroom: Who’s doing the performing? American Educational Research
Journal, 35, 477-496.

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., & Lakes, M. K. (2000). The myth of equality in science classrooms. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 58-67.

Kahle, J. B. & Meece, J. L. (1994). It’s not my style: Using disclaimers to ignore gender
issues in science. Journal of Teacher Education 48(1), 29.

Kaushal, N., & Nepomnyaschy, L. (2009). Wealth, race/ethnicity, and children's

educational outcomes. Children and Youth Services Review, 3, 963-971.

Kemple J. J., & Snipes, J. C. (2000). Career academies: Impacts on students’

engagement and performance in high school. Princeton, NJ: Manpower
Demonstration Research Corporation.

Khine, M. S. (2002). Study of learning environment for improving science. In S. C.

Goh & M.S. Khine (Eds.), Studies in educational learning environments: An
international perspective. River Edge, NJ: World Scientific.

Khoury, G. A. (1984). A model identifying selected factors in influencing science

enrollment patterns of high school students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Kim, B., & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Reframing research on learning with technology: In
search of the meaning of cognitive tools. Instructional Science, 35, 207-256.

Klopfenstein, K. (2004). Advanced placement: Do minorities have equal opportunity?

Economics of Education Review, 23, 115-131.

Klopfenstein, K. (2009, January 11). The educational cost, from the advanced placement
juggernaut. The New York Times Online. Retrieved from http://roomfordebate
.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/the-advanced-placementjuggernaut/
 102

Klopfer, L. E. (1971). Evaluation of learning in science. In B. S. Bloom, J. T. Hastings &

G. F. Madaus (Eds.), Handbook of formative and summative evaluation of student
learning. London, England, United Kingdom: McGraw-Hill.

Koballa, T. R., & Crawley, F. E., & Shrigley, R. L. (1990). A summary of science
education. Science Education, 74, 369-381.

Koch, J. (1990). The science autobiography. Science and Children, 28, 42-43.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt:

Understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3-12.

Landry, S. H., Swank, P. R., Smith, K. E., Assel, M. A., & Gunnewig, S. B. (2006).
Enhancing early literacy skills for preschool children: Bringing a professional
development model to scale. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 306-324.

Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban
schools: A descriptive analysis. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(7)
37-62.

Lareau, A. (2000). Home advantage. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: Reversing the progress toward
equity? Educational Researcher, 31(1) 3-12.

Lee, V., & Burkam, D. T. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background
differences in achievement as children begin school. Washington, DC: Economics
Policy Institute.

Levin, J., & Fowler, H. S. (1984). Sex, grade, and course differences in attitudes that
are related to cognitive performance in secondary science. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 21(2), 151-166.

Lichten, W. (2000). Whither advanced placement? Education Policy Analysis

Archives, 8(29), 1-5. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n29.html

Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simon, R. (2002). University students’ perceptions of the
learning environment and academic outcomes: Implications for theory and
practice. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 27-52.

Lyons, T. (2006). Different countries, same science classes: Students’ experiences of

school science in their own words. International Journal of Science Education,
28, 591-613.

McBee, M. T. (2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification

screening by race and socioeconomic status. Journal of Secondary Gifted
Education, 17, 103-111.
 103

McCombs, B., & Whisler, J. (1997). The learner-centered classroom and school:
Strategies for increasing student motivation and achievement. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.

McLeod, D. (1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: A reconceptualization.

In D. Groups (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning.
New York, NY: Macmillan.

Miller, L., Lietz, P., & Kotte, D. (2002). On decreasing gender differences and attitudinal
changes: Factors influencing Australian and English pupils’ choice of a career in
science. Psychology, Evolution, and Gender, 4, 69-92.

Munro, M., & Elsom, D. (2000). Choosing science at 16. NICEC Project Report.
Cambridge, MA: CRAC: The Career Development Organization.

Murphy, J. (2009). Closing achievement gaps: Lessons learned from the last 15 years.
Phi Delta Kappan, 91(3), 8-13.

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.

National Association for Gifted Children and Council of State Directors of Programs for
the Gifted. (2005). State of the states 2004-2005. Washington, DC: Author.

National Science Board. (2004). Broadening participation in science and engineering

faculty. NSB04-41. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/publication/pub_summ
.jsp?ods_key=nsb0441

National Science Board. (2008). Research and development: Essential foundation for
U.S. competitiveness in the global economy. Arlington, VA: National Science
Foundation.

