1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.

1 Research Problems An understanding of the nature of science has been considered as one of the primary outcomes of science education (Hogan, 2000; Kimball, 1967-1968, Miller, 1984; Rubba & Anderson, 1978). Thus, it is important for students studying in one of the prominent science schools in Malaysia such as MARA Junior Science College to have the right conception of the nature of scientific knowledge. Many have no taken into consideration that students performances in science and mathematics are related to their understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge itself. In addition, students understanding also can be related to their level of cognitive reasoning and academic achievement. Not forgetting, gender differences in academic achievement maybe related to the differences in the way male and female students look at science. 1.2 Objectives of the Study a. To describe MRSM students overall understanding of the nature of science, cognitive level, and academic achievement. b. To find the relationships between MRSM students understanding of the nature of science with their cognitive level, and academic achievement. c. To find gender differences in students level of understanding of the nature of science in relation to their cognitive level and academic achievement.

1.3

Research Questions

1. 2.

What is the level of understanding of the nature of science of MRSM students? Is there a significant difference between male and female students level of understanding of the nature of science?

3.

Is there a significant difference between male and female students level of understanding of the nature of science?

4.

What is the relationship between students level of understanding and cognitive level?

5.

What is the relationship between students level of understanding and academic achievement?

1.4

Variables a. Dependent Variable i. Students Understanding of the Nature of Science: This refers to students right conception of the nature of science measured by the Nature of Science Knowledge Scale. This instrument was developed by Rubba and Anderson (1978).

b.

Independent Variable i. Cognitive Level: The cognitive level is measured by the Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning (CTSR), an instrument developed by (Lawson, 1978). From this, student are classified into concrete, operational, and abstract levels of Piagetian levels of reasoning. ii. Academic Achievement: Students academic achievement is determined by their Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA). From their scores, students are classified into high (3.00 above), average (2.00 to 3.00), and low (below 2.00) achiever.

2.0 METHODOLOGY

2.1

Participants Forty MRSM Balik Pulau, Pulau Pinang participated in this study.

2.2

Instrument In this study, a data collection booklet was used to collect the data (Appendix). This

booklet consists of three parts: a. Part 1: To collect demographic information of the respondents. b. Part 2: Contains the NSKS (Nature of Science Knowledge Scale). c. Part 3: Contains the CTSR (Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning).

The participants completed the data collection booklet within a given time.

2.3

Data Analysis All statistical procedures were performed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences

(SPSS) Version 11.0. The followings are the details of the statistical procedures performed on the data. a. Participants Profile: Descriptive statistics were used to describe overall profile of the respondents. Students profiles were described in terms of percentages, means, and standard deviations.

b. Students Level of Understanding of the Nature of Science:

4

Descriptive statistics were used to describe overall profile of the respondents. An average scores score for the overall understanding of the nature of science was obtained by summing up individual correct responses to the 48 items in the NSKS. The scores were then analyzed in terms of percentages, means, minimum, maximum, and standard deviations. c. Gender Differences: i. ii. iii. Students understanding of the nature of science. Students cognitive level. Students academic achievement.

For the above, independent t-tests were performed in order to compare means between male and female respondents in terms of their understanding of the nature of science, cognitive levels, and academic achievements. d. Relationships between Understanding of the nature of Science and Cognitive Level. Pearson correlation analysis was used to find the relationship for the above.

e. Relationship between Understanding of the nature of Science and Academic Achievement. Pearson correlation analysis was used to find the relationship for the above.

3.0 RESULTS
5

Data obtained from the respondents were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences Version 11.0. An alpha level of significance of 0.05 was used for all the statistical tests. The findings are presented in the following sequence: 1. Profile of the subjects of the study. 2. Students understanding of the nature of science. 3. Gender differences in: a. Students understanding of the nature of science.

b. Students cognitive levels. c. Students academic achievement.

4. Relationships between understanding of the nature of science and cognitive levels. 5. Relationships between understanding of the nature of science and academic achievement.

3.1

Profile of the Respondents of the Study Forty Form 5 Mara Junior Science College (MRSM) Balik Pulau participated in this

study. Out of forty respondents, 23 of them were males and the other 17 were females. Their profiles are described in terms of distribution by cognitive levels and academic achievements:

3.1.1

Distribution of Respondents by Cognitive Levels

Cognitive levels of the respondents were determined by their scores in Lawson (1978) Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning (CTSR). The CTSR is designed to test students reasoning ability in the concepts of conservation of weight and volume, separation of variables, the usage of prepositional logic, combinatorial reasoning, and correlations. The minimum score a respondent may obtain is 0 and maximum is 10. Based on their scores, respondents were categorized into Piagetian developmental levels of Concrete Operation (scores of 0-3), Transitional (scores of 4-6), and Formal Operation (scores of 7-10). Table 1 shows the distribution of MRSM students by cognitive levels.

