There are four key sources of data within this study: (i) questionnaire data from students, (ii) audio-recordings from the three semi-structured interviews during lesson observations of students and teachers, (iii) audio-recordings from the three focus groups after observed lessons, and (iv) field notes from both observations and focus groups.
The questionnaire data involves inputting and analysing an intended sample of 612 questionnaires (204 biology questionnaire, 204 chemistry questionnaire, 204 physics questionnaire) with 51 questionnaires coming from each year group (Year 7, 8, 9 and 10) in each school. The analysis of the non-parametric data for all three questionnaires involves the use of the Chi-squared statistical test.
The audio-recordings from the observations with semi-structured interviews involves transcribing the raw data with the use of the observational field notes to add the appropriate non-audible actions, such as gestures and actions. The audio-recordings from the focus groups also require transcribing and consolidating with the field notes. As the main reason for the collection of the observations with semi-structured interviews and focus groups is to validate the questionnaire data and probe into particular issues that have arisen from the students’ responses in the questionnaire data, the analysis will draw on these two sources in order to further understand their attitudes to practical work in school science. For these reasons the analysis of the questionnaires draws upon the findings from the observations and focus groups.
The analytical framework that will be implemented in the following two results and discussion chapters will draw on the data as collected above and on the literature as described and discussed in Chapter 3. It is important to reiterate at this stage that an
attitude is a complex concept which is difficult to define and there is currently no agreed upon definition (Olson & Zanna, 1993). However, one of the recent models used in attitudinal research is the multi-component model which involves the three components – cognitive, affective and behavioural. The use of a tripartite model as discussed by Haddock and Zanna (1999) states that “attitudes are overall evaluations of objects that are derived from three general sources of information: (a) cognitive, (b) affective, and (c) behavioral” (p. 77). Indeed, Haddock and Zanna (1999) describe what information each of the three components in the tripartite model provide the researcher: “Cognitive
information refers to beliefs or thoughts about an attitude object” (p. 77, bold and
italics in original), such as a student expressing their belief that practical work is a useful tool in learning science; “Affective information refers to feelings or emotions associated with an attitude object” (ibid, bold and italics in original), for example, a student may highlight that practical work makes him or her feel happy in, or enjoy, science; “Behavioral information refers to past behaviors or behavioral intentions with respect to an attitude object” (ibid, bold and italics in original), for example a student may start to participate in more practical work lessons or clubs or do more than is expected in a practical work lesson.
In terms of considering the findings in this study, it was decided to follow the tripartite model described here and in Chapter 3 as seen in the literature, for example; Ajzen (2005), Haddock and Zanna (1999), and Manstead (1996). This means analysing the data firstly in terms of the cognitive aspects, secondly affective aspects and thirdly behavioural aspects, of practical work. By addressing the data in relation to these three categories students’ attitudes to practical work can be inferred and explored in more detail. Indeed, as Manstead continues (1996):
many attitude theorists assume that attitudes consist of three components: a set of cognitions about the object, typically referred to as beliefs; a set of affective responses to the object, typically referred to as emotions or feelings; and a set of behaviours or behavioural tendencies toward the object....the hypothetical construct of attitude to an object is inferred from observable responses to the actual or imagined presence of the object.
(p. 5, italics in original).
Indeed, this suggests that when considering an attitude towards an object, it is the evaluation of the three components – cognitive, affective, and behavioural that provide the information that can be used to infer the individual’s general attitude to the object. Therefore by observing students’ verbal or non-verbal statements regarding their beliefs (cognition), feelings (affection) and behaviour (behavioural), their attitude to practical work can be therefore be inferred. Indeed, the essence of using the tripartite system as a means of inferring an attitude was first articulated by Rosenberg and Hovland (1960). The understanding of the tripartite model in terms of inferring an attitude can be seen in figure 4.1 below. It shows how the verbal statements within these three categories can be used to infer a student’s attitude to a stimulus (practical work):
Figure 4.1: A model of the three components of an attitude (taken “schematic conception of attitudes” figure 1 in Rosenberg & Hovland, 1960, p. 3)
Intervening variables Measurable dependent variables Measurable independent variables
Further to the work by Rosenberg and Hovland (1960), Ajzen (2005) shows how responses to each of the three areas can infer attitudes as seen in table 4.18 (note the term conation is used in place of behaviour):
Table 4.18: A model of how responses to stimuli can be used to infer attitudes (From Ajzen, 2005, p. 4)
Response category
Response mode Cognition Affect Conation
Verbal Expressions of beliefs about attitude object Expressions of feelings toward attitude object Expressions of behavioral intentions Nonverbal Perceptual reactions
to attitude object Physiological reactions to attitude object Overt behaviours with respect to attitude object
From the explanations in figure 4.1 and table 4.19, the use of these verbal and non- verbal responses should be, to some extent, consistent in a response. Indeed, for this study, it can be argued that students who hold a positive attitude to practical work might therefore be rationally expected to also claim to believe that practical work was also a useful tool in learning science (cognitive), to find practical work (affective) enjoyable and to hold the view that they are inclined to, committed to, or intent on doing practical work beyond what is expected (behavioural). If a negative attitude to practical work is held then students would verbally claim to believe it was of little cognitive value, feel disaffected by it and dislike doing it. Furthermore, students with negative attitudes to practical work may, when asked to undertake or when undertaking, demonstrate nonverbal responses such as exhibiting facial expressions of boredom (affective) as well as not fully participating in some or all, of the practical task (behavioural). However, nonverbal cognitive responses, whilst harder to assess (Ajzen, 2005) would normally be inferred indirectly through perhaps observation by the researcher of students during practical work lessons. For example, noticing students who are not focused on doing the
practical work because they are chatting with friends about unrelated aspects or not taking part would be suggested as hold a negative nonverbal cognitive response.
Yet, whilst the responses to each component of the tripartite model could rationally be assumed to be consistent, they in fact can and often do conflict with each other (Wilson et al., 2000). Rosenberg (1960a) argues that individuals are inclined to change and adapt their attitude to ensure that there is consistency between the three components. Indeed, Kruglanski and Stroebe (2005) suggest how the inconsistency in the individual acts as a motivation for them to change their attitudes, but that there is variance across situations and individuals as to the extent of the want for consistency or coherence of the three components. Therefore, this could suggest that students during secondary school when they are finding their identities (Hodson, 1993) and that their attitudes are susceptible to change especially in late adolescence (Krosnick & Alwin, 1989), conflicts between the three components is thus very likely.
In regards to the model seen in figure 4.1 and the fact that the components may not be consistent within an attitude, the question can then be asked as to where an individual’s general disposition or attitudinal statement comes from. For example, when students are probed as to what their attitude is to practical work and claimed they like it, it would seem rational to assume that for those students they would each give positive statements regarding the affective, cognitive and behavioural domains. However, as Abrahams (2009) argues if many students claim to like practical work because it motivates them, it would be expected that they continue to study science. However, whilst many students claim to like practical work, there has been little evidence to suggest that it motivates them to study science (Abrahams, 2011). Therefore, it seems that the cause of a student’s general attitudinal statement could be from one or more of the three
components - affective, cognitive or behavioural. It could be understood that whichever component is felt strongest by that individual will ultimately form the attitudinal statement. Indeed, if an individual wants:
congruence between their beliefs and feelings toward objects, then attitudes can be changed by modifying either the beliefs or feelings associated with them. The incongruity thereby aroused may, in the former case, result in the feeling changing to become consistent with the altered beliefs; in the latter case the beliefs may change to become consistent with the altered feeling.
(Rosenberg, 1960b, p. 319)
This suggests that the feelings (affective domain) and the beliefs (cognitive domains) are most prominent in attitude formation and that whichever is modified by a potential external factor can lead to a change in the other. Therefore, within this study, if a student’s general attitudinal statement is that they like practical work giving the reason that it is a break from the monotony of theory lessons (Toplis, 2012), then that student may also believe that they learn a lot from it. But it may transpire when probed further that they are unable to explain what they actually learnt, this would suggest that their feeling to practical work is more prominent in the formulation of their attitude. Conversely, when GCSE examinations are approaching for students, it might be expected that they would not enjoy doing practical work giving the reason that they actually prefer being spoken to by the teacher or when they do book work because they believe it benefits their learning in order to do well in exams. This would be suggesting that their belief of the limitations in learning from practical work is the main reason for their formulation of not liking practical work. If measuring the cognitive and affective components of an attitude:
....provides more valid and more precise estimates of attitude extremity and intensity, it is clear that the use of such measurement will enable more effective prediction of the attitude holder’s response in a situation which allows for overt action toward the attitude object.
(Rosenberg, 1960b, p. 336).
Therefore, using the verbal cognitive and affective responses the behavioural component might be inferred. Indeed, the behavioural component could non-verbally be seen during observations of, for example, students doing practical work and those that are showing active involvement might therefore show a positive beliefs and feelings towards it.
The analytical framework will be used to analyse the data in order to explore students’ attitudes to practical work in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6. In order to do this the analytical framework, that devised by Rosenberg and Hovland (1960), will be used as an analytical tool rather than a design tool to find the affective, behavioural and cognitive components of their attitude towards practical work. Level 1 data in the questionnaire relates to responses to options in the form of either: agree, neither agree or disagree, and disagree. Level 2 data provides the reasons for the selections made by students in Level 1. In this respect, Level 1 data is used to determine the number of students that agreed, or did not agree, with the statement and will be analysed in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 using Chi Square and percentages to see the emerging picture of where students’ attitudes are currently placed in response to the statement. It should be noted here that if the Chi Square analysis cannot be undertaken because one of the three response headings in Level 1 is too small the three groups will be collapsed into two to allow for the statistical analysis to take place. The Level 2 data will then be used to explore the reasons for the responses they gave to the statements in Level 1. The analytical tool will be used to explore the reasons in terms of the three distinct components of an attitude – affective, behavioural and cognitive. Field notes, along with transcripts from the semi- structured interviews made during the observations as well as transcriptions of focus
groups sessions, will then be used to provide further in-depth insight into the selections made in the Level 2 data.
To illustrate this point it emerged, when data was collected, relating to responses to statement 1 of the questionnaire (I enjoy doing practical work in biology/ chemistry/ physics lessons) that, in terms of Level 1 data, 75% of all the students in the study agreed. The Level 2 data provided an insight into the reasons for this and it was found that the most popular reasons fell into four areas within the affective domain: (i) preference, (ii) the opportunity to discuss, (iii) the teacher influence and (iv) personal autonomy and freedom. These reasons were then further clarified using the transcripts and field notes from the observations with semi-structured interviews and focus groups. The way that this was achieved was that these data sets were examined for specific examples relating to the reasons given in Level 2. For example if a Level 2 response had included the ‘opportunity to discuss’ examples that illustrated this point were sort within the transcripts and field notes collected. An example of this linkage would be a claim made by a student during a focus group that ‘practical work is really good because I can talk to my friends about what we do’. Further examples of the use of this supporting material can be seen throughout Chapter 5 and Chapter 6.