Ndura, E., Robinson, M., & Ochs, G. (2003). Minority students in high school advanced
placement courses: Opportunity and equity denied. American Secondary
Education, 31(1), 21-38.

Noddings, N. (1995). Teaching themes of care. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 675-680.

Noguera, P. A. (2003). The trouble with Black boys: The role and influence of
environmental and cultural factors on the academic performance of African
American males. Urban Education, 384, 431-459.

Notten, N., & Kraaykamp, G. (2009). Parents and the media. A study of social
differentiation in parental media socialization. Poetics, 37, 185-200.

Oakes, J. (1990). Opportunities, achievement, and choice: Women and minority

 104

students in science and mathematics. Review of Research in Education, 16,

153-222.

O’Connor, R. E., White, A., & Swanson, H. L. (2007). Repeated reading continuous
reading: Influences on reading fluency and comprehension. Exceptional Children,
7431-7445.

Ogbu, J. (2003). Black students in an affluent suburb: A study of academic

disengagement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Oh, P. S., & Yager, R. E. (2004). Development of constructivist science classrooms and
changes in student attitudes toward science learning. Science Education
International, 15(2), 105-113.

Osbourne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of
literature and its implications. International Journal Science Education, 25, 1049-
1079

Papanastasiou, C., & Papanastasiou, E. C. (2002). Major influences of attitudes towards

science. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10, 239-257.

Parker, V., & Gerber, B. (2000). Effects of a science intervention program on middle-
grade student achievement and attitudes. School Science and Mathematics, 100,
236-242. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.tb17263.x

Parsons, J. (2000). A research proposal for a study of the effects of technology education
on motivation in high school science. Unpublished manuscript, Biola University,
La Mirada, CA.

Phillips, M. (2000). Understanding ethnic differences in academic achievement:

Empirical lessons from national data. In D. Grissmer & M. Ross (Eds.), Analytic
issues in the assessment of student achievement (pp. 103-132). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Phillips, M., & Chin, T. (2004). School inequality: What do we know? In K. Neckerman
(Ed.), Social inequality. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Piburn, M. D., & Baker, D. R. (1993). If I were the teacher . . . qualitative study of
attitude toward science. Science Education, 77, 393-406.

Pine, J. P., Aschbacher, P. A., Roth, E., Jones, M., McPhee, C., Martin, C.,…Foley, B.
(2006). Fifth graders’ science inquiry abilities: A comparative study of students in
textbook and inquiry curricula. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 467-
484.

Plucker, J. A., Burroughs, N., & Song, R. (2010). Mind the other gap! The growing
excellence gap in k-12 education. Retrieved from http://www.iub.edu/ceep/
 105

Gap/excellence/ExcellenceGapBrief.pdf

Postsecondary Education Planning Commission. (2008). Funding of acceleration

mechanisms. Report 1. Retrieved from http://www.fldoe.org/articulation/
pdf/ acc_accelerationstudy_1203.pdf

Powell, W. H. (2003, April). Science and technology education: A view from industry.
Paper presented at the ICASE 2003 World Conference on Science and
Technology Education, Penang, Malaysia.

Pratt, A. (1999). Gender differences in student achievement and in rates of participation

in the school sector, 1986-1977: A summary report. The Research Bulletin, 10,
1-11.

Quita, I. N. (2003). What is a scientists? Perspectives of teachers of color. Multicultural

Education, 11(1), 29-31.

Ready, D., LoGerfo, L., Burkham, D., & Lee, V. (2005). Explaining girls’ advantage in
kindergarten literacy learning: Do classroom behaviors make a difference? The
Elementary School Journal, 106(1), 21-38.

Reid, N. (2006). Thoughts on attitude measurement. Research in Science &

Technological Education, 24(1), 3-27.

Rothman, R. (2001). Closing the achievement gap: How schools are making it happen.
Challenge Journal, 5(1) 1-11.

Rothstein, R. (2004a). Class and schools: Using social, economic, and educational
reform to close the black-white achievement gap. Washington, DC: Economic
Policy Institute.

Rothstein, R. (2004b). Wishing up on the Black-White achievement gap. Phi Delta

Kappan, 86(1), 27-36.