Table 1 Distribution of MRSM Students by Cognitive Level Cognitive Level Concrete Operation Transitional Formal Operation Total Frequency n 16 19 5 40 Percentage % 40.0 47.0 13.0 100.0 Cumulative Percentage 40.0 87.0 100.0 100.0

From Table 1, it is shown that 40% (n=16) of the respondents operate at Concrete Operational level, 47% (n=19) are at Transitional level, and the other 13% (n=5) are at Formal Operation Level.

3.1.2

Distribution of the Respondents by Academic Achievements

7

The respondents academic achievements are based on their performance in their Semester Examination. From there, the scores for general academic achievement were obtained from their total Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA). Respondents with CGPA ranging from 3.00 to 4.00 are categorized as High Achievers while the Average Achievers and Low Achievers categories are those who obtain CGPA ranging from 2.90 to 2.00 and 1.90 to 0.00 respectively. Table 2 shows the distribution of the respondents by general academic achievement while

Table 2 Distribution of MRSM Students by General Academic Achievement Category of Academic Achievement High Achiever Average Achiever Low Achiever Total Frequency n 23 17 0 40 Percentage % 57.5 42.5 0 100 Cumulative Percentage 57.5 100.0 100.0 100.0

From Table 2, more than half of the respondents are High Achievers (57.5% n =23). No Low achievers are observed found in this sample.

3.2

Students Understanding of the Nature of Science The findings in this section will attempt to give answer to the first research question.

From students correct responses to the items in the NSKS, an average score for their general
8

understanding was obtained. To gain a more detail picture of the students understanding of the nature of science, students mean scores for each of the subscales in the NSKS were computed. Percent mean score for each subscale was obtained by finding the mean of the 8 items in each subscale. These subscales were Amoral, Creative, Developmental, Parsimonious, Testable, and Unified. Table 3 to Table 8 displays the distributions of frequencies and percentages of students having the right conception of the nature of science. The score were then ranked as shown in Table 9 in order to see the aspects of nature of science that student have problems with.

Table 3 Distribution of MRSM Students Levels of Understanding of Amoral Aspect of the Nature of Science

Item Subscale Number 4 5 7* Amoral 8 18* 21* 36* NSKS Item

The applications of scientific knowledge can be judged as good or bad, but the knowledge itself cannot. It is incorrect to judge a piece of scientific knowledge as being good or bad. Certain pieces of scientific knowledge are good and others are bad Even if the applications of a scientific theory are judged to be good, we should not judge the theory itself. Moral judgment can be passed on scientific knowledge. It is meaningful to pass moral judgment on both the applications of scientific knowledge and the knowledge itself. If the applications of a piece of scientific knowledge are generally considered bad, then the piece of knowledge is also considered to be bad. A piece of scientific knowledge should not be judged good or bad.

Students having the right conceptions Frequency n 25 20 11 26 20 30 7 % 62.5 50.0 27.5 65.0 50.0 75.0 17.5

48

27 51.9%

67.8

Percent mean score for the overall understanding of the Amoral aspect of the nature of science * Negative items

Table 4 Distribution of MRSM Students Levels of Understanding of Creative Aspect of the Nature of Science

10

Item Subscale Number 1* 17 20 Creative 23* 28 32 34* 41 NSKS Item

Scientific laws, theories, and concepts do not express creativity. Scientific knowledge expresses the creativity of scientists. Scientific laws, theories, and concepts express creativity. Scientific knowledge is not a product of human imagination. A scientific theory is similar to a work of art in that they both express creativity. Scientific knowledge is a product of human imagination. Scientific knowledge does not express the creativity of scientists. Scientific theories are discovered, not created by man.

Students having the right conceptions Frequency n 8 28 30 16 27 18 5 31 50.9% % 20.0 70.0 75.0 40.0 67.5 45.0 12.5 77.5

Percent mean score for the overall understanding of the Creative aspect of the nature of science * Negative items

Table 5 Distribution of MRSM Students Levels of Understanding of Developmental Aspect of the Nature of Science

11

Item Subscale Number 16 25* 26 Developmental 27* 31* 37 42 NSKS Item

We accept scientific knowledge even though it may contain error. Biology, chemistry, and physics are similar kinds of knowledge. Todays scientific laws, theories, and concepts may have to be changed in the face of new evidence. We do not accept a piece of scientific knowledge unless it is free of error. Scientific beliefs do not change over time. Scientific knowledge is subject to review and change. Those scientific beliefs which were accepted in the past and since have been discarded should be judged in their historical context. Scientific knowledge is unchanging.

