How Did Japanese Students Respond to the Questionnaires of “The Relevance of Science Education”? Masakata Ogawa & ShokoShimode Kobe University, Japan
Purpose of the Presentation • Not to Intend to Show an Overview of Japanese Students’ Responses to Each Items • But to Show an Analytical Framework for the Use of Prospective Comparative Studies among Various Countries • To Appreciate Discussion on the Usability
Japanese Educators’ Concern • Rapid Underway in Bipolarization of Students’ Achievements • Good Achievers Getting Better & Better • Poor Achievers Getting Worse & Worse • Possible Reason (An Issue) • Socio-Economic Stratification • Also Differentiation in Attitudes? • Are Japanese Students Heterogeneous? • How to Identify Such Sub-Groups?
Are There Any Ways to Classify Students into Several Groups in terms of their Differential Attitudes toward Science by Utilizing ROSE? Preliminary Research Question
An Analytical Framework (1) • Pre-Supposed Valuables • Nationality, Sex or Number of Books • How to Reflect Students’ Differential Attitudes toward Science in the Analysis of ROSE Data? • Are There Any Appropriate Items in the ROSE to Construct a New Valuable?
An Analytical Framework (2) • Cross-Tabulation • F2 (‘School science is interesting’) • F5 (‘I like school science better than most other subjects’) • (Agree + lo Agree) VS (Disagree + Lo Disagree) • Absolute Interests in School Science VS Relative Likeness of School Science among School Subjects
Loving School Science Not-Positive Priority Specific Priority Interest No Interest Poor Priority Other Priority Loving other Subjects
Survey for Japanese Sample (1) • ROSE Questionnaires for Japanese Sample • Translation into Japanese by Ogawa Checked Its Readability by Two Pre-Service Elementary Teachers • Printed into a Booklet
Survey for Japanese Sample (2) • Sample Students • 50 Lower-Secondary Schools Selected Randomly among 11203 Schools Listed in the School Directory by MOE • 19 Schools among the 50 Schools Were Successfully Involved in • Total 19 Classes with 560 Students (268 Girls, 291 Boys with one unknown) • Survey • Administered by Each Classroom Teacher in March 2003
Cross-Tabulation between F2 and F5 among Japanese Samples
Classification of Japanese Students in terms of School Science Preference
Big Questions • How and By What Do Students Differentiate into such Groups? • What’s the Characteristics of the ‘Other Priority’ Group? • How to Develop Appropriate Curricula and Instructions for Respective Groups in order to Cultivate (Respective) ‘Science Literacy’? • Is It Possible to Turn the ‘Other’ Priority Group into the ‘Specific’ Priority Group?
Things to Learn About • Specific Priority Group Has Much More Interests in Broader Range of the Items • Other Priority Group Shows Interests in Narrower Range of the items • Poor Priority Group Responses Negatively to Most of the Items
Typical Example Pattern of Response Distribution
My Future Job • No Significant Differences of Response Patterns among the Three Groups in Most of the Items • The Items the ‘Specific’ Group Showing Much More Preference to are: • B6: Building or repairing objects using my hands • B7: Working with machines or tools • B11: Coming up with new ideas • B15:Working with something I find important and meaningful • B25:Developing or improving my knowledge and abilities
Me and the Environment • No Significant Difference Found among the Three Groups’ Response Distribution in Most of the Items Except • D1: Threats to the environment are not my business (Almost Everybody Negative) • D3: Environmental problems are exaggerated (Mostly Negative Except Boys in the ‘Specific’) • D7: We can still find solutions to our environmental problems (Almost Everybody Positive) • D10: People should care more about protection of the environment (Almost Everybody Positive) • Japanese Students’ Views toward Environmental Issues are Well-Balanced but Negative to the Extremely Optimistic Ones
My Opinions about S & T • Items the ‘Specific’ Group React Positively and the ‘Poor’ Group Do Negatively are; • G2, G4, G5, G6, G9, G12 (Positive Aspects of S & T) • Fundamentally, Japanese Students are Ambivalent and Skeptical to S & T and Scientists
Out-Of-School Experiences • No Clear Tendencies Found • Preliminary Cluster Analysis Performed • Techno-Scientific Items (Common) • Modern-Techno Items (TV, Radio) (Common) • Outdoor Experiences (I) (Camping) (Common) • Outdoor Experiences (2) (Hunting-Gathering) (‘Specific’ and ‘Other’) • Collections & Science Class Tools (‘Specific’ ) • Primitive Technical Tools and Items (Few) • Nomadic Items (None)
A Stratified Model of Activities and Knowledge Amalgamation for Contemporary Japanese People (Ogawa, 2002) Activities and Knowledge Derived from Techno-Informatic Way of Life Manufacturing-Industrial Way of Life Amalgamated Activities And Knowledge in Contemporary Way of Life Agricultural-Nomadic Way of Life (YAYOI Way of Life) Hunting-Gathering Way of Life (JOMON Way of Life)
Out-Of-School Experiences • No Clear Tendencies Found • Preliminary Cluster Analysis Performed • Techno-Scientific Items (Common) • Modern-Techno Items (TV, Radio) (Common) • Outdoor Experiences (I) (Camping) (Common) • Outdoor Experiences (2) (Hunting-Gathering) (‘Specific’ and ‘Other’) • Collections & Science Class Tools (‘Specific’ ) • Primitive Technical Tools and Items(Few) • Nomadic Items(None)
Japanese Students’ Responses to Techno-Scientific Life Style (1) • Girls in the ‘Poor’ Group are Heavier User of Mobile Phones than Boys in Any Other Groups • Girls in the ‘Poor’ Group are also Much More enjoying SMG, while among Boys in the Three Groups No Significant Differences Found • Preference of Computer Games are No Significant Differences among the Three Groups
Japanese Students’ Responses to Techno-Scientific Life Style (2) • Experience in Internet Information Search : No Differences among Girls, but Found is Significance among Boys: The ‘Other’ and the ‘Specific’ Groups are More Experienced • Boys inthe ‘Specific’ Group are Most Used Dictionaries, Encyclopedia on Computer • Experiences in Downloading Music from the Internet and in the E-mails are No Difference among the Three Groups and Sex • Word Processor in the Computer is less Frequently Used by the ‘Poor’ Group
One Symbolic Lesson • Girls in the ‘Poor’ Group • The Least Lover of School Science with Indifference to Science & Technology • Heavy User of Mobile Phones and of SMG • Interests in the Possible Radiation Dangers of Mobile Phones and Computers (No S. D.) • Interests in ‘How Mobile Phones Can Send and Receive Messages?’ (No S.D.)
Implications & Way Forward • Do We Identify Four Groups of Students in Any Countries? • What are the Relative Ratios among the Groups in Respective Countries? • What Kinds of Characteristics Does Each Group Have in terms of Attitudes toward Science or Science Classes? • How Do Students Differentiate into such Groups? • Can the ‘Other’ and ‘Poor’ Groups Turn to be the ‘Specific’ Group?
How about Sharing the Framework? Contact Ogawam@Kobe-u.ac.jp