Sadler, P., & Tai, R. (2007). Advanced placement exam scores as a predictor of
performance in introductory college biology, chemistry, and physics courses.
Science Educator, 16(1), 1-19.

Salinas, J. (2002). The effectiveness of minority teachers on minority student success.

National Association of African American Studies, 5, 319-340.

Schibeci, R. A. (1984). Attitudes to science: An update. Studies in Science Education,

11(1), 26-39.

Schibeci, R. A., & Riley, J. P. (1986). Influence of students’ background and perceptions
on science attitudes and achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
23, 177-187.
 106

Semela, T. (2010). Who is joining physics and why? Factors influencing the choice of
physics among Ethiopian university students. International Journal of
Environmental and Science Education, 5, 319-340.

Seymour, E. (1995). The loss of women from science, mathematics and engineering
undergraduate majors: an explanatory account. Science Education, 79, 437-473.

Shumow, L., & Miller, J.D. (2001). Parents’ at-home and at-school academic
involvement with young adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21, 68-91.

Shrigley, R. L., Koballa, T. R., & Simpson, R. D. (1988). Defining attitudes for science
educators. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 659-678.

Simpson, R. D., & Oliver, J. S. (1990). A summary of major influences on attitude

ward and achievement in science among adolescent students. Science Education,
74, 1-18.

Simpson, R. D., & Troost, K. M. (1982). Influences on commitment to and learning of

science among adolescent students. Science Education, 66, 763-781.

Singham, M. (2003). The achievement gap: Myths and reality: Phi Delta Kappan, 84,
586-591.

Smylie, M., & Wenzel, S. (2003). The Chicago Annenberg challenge: Successes,
failures, and lessons for the future. Final technical report of the Chicago
Annenberg Research Project. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School
Research.

Snyder, T., & Hoffman, C. M. (2001). Digest of education statistics 2000. Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

Solorzano, D. G., & Ornelas, A. (2004). A critical race analysis of Latino/o and African
American advanced placement enrollment in public high schools. The High
School Journal, 87(3), 15-25.

Soyibo, K., & Hudson, A. (2000). Effects of computer-assisted instruction (CAI) on 11th
graders’ attitudes to biology and CAI and understanding of reproduction in plants
and animals. Research in Science and Technological Education, 18, 190-199.

Stables, A. (1990). Differences between pupils from mixed and single-sex schools in
their enjoyment of school subjects and in their attitudes to science and to school.
Educational Review, 42, 221-230.

Stanley, P., Juhnke, G., & Purkey, W. (2004). Using the invitational theory of practice to
create safe and successful schools. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82,
302-309.
 107

Steinke, J. (2005). Cultural representations of gender and science: Portrayals of female

scientists and engineers in popular films. Science Communication, 27, 27-63.

Stipek, D. (2002). Motivation to learn: Integrating theory and practice. Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.

Stumpf, H., & Stanley, J.C. (1996). Gender-related differences on the college board’s
advanced placement and achievement test, 1982-1992. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 88, 353-364.

Swiatek, M. A., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2000). Gender differences in academic

attitudes among gifted elementary school students. Journal for the Education
for the Gifted, 23, 360-377.

Taliaferro, J. D., & Decuir-Gunby, J. T. (2008). African American educators’

perspectives on the advanced placement opportunity gap. The Urban Review,
40(2), 164-185.

Talbert-Johnson, C. (2004). Structural inequities and the achievement gap in urban

schools. Education and Urban Society, 37(1), 22-36.

Talton, 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, 507-525.

Tan, E., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2008). Unpacking science for all through the lens of
identities-in-practice: The stories of Amelia and Ginny. Cultural Studies of
Science Education, 3, 43-71.

Theobald, M. (2006). Increasing student motivation: Strategies for middle and high
school teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Thernstrom, A., & Thernstrom, S. (2003). No excuses: Closing the racial gap in learning.
New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Thomas, W., & Znaniecki, F. (1918). The Polish peasant in Europe and America.
Chicago: University of Chicago.

Thompson, C., & O’Quinn, S. (2001). Eliminating the Black-White achievement gap: A
summary of research. Chapel Hill, NC: North Carolina Education Research
Council, Spencer Foundation.

Tinklin, T., Croxford, L., Ducklin, A., & Frame, B. (2001). Gender and pupil
performance in Scotland’s schools. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University
Press.

