Advertisement

Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 356–369 | Cite as

Science Anxiety, Science Attitudes, and Gender: Interviews from a Binational Study

  • Jeffry MallowEmail author
  • Helge Kastrup
  • Fred B. Bryant
  • Nelda Hislop
  • Rachel Shefner
  • Maria Udo
Article

Abstract

We conducted interviews with eleven groups of Danish and American students. The interview topics included gender and national components of science education, science anxiety, and attitudes toward science. The groups were science and nonscience students at the upper secondary and university levels, and one group of American science teachers who were students in a science enrichment program. The interviews revealed a variety of relationships between and among science attitudes, science anxiety, nationality, gender, and course of study. We also probed student attitudes toward constructivist versus traditional views of science.

Keywords

Science attitudes Science anxiety Constructivism Binational study Gender 

References

  1. Alvaro R (1978) The effectiveness of a science-therapy program on science-anxious undergraduates. D. dissertation, Loyola U. ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  2. Beyer K (1991) Gender, science anxiety and learning style. In: Contributions to the 6th GASAT conferenceGoogle Scholar
  3. Beyer K (1992) Det er ikke tænkning det hele [Thinking isn’t everything]. In: Nielsen H, Paulsen AC (eds) Om undervisning i fysik—den konstruktivistiske idé (On physics education: the constructivist idea). Gyldendal Press, Copenhagen, pp 118–158Google Scholar
  4. Beyer K, Reich J (1987) Why are many girls inhibited from learning scientific concepts in physics? In: Contributions to the 4th GASAT conferenceGoogle Scholar
  5. Beyer K, Vedelsby M (1983) Girls and physics—a Danish project. In: Contributions to the 2nd GASAT conferenceGoogle Scholar
  6. Beyer K, Blegaa S, Vedelsby M (1985) Sex-roles and physics education. In: Contributions to the 3rd GASAT conferenceGoogle Scholar
  7. Beyer K, Blegaa S, Olsen B, Reich J, Vedelsby M (1988) Piger og fysik [Females and physics], IMFUFA Texts. Roskilde University Center, RoskildeGoogle Scholar
  8. Chiarelott L, Czerniak C (1985) Science anxiety among elementary school students: an equity issue. J Educ Equity Leadersh 5:291–308Google Scholar
  9. Chiarelott L, Czerniak C (1987) Science anxiety: implications for science curriculum and teaching. Clear House 60:202–205Google Scholar
  10. Fischer J, Mitchell R, del Alamo J (2007) Inquiry-learning with WebLab: undergraduate attitudes and experiences. J Sci Educ Technol 16:337–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hake RR, Mallow JV (2008) Gender issues in science/math education (GISME): over 700 annotated references & 1000 URL’s: Part 1—all references in alphabetical order [GISME-5t-Part1.pdf] (7.9 MB); Part 2—some references in subject order [GISME-5t-Part2.pdf]Google Scholar
  12. Kreuger RA (1988) Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Mallow J (1978) A science anxiety program. Am J Phys 46:862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mallow J (1982) Science anxiety: fear of science and how to overcome it. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Mallow J (1986) Science anxiety: fear of science and how to overcome it, Revised edn. H & H Publ, ClearwaterGoogle Scholar
  16. Mallow J (1993) The science learning climate: Danish female and male students’ descriptions. Proc GASAT 7 1:78Google Scholar
  17. Mallow J (1994) Gender-related science anxiety: a first binational study. J Sci Educ Technol 3:227–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mallow J (1995) Students’ confidence and teachers’ styles: a binational comparison. Am J Phys 63:1007–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mallow J (1998) Student attitudes and enrolments in physics, with emphasis on gender, nationality, and science anxiety. In: Jensen JH, Niss M, Wedege T (eds) Justification and enrolment problems in education involving mathematics or physics. Roskilde U. Press, Roskilde, pp 237–258Google Scholar
  20. Mallow J (2007) Constructivism in physics education—philosophically problematic, but pedagogically successful. AGORA: J Res Dev Idea Exch CphGoogle Scholar
  21. Matthews M (2002) Constructivism and science education: a further appraisal. J Sci Educ Technol 11:121–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mejding J (ed) (2004) PISA 2003—Danske unge i en international sammenligning [Danish youth in an international comparison]. DPU forlag, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  23. Qablan A, Abuloum A, Abu Al-Ruz J (2009) Effective integration of ICT in Jordanian schools: an analysis of pedagogical and contextual impediments in the science classroom. J Sci Educ Technol 18:291–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Raloff J (2004) Title IX: women are catching up, but. Sci News 166:93–94Google Scholar
  25. Silk EM, Schunn CD, Cary MS (2009) The impact of an engineering design curriculum on science reasoning in an urban setting. J Sci Educ Technol 18:209–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Solomon J (1994) Constructivism and quality in science education. In: Chr A (ed) Naturfagenes pædagogik. Gyldendal Press, Copenhagen, pp 17–29Google Scholar
  27. Steele CM, Aronson J (1995) Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African-Americans. J Person Soc Psychol 69:797–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stewart DW, Shamdasani PN (1990) Focus groups: theory and practice. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Udo MK, Ramsey GP, Reynolds-Alpert S, Mallow JV (2001a) Does physics teaching affect gender-based science anxiety? J Sci Educ Technol 10:237–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Udo MK, Ramsey GP, Mallow JV (2001b) Gender, science anxiety, and physics teaching. Proc GASAT 10 1:36–41Google Scholar
  31. Udo MK, Ramsey GP, Reynolds-Alpert S, Mallow JV (2004) Science anxiety and gender in students taking general education science courses. J Sci Educ Technol 13:435–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vedelsby M (1991) Myter og realiteter: kvinder i naturvidenskabelige og teknologiske uddannelser [Myths and realities: women in scientific and technological education]. Forskningspolitisk Råd, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  33. Whitten B, Foster S, Duncombe M (2003) What works for women in undergraduate physics? Phys Today 56:46–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zucker A, Hug ST (2008) Teaching and learning physics in a 1:1 laptop school. J Sci Educ Technol 17:586–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffry Mallow
    • 1
    Email author
  • Helge Kastrup
    • 2
  • Fred B. Bryant
    • 3
  • Nelda Hislop
    • 4
  • Rachel Shefner
    • 5
  • Maria Udo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhysicsLoyola University ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Departments of Mathematics and ScienceUniversity College Capital (UCC) CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyLoyola University ChicagoChicagoUSA
  4. 4.School of EducationLoyola University ChicagoChicagoUSA
  5. 5.Center for Science and Mathematics EducationLoyola University ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations