The main issue with researching students’ attitudes is how to effectively measure an attitude held by a student. The notion of an attitude is an abstract and created construct serving as a means to understand behaviours and actions in order to predict future events. For this reason it is not as easily measurable, “we can only infer that a person has attitudes by her words and actions” (Henerson, Morris & Fitz-Gibbon, 1987, p. 12, italics in original.).
The most common approaches to measuring attitudes involve summated rating scales with Likert-type scales, differential scales such as Thurstone-type scale and semantic differential scales (Kind et al. 2007). However, the problems with these attitude scales discussing the issues surrounding the validity and reliability of the instruments as well as the lack of careful theoretical and constructional approaches to the instruments, have been well noted in many studies such as Blalock et al. (2008); Cheung (2009); Kind et al. (2007); Osborne et al. (2003). As Reid (2006) advises that “scaling methods be rejected on grounds of logical and statistical weaknesses. Rich detail is lost in such methods” (p. 21). As this study aims to probe deeper into students’ attitudes to practical work the theoretical framework follows an approach that is more “naturalistic” (Aikenhead & Ryan, 1992, p. 487) whereby the instrument is derived by the
participants, the students. The framework is provided by the approach that Aikenhead and Ryan (1989) developed in researching views on science, technology and society and was later designed and developed to be used in a study by Bennett and Hogarth (2005). The work by Aikenhead and Ryan (1989) involved the development of an instrument to look at high school students’ views on science, technology and society (VOSTS). The theory behind the VOSTS instrument involved an empirical approach underlying the framework. The approach dislodges the idea of science educators assuming how students might respond to a given statement, instead they “must gather empirical data about how students actually respond to an item” (Aikenhead & Ryan, 1992, p. 488, italics added). The work by Bennett and Hogarth (2005), which drew on the initial framework of the VOSTS instrument, developed the Attitudes to School Science and Science (AS3) instrument used with students aged eleven, fourteen and sixteen years. The essence of both the VOSTS and AS3 instruments is how they draw on both descriptive (Level 1 responses) and explanatory data (Level 2 responses). The two levelled structure to the data means that students’ attitudes can be probed for explanations as to why they think and feel the way they do with regards to a given statement.
The development of an instrument like the VOSTS and AS3 follows a similar number of steps which are summarised and compared in table 4.1. The fundamental key to the development of the instrument in this way is how it is derived empirically through students’ words during written responses and interviews (Aikenhead & Ryan, 1989; Lederman et al., 1998).
Table 4.1: Stages involved in the development of the VOSTS and AS3 instrument (Taken from Bennett & Hogarth, 2009 and Aikenhead & Ryan, 1989)
Stage VOSTS approach (Aikenhead & Ryan, 1989) AS3 approach (Bennett & Hogarth, 2009, p. 5)
1 The evaluator composes one statement which addresses an STS topic and a second statement which expresses the opposite viewpoint on that topic. Students check off a three-point Likert scale and then write a paragraph in reaction to one of those two statements, explaining why they agree, disagree, or neither agree nor disagree with the statement.
Literature search plus interviews with 36 students aged 11, 14, and 16 years (12 of each age)
2 The evaluator analyzes 50 to 70 paragraphs written in response to both statements. The evaluator attempts to find common arguments or viewpoints expressed by the students. These common arguments, called “student positions,” are written in the students’ language as much as possible….One of the two statements is chosen to become the item’s statement.
Initial development by team of three researchers plus two teachers; validation by approximately 25 science educators and teachers
3 About ten students who did not participate in step 2 then respond to the revised VOSTS statement in two ways: first by writing a paragraph response and the secondly by choosing one of the students positions…This is followed by an interview to determine how well the wording of the multiple choice captured student’s viewpoint.
Approximately 40 responses per item, 10-15 per age range in two all-ability comprehensive schools
4 Yet another group of ten students, individually in the company of an evaluator, works through the revised multiple-choice VOSTS item talking aloud about the choices made. This allows the evaluator to polish the item’s wording for greater precision.
Categorisation and validation of responses
5 A large sample of students (n>500) responds to the VOSTS item.
Trial with 91 students in four classes, two aged 11 years and two aged 16 years
The development is routed in a naturalistic, grounded theory approach whereby collection and analysis of data interact in order that the theory better reflects the understanding of the area (Bowen, 2008; Yu & Mensah 2011). Initially in step one a literature search is completed to identify areas within the topic for investigation assisted by student interviews as Bennett and Hogarth (2009) or student paragraph responses to two bipolar statements as Aikenhead and Ryan (1989). This step one is primarily focused on understanding and exposing the areas of concern.