Tobias, S. (1990). They’re not dumb. They’re different. Change, 22, 10-34.
 108

Trusty, J. (2002). Effects of high school course-taking and other variables on choice of
science and mathematics college majors. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 80, 464-473. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2002.tb00213.x

Turkmen, H. (2008). Turkish primary students’ perceptions about scientist and what
factors affecting the image of the scientists. Eurasian Journal of Mathematics,
Science & Technology Education, 4(1), 55-61.

Viadero, D., & Johnston, R. (2000). Lags in minority achievement defy traditional
explanations. Education Week, 19(28), 1-18.

Virginia Department of Education. (2010). Participation and achievement on advanced

placement test continue to rise. Retrieved from http://www.doe.virginia
.gov/news/news_releases/2009/aug25.shtml

Wakelyn, D. (2009). Raising rigor, getting results: Lessons learned from AP expansion.
Education Division: National Governor’s Association for Best Practices, 1-16.
Retrieved from http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0908APREPORT.PDF

Walberg, H. J. (1968). Structural and affective aspects of classroom climate. Psychology

in the Schools, 5, 247-253.

Warrington, M., Younger, M., & Williams, J. (2000). Student attitudes, image, and the
gender gap. British Educational Research Journal, 26, 393-407.

Weinburgh, M. (1995a, April). Gender and race as predictors of middle school students’
attitude toward science. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the
Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Charleston, WV.

Weinburgh, M. (1995b). Preparing gender inclusive science teachers: Suggestions from

the literature. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6, 102-107.

Weinburgh, M. (1995c). Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: A meta-

analysis of the literature from 1970 to 1991. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 32, 387-398.

Welsh, P. (2009, December 20). A ridiculous numbers game from the advanced
placement juggernaut. The New York Times Online. Retrieved from http://
www.roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/the-advanced
-placementjuggernaut/

Whiting, G. (2009). Finding high ability among the underserved. Gifted Black males:
Understanding and decreasing barriers to achievement and identity. Roeper
Review, 31, 224-233.

Williams, A. (2011). A call for change: Narrowing the achievement gap between White
and minority students. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies,
 109

Issused and Ideas, 84(2), 65-66.

Wilson, V. L. (1983). A meta-analysis of the relationship between science achievement

and science attitude: Kindergarten through college. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 20, 839-850.

Woolnough, B. (1994). Why students choose physics, or reject it. Physics Education, 29,
368-373.

Wright, D. (2001). Student mobility: A negligible and confounded influence on student

achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 92, 347-353.

Yager, R. E., & Bonnstetter, R. J. (1984). Student perceptions of science teachers,

classes, and science courses. School Science and Mathematics, 84, 406-414.

Yager, R. E., & Penick, J. E. (1986). Perception of four age groups toward science
classes, teachers, and the value of science. Science and Education, 70, 355-
363.

Ye, R., Wells, R., Talkmitt, S., & Ren, H. (1998, March). Student attitudes toward
science learning: A cross-national study of American and Chinese Secondary
school students. Paper presented at the annual Meeting of the National Science
Teachers Association, Las Vegas, NV.

Yonezawa, S., & Jones, M. (2006). Students’ perspectives on tracking and detracking.
Theory into Practice, 45(1), 15-23.

Zhao, H., & Akiba, M. (2009, April). School expectations for parental involvement and
students’ mathematics achievement: A comparative study of middle schools in the
US and South Korea. Paper presented at Comparative and International Education
Society (CIES) annual meeting, Comparative and International Education Society
(CIES), Honolulu, HI.
 110

Appendix A

AP Examinee Population by Race-Ethnicity for 2008

 111

AP Examinee Population by Race-Ethnicity for 2008

Ethnicity Examinee Population Overall Student Population

Black/African American 7.8% 14.4%
Asian 10.2% 5.3%
Hispanic or Latino 14.8% 15.3%
American Indian/Alaska 0.6% 1.1%
Native
White 61.0% 62%
(College Board, 2008).
 112

Appendix B

AP Population by Race-Ethnicity Equity Gap for the Class of 2008

 113

AP Population by Race-Ethnicity Equity Gap for the Class of 2008

Race/Ethnicity Percentage of Percentage of Equity and

Student Population Students Scoring Excellence
3 or Higher Gap
Eliminated
Black or African 24.2% 6.1% No
American
Hispanic or Latino 5.6% 6.1% Yes
American Indian or 0.3% 0.3% Yes
Alaska Native
(College Board, 2008).
 114

Appendix C

Minority Participation in AP Science Examinations 1997-2002

 115

Minority Participation in AP Science Examinations 1997-2002

Ethnicity Subjects 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

(Sub-Groups)
American Indian Biology 11 12 17 16 3 3
Chemistry 6 8 6 5 1 3
Physics 1 - 2 3 1 1
Asian Biology 356 320 433 446 58 115
Chemistry 255 266 268 295 37 183
Physics 59 56 65 100 7 22
African Biology 179 188 174 176 46 56
American Chemistry 60 99 113 83 12 44
Physics 23 30 30 38 10 12

Latino: Biology 11 9 14 9 2 8
Chicano/Mexican Chemistry 4 6 5 - 1 13
Physics 2 2 - 3 3 2
Latino: Puerto Biology 17 8 15 17 4 3
Rican Chemistry 5 1 4 11 1 1
Physics 5 2 2 4 1 -
Latino: Other Biology 49 16 58 63 8 14
Chemistry 22 3 30 25 5 19
Physics 3 2 4 7 3 1
Other Biology 89 74 111 19 45 74
Chemistry 31 47 56 10 26 64
Physics 12 19 118 4 6 23
White Biology 1,808 1,795 1,926 1,957 391 673
Chemistry 878 977 972 1036 149 540
Physics 297 380 487 408 96 154
Total for Biology 2,644 2,614 2,901 546 942 926
Virginia Chemistry 1,340 1,55 1,555 219 847 1,045
Physics 432 525 557 129 204 607
 116

Appendix D

Minority Participation in AP Science Examinations 2003-2008

 117

Minority Participation in AP Science Examinations 2003-2008

Ethnicity (Sub- Subjects 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

groups)
American Indian Biology 11 12 17 16 3 3
Chemistry 6 8 6 5 1 3
Physics 1 - 2 3 1 1
Asian Biology 356 320 433 446 58 115
Chemistry 255 266 268 295 37 183
Physics 59 56 65 100 7 22
African Biology 179 188 174 176 46 56
American Chemistry 60 99 113 83 12 44
Physics 23 30 30 38 10 12

Latino: Biology 11 9 14 9 2 8
Chicano/Mexican Chemistry 4 6 5 - 1 13
Physics 2 2 0 3 3 2
Latino: Puerto Biology 17 8 15 17 4 3
Rican Chemistry 5 1 4 11 1 1
Physics 5 2 2 4 1 -
Latino: Other Biology 49 16 58 63 8 14
Chemistry 22 3 30 25 5 19
Physics 3 2 4 7 3 1
Other Biology 89 74 111 19 45 74
Chemistry 31 47 56 10 26 64
Physics 12 19 118 4 6 23
White Biology 1,808 1,795 1,926 1,957 391 673
Chemistry 878 977 972 1036 149 540
Physics 297 380 487 408 96 154
Total for Biology 2,644 2,614 2,901 546 942 926
Virginia Chemistry 1,340 1,55 1,555 219 847 1,045
Physics 432 525 557 129 204 607
 118

Minority Participation in AP Biology, AP Chemistry, and AP Physics

for 2005-2006 School Year
 119

Minority Participation in AP Biology, AP Chemistry, and AP Physics

for 2005-2006 School Year

Ethnicity Years Course Male Female Total Percentage

2005- AP
2006 Biology
White 1 2 3 43%
Asian - 1 1 14%
African - 3 3 43%
American
Hispanic - - - -
Native - - - -
American
Other - - - -

Ethnicity Years Course Male Female Total Percentage

2005- AP
2006 Chemistry
White 2 1 3 60%
Asian
African 1 1 2 40%
American
Hispanic - - - -
Native - - - -
American
Other - - - -

Ethnicity Years Course Male Female Total Percentage

2005- AP
2006 Physics
White 2 3 5 83%
Asian - - - -
African - - - -
American
Hispanic 1 - - 17%
Native - - - -
American
Other - - - -
Total 2,088
Pop-
ulation
 120

Appendix F

Minority Participation in AP Biology, AP Chemistry, and AP Physics

for 2006-2007 School Year
 121

Minority Participation in AP Biology, AP Chemistry, and AP Physics

for 2006-2007 School Year
Ethnicity Years Course Male Female Total Percentage
2006- AP
2007 Biology
White - 2 2 50%
Asian - - - -
African 2 2 50%
American
Hispanic - - - -
Native - - - -
American
Other - - - -