Once the areas have been highlighted, step two involves the composition of the disposition statements for the instrument and after peer validated by science educators. This approach of obtaining the statements for the attitudinal instrument from the students as opposed to the science educators happens due to an underlying assumption. This assumption is that “students and researchers do not necessarily perceive the meanings of a particular concept in the same way” (Lederman et al., 1998, p. 605). So rather statements being produced by educationalists, students develop the statements from within the context of that which is being investigated. Step three for the AS3 instrument involves students responding to the statements from step two on a Likert- scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree, and then asked to provide reasons to their view to the given statement. The layout of this questionnaire approach can be seen in table 4.2.
Table 4.2: Example of the free-response item (taken from table 2.4 in Bennett & Hogarth, 2005, p. 16)
B06 I would like a job involving science Tick the box which best fits your view.
Strongly Agree Neither agree Disagree Strongly Agree nor disagree disagree � � � � � Why did you tick this box? Please explain in the space below.
In step four these “free responses” from step three are categorised and validated by the researchers to become the fixed responses in the instrument for the agree, neither agree nor disagree, and disagree options with between eight and ten reasons per disposition statement. This stage four layout can be seen in table 4.3.
Table 4.3: Example of the trial of fixed responses to a disposition statement (taken from table 2.5 in Bennett & Hogarth (2005, p. 17)
B06 I would like a job involving science Circle the response which best fits your view. A I AGREE because I enjoy science at school.
B I AGREE because scientists are generally well-paid.
C I AGREE because science makes the world a better place to live in. D I AGREE because there are good jobs you can do with science.
E I NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE because it depends on the sort of science involved in the job.
F I DISAGREE I find science boring.
G I DISAGREE because science causes too many problems for the world. H I DISAGREE because scientists don’t get very well-paid.
I I DISAGREE because science is a job for a man.
X None of the above statements reflects my view which is:
Validation of the instrument at stage four involved students from step three to trial the fixed responses by selecting as many as they thought fitted their view and then comparing these responses with those given in stage three. Also, prior to the final stage, an additional option of “another reason –please say what” (Bennett & Hogarth, 2009, p. 5) was added to each agree, neither agree nor disagree and disagree option for all disposition statements. By the addition of the ‘another reason’ option meant that students were not being pressured into an answer that many other instruments such as Likert-type responses can incur (Lederman et al, 1998).
For the VOSTS instrument, by step two composition of the VOSTS statements had been developed and analyse of fifty to seventy paragraph responses per pair of bipolar statements by students had been carried out; this number ensured theoretical saturation
where “the data categories are well established and validated” (Bowen 2008, p. 140). Step two also involved the production of the VOSTS multiple choice layout devised from students, three researchers agreed on the fixed responses categories to be used as reasons for students’ views, with between five and thirteen reasons per statement; and one of the two bipolar statements was chosen. Step three and four for the VOSTS instrument is primarily related to revising the multiple choices to fit the students’ words and ensure clarity through the use of semi-structured interviews with students.
Finally, for step five of both VOSTS and AS3 involved a trial of the instruments to students within the age range to be involved: 16 to 17 year olds for VOSTS and aged 11 and 16 for AS3. At this stage certain responses could be changed, ignored or added to as required to the research. Bennett and Hogarth (2009) also assessed content validity at this stage using teacher rankings of each student’s attitude, and compared scores with the student’s actual response in the instrument. An example from the final format for the AS3 instrument can be seen in table 4.4.
Table 4.4: An example of a disposition statement in the final AS3 instrument (taken from table 2.6 in Bennett & Hogarth, 2005, p. 20)
B06 I would like a job involving science.
I agree because… I neither agree nor disagree because…
I disagree because… a …I enjoy science at
school
k …it depends on what science you would be doing
p …I find science boring
b …they are generally well paid
q …science causes too many problems for the world
c …science makes the world a better place to live in
r …they don’t get well paid
d …there are good jobs you can do with science x … another reason –
please say what
y … another reason – please say what
z … another reason – please say what
The benefit of the VOSTs and AS2 approach is how the instrument encapsulates students’ attitudes clearer than paragraph responses and Likert scales (Aikenhead & Ryan, 1992; Aikenhead, 1988). The VOSTS approach focuses more attention on the possible explanations rather than just describing, the views of the students’ are valued and probed deeper (Lederman et al., 1998). As this theoretical approach is derived from and by the responses by the students themselves, there is a greater degree of validity of the instrument in comparison to other instrument approaches to measuring attitudes (Osborne et al. 2003).
The initial strategy began with extrapolating students’ attitudes to practical work, their likes and dislikes before applying the VOSTS and AS3 instruments theoretical framework to further explore students’ attitudes. The initial strategy will now be discussed.