Ethnicity Years Course Male Female Total Percentage

2006- AP
2007 Chemistry
White 4 4 8 65%
Asian 1 2 3 10%
Black 1 1 2 25%
Hispanic - - - -
Native - - - -
American
Other - - - -

Ethnicity Years Course Male Female Total Percentage

2006- AP
2007 Physics
White 2 3 5 83%
Asian - - - -
African - - - -
American
Hispanic 1 - 1 17%
Native - - - -
American
Other - - - -
Total 2,112
Population
 122

Appendix G

Minority Participation in AP Biology, AP Chemistry, and AP Physics

for 2007-2008 School Year
 123

Minority Participation in AP Biology, AP Chemistry, and AP Physics

for 2007-2008 School Year
Ethnicity Years Course Male Female Total Percentage
2007- AP
2008 Biology
White - 1 1 17%
Asian - - - -
African - - - -
American
Hispanic - - - -
Native - - - -
American
Other - - - -

Ethnicity Years Course Male Female Total Percentage

2007- AP
2008 Chemistry
White 4 4 8 65%
Asian 1 - 1 25%
African 1 1 25%
American
Hispanic - - - -
Native - - - -
American
Other - - - -

Ethnicity Years Course Male Female Total Percentage

2007- AP
2008 Physics
White 3 2 5 83%
Asian - - - -
African - - - -
American
Hispanic - - - -
Native - - - -
American
Other - - - -
Total 1,300
Population
 124

Appendix H

Minority Participation in AP Biology, AP Chemistry, and AP Physics

for 2008-2009 School Year
 125

Minority Participation in AP Biology, AP Chemistry, and AP Physics

for 2008-2009 School Year

Ethnicity Years Course Male Female Total Percentage

2008- AP
2009 Biology
White - 1 1 17%
Asian - - - -
African - - - -
American
Hispanic - - - -
Native - - - -
American
Other - - - -

Ethnicity Years Course Male Female Total Percentage

2008- AP
2009 Chemistry
White 4 4 8 65%
Asian 1 - 1 25%
African 1 1 25%
American
Hispanic - - - -
Native - - - -
American
Other - - - -

Ethnicity Years Course Male Female Total Percentage

2008- AP
2009 Physics
White 3 2 5 83%
Asian - - - -
African - - - -
American
Hispanic - - - -
Native - - - -
American
Other - - - -
Total 1,300
Population
126
127
 128

Appendix J

TOSRA
 129

TOSRA

Check Gender: Male__________________Female_________________________

Directions:
1. This test contains a number of statements about science. You will be asked what
you think about these statements. There is no “right” or “wrong” answers. Your
opinion is what is wanted.
2. For each statement, draw a circle around the specific numeric value corresponding
to how you feel about each statement. Please circle only ONE value per
statement.

5 = Strongly Agree (SA)

4 = Agree (A)
3 = Uncertain (U)
2 = Disagree (D)
1 = Strongly Disagree (SD)

Statement SA A U D SD

1. Money spent on science is well worth 5 4 3 2 1

spending.

2. Scientists usually like to go to their 5 4 3 2 1

laboratories when they have a day off.
3. I would prefer to find out why something 5 4 3 2 1
happens by doing an experiment than be being
told.
4. I enjoy reading about things that disagree 5 4 3 2 1
with my previous ideas.
5. Science lessons are fun. 5 4 3 2 1

6. I would like to belong to a science club. 5 4 3 2 1

7. I would dislike being a scientist after I leave 5 4 3 2 1

school.

8. Science is man’s worst enemy. 5 4 3 2 1

9. Scientists are about as fit and healthy as other 5 4 3 2 1

people.

10. Doing experiments is not as good as finding 5 4 3 2 1

out information from teachers.
11. I dislike repeating experiments to check that 5 4 3 2 1
I get the same results.
 130

Statement SA A U D SD

12. I dislike science lessons. 5 4 3 2 1

13. I get bored when watching science programs 5 4 3 2 1

on TV at home.

14. When I leave school, I would like to work 5 4 3 2 1

with people who make discoveries in science.

15. Public money spent on science in the last 5 4 3 2 1

few years has been used widely.
16. Scientists do not have enough time to spend 5 4 3 2 1
with their families.
17. I would prefer to do experiments rather than 5 4 3 2 1
to read about them.
18. I am curious about the world in which we 5 4 3 2 1
live.

19. School should have more science lessons 5 4 3 2 1

each week.

20. I would like to be given a science book or a 5 4 3 2 1

piece of science equipment as a present.
21. I would dislike a job in a science laboratory 5 4 3 2 1
after I leave school.
22. Scientific discoveries are doing more harm 5 4 3 2 1
than good.

23. Scientists like sports as much as other 5 4 3 2 1

people do.

24. I would rather agree with other people than 5 4 3 2 1

do an experiment to find out for myself.
25. Finding out about new things is unimportant. 5 4 3 2 1

26. Science lessons bore me. 5 4 3 2 1

27. I dislike reading books about science during 5 4 3 2 1

my holidays.

28. Working in a science laboratory would be an 5 4 3 2 1

interesting way to earn a living.
29. The government should spend more money 5 4 3 2 1
on scientific research.
30. Scientists are less friendly than other people. 5 4 3 2 1
 131

Statement SA A U D SD

31. I would prefer to do my own experiments 5 4 3 2 1

than to find out information from a teacher.
32. I like to listen to people whose opinions are 5 4 3 2 1
different from mine.
33. Science is one of the most interesting school 5 4 3 2 1
subjects.

34. I would like to do science experiments at 5 4 3 2 1

home.

35. A career in science would be dull and 5 4 3 2 1

boring.

36. Too many laboratories are being built at the 5 4 3 2 1

expense of the rest of education.
37. Scientists can have a normal family life. 5 4 3 2 1

38. I would rather find out things by asking an 5 4 3 2 1

expert than by doing an experiment.
39. I find it boring to hear about new ideas. 5 4 3 2 1

40. Science lessons are a waste of time. 5 4 3 2 1

41. Talking to my friends about science after 5 4 3 2 1

school would be boring.
42. I would like to teach science when I leave 5 4 3 2 1
school.

43. Science helps to make life better. 5 4 3 2 1

44. Scientists do not care about their working 5 4 3 2 1

conditions.

45. I would rather solve a problem by doing an 5 4 3 2 1

experiment than be told the answer.
46. In science experiments, I like to use new 5 4 3 2 1
methods, which I have not used before.
47. I really enjoy going to science lessons. 5 4 3 2 1

48. I would enjoy having a job in a science 5 4 3 2 1

laboratory during my school holidays.
49. A job as a scientist would be boring. 5 4 3 2 1
 132

Statement SA A U D SD

50. This country is spending too much money 5 4 3 2 1

on science.

51. Scientists are just as interested in art and 5 4 3 2 1

music as other people are.
52. It is better to ask a teacher the answer than to 5 4 3 2 1
find it out by doing experiments.
53. I am unwilling to change my ideas when 5 4 3 2 1
evidence shows that the ideas are poor.
54. The material covered in science lessons is 5 4 3 2 1
uninteresting.

55. Listening to talk about science on the radio 5 4 3 2 1

would be boring.

56. A job as a scientist would be interesting. 5 4 3 2 1

57. Science can help to make the world a better 5 4 3 2 1

place in the future.

58. Few scientists are happily married. 5 4 3 2 1

59. I would prefer to do an experiment on a 5 4 3 2 1

topic than to read about it in science magazines.
60. In science experiments, I report unexpected 5 4 3 2 1
results as well as expected ones.
61. I look forward to science lessons. 5 4 3 2 1

62. I would enjoy visiting a science museum on 5 4 3 2 1

the weekend.

63. I would dislike becoming a scientist because 5 4 3 2 1

it needs too much education.
64. Money used on scientific projects is wasted. 5 4 3 2 1

65. If you met a scientist, he/she would probably 5 4 3 2 1

look like anyone else you might meet.
66. It is better to be told scientific facts than to 5 4 3 2 1
find them out from experiments.
67. I dislike other peoples’ opinions. 5 4 3 2 1

68. I would enjoy school more if there were no 5 4 3 2 1

science lessons.
 133

Statement SA A U D SD

69. I dislike reading newspaper articles about 5 4 3 2 1

science.

70. I would like to be a scientist when I leave 5 4 3

school.
 134

Appendix K

TOSRA Scale Allocation and Scoring For Each Item

 135

TOSRA Scale Allocation and Scoring For Each Item

S N Normality I A E L C
Social of Scientists Attitude to Adoption of Enjoyment Leisure Career
Implications Scientific Scientific of Science Interest in Interest in
of Science Inquiry Attitudes Lessons Science Science
1 (+) 2 (-) 3 (+) 4 (+) 5 (+) 6 (+) 7 (-)
8 (-) 9 (+) 10 (-) 11 (-) 12 (-) 13 (-) 14 (+)
15(+) 16 (-) 17 (+) 18 (+) 19 (+) 20 (+) 21 (-)
22 (-) 23 (+) 24 (-) 25 (-) 26(-) 27 (-) 28 (+)
29 (+) 30 (-) 31 (+) 32 (+) 33 (+) 34 (+) 35 (-)
36 (-) 37 (+) 38 (-) 39 (-) 40 (-) 41 (-) 42 (+)
43 (+) 44 (-) 45 (+) 46 (+) 47 (+) 48 (+) 49 (-)
50 (-) 51 (+) 52 (-) 53 (-) 54 (-) 55 (-) 56 (+)
57 (+) 58 (-) 59 (+) 60 (+) 61 (+) 62 (+) 63 (-)
64 (-) 65 (+) 66 (-) 67 (-) 68 (-) 69 (-) 70 (+)

For positive items (+), responses SA, A, N, D, SD are scored 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 respectively. For negative items (-), responses
SA, A, N, D, SD, are scored 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, respectively. Omitted or invalid responses are scored 3.
 136

Appendix L

Analysis of Gender, Ethnicity, and Attitude Toward Science

 137

Analysis of Gender, Ethnicity, and Attitude Toward Science

Scale Gender Total Ethnicity Mean Standard

N Deviation
1=M σ
2=F
Social 1 5 Asian 40.00 4.301
implications of 6 African American 38.67 4.926
science 1 Hispanic 32.00 -
2 Indian 39.00 1.414
11 White 39.45 4.655
2 2 Asian 38.00 2.828
7 African American 34.71 5.794
3 Hispanic 35.33 8.505
13 White 38.23 3.086
Normality of 1 5 Asian 35.80 3.194
scientists 6 African American 37.00 8.485
1 Hispanic 35.67 3.512
2 Indian 33.50 6.364
11 White 36.00 5.586
2 2 Asian 37.00 8.485
7 African American 35.00 4.000
3 Hispanic 35.67 3.512
13 White 38.62 4.805
Attitude to 1 5 Asian 33.60 3.507
scientific 6 African American 37.67 4.274
inquiry 1 Hispanic 36.00 1
2 Indian 43.50 4.950
11 White 40.36 5.500
2 2 Asian 38.00 2.828
7 African American 37.43 8.243
3 Hispanic 35.33 5.508
13 White 36.54 7.709
Adoption to 1 5 Asian 39.80 3.564
scientific 6 African American 40.50 4.550
attitudes 1 Hispanic 43.50 -
2 Indian 36.50 6.365
11 White 38.36 4.884
2 Asian 38.00 5.657
2 7 African American 37.29 4.645
3 Hispanic 30.00 13.748
13 White 38.00 4.163

Enjoyment 1 5 Asian 35.80 3.633

Of Science 6 African American 37.00 6.261
Lessons 1 Hispanic 27.00 -
2 Indian 29.50 12.021
11 White 32.36 10.764
2 2 Asian 28.50 3.633
7 African American 32.00 11.648
3 Hispanic 22.67 13.013
13 White 31.38 8.242
 138

Leisure interest 1 5 Asian 27.60 6.269

in science 6 African American 32.67 6.282
2 Hispanic 23.00 -
2 Indian 28.00 14.142
11 White 27.36 10.152
2 2 Asian 26.50 16.263
7 African American 24.00 10.472
3 Hispanic 22.33 13.051
13 White 26.92 7.921
Career interest 1 5 Asian 33.60 5.225
in science 6 African American 37.83 5.776
1 Hispanic 32.00 -
2 Indian 24.00 2.828
11 White 30.91 8.916
2 2 Asian 30.00 8.485
7 African American 31.86 8.552
3 Hispanic 24.67 13.503
13 White 27.00 7.670
Total - 50 50 36.42 4.629
Note. 1*and 2*are codes for Males and Females, N , (SD) σ