Students having the right conceptions Frequency % n 11 21 28 25 13 29 28 27.5 52.5 69.0 62.5 32.5 72.5 70.0

43* Percent mean score for the overall understanding of the Developmental aspect of the nature of science

8 50.8%

20.0

* Negative items

Table 6 Distribution of MRSM Students Levels of Understanding of Parsimonious Aspect of the Nature of Science
12

Item Subscale Number 2 6 14* Parsimonious 15* 29 39* 40* 46 NSKS Item
Scientific knowledge is stated as simply as possible. If two scientific theories explained a scientists observation equally well, the simpler theory is chosen. Scientific laws, theories, and concepts are stated as simply as possible. There is an effort in science to build as great number of laws, theories, and concepts as possible. There is an effort in science to keep the number of laws, theories, and concept at a minimum. If two scientific theories explain a scientists observation equally well, the more complex theory is chosen. Scientific knowledge is specific as opposed to comprehensive. Scientific knowledge is comprehensive as opposed to specific.

Students having the right conceptions Frequency % n 19 27 28 12 13 13 27 21 67.5% 47.5 67.5 70.0 30.0 32.5 32.5 67.5 52.5

Percent mean score for the overall understanding Parsimonious aspect of the nature of science

of the

* Negative items

Table 7 Distribution of MRSM Students Levels of Understanding of Testable Aspect of the Nature of Science
13

Item Subscale Number 9* 11* 12 NSKS Item

Scientific knowledge need not be capable of experimental test. Consistency among test results is not a requirement for the acceptance of scientific knowledge. A piece of scientific knowledge will be accepted if the evidence can be obtained by other investigators working under similar conditions. The evidence for scientific knowledge need not be opened to public examination. The evidence for scientific knowledge must be repeatable. The evidence for a piece of scientific knowledge does not have to be repeatable. Scientific laws, theories, and concepts are tested against reliable observations. Consistency among test results is a requirement for the acceptance of scientific knowledge.

Students having the right conceptions Frequency % n 5 11 29 12.5 27.5 72.5

Testable

13* 22 33* 38 45

7 33 5 34 32 48.8%

17.5 82.5 12.5 85.0 80.0

Percent mean score for the overall understanding of the Testable aspect of the nature of science * Negative items

14

Table 8 Distribution of MRSM Students Levels of Understanding of Unified Aspect of the Nature of Science

Item Subscale Number 3 10* 19* Unified 24* NSKS Item

The laws, theories, and concepts of biology, chemistry, and physics are related. The laws, theories, and concept of biology, chemistry, and physics are not linked. The laws, theories, and concepts of biology, chemistry, and physics are not related. Relationships among the laws, theories, and concepts of science do not contribute to the explanatory and predictive power of science. The various sciences contribute to a single organized body of knowledge. Biology, chemistry, and physics are similar kinds of knowledge. Biology, chemistry, and physics are different kinds of knowledge. The laws, theories, and concepts of biology, chemistry, and physics are interwoven.

Students having the right conceptions Frequency % n 37 3 6 7 95.0 7.5 15.0 17.5

30 35 44* 47

28 18 12 23 42.2%

70.0 45.0 30.0 57.5

Percent mean score for the overall understanding of the Unified aspect of the nature of science

* Negative items

15

Table 9 Rank Order of MRSM Students Understanding of the Nature of Science

Rank Order 1 2 3 4 5 6

Aspect of the Nature of Science

Level of Understanding (percent mean score)

Parsimonious Amoral Creative Developmental Testable Unified

% 67.5 51.9 50.9 50.8 48.8 42.2

Overall Understanding

52%

Tables 3 to 9 display detail results on MRSM students understanding of the nature of science for each sub-scale, namely amoral, creative, developmental, unified, parsimonious, and testable. The results are summarized in Table 9 in order to see the overall level of understanding of the nature of science and the rank of understanding for each subscale. Table 9 shows that the overall understanding of the nature of science is 52%. Students show the most understanding in Parsimonious subscale (67.5%) and lowest understanding in the Unified subscale (42.2%). Students understanding for Creative and Developmental subscale is almost the same, with mean scores of 50.9% and 50.8% respectively.
16

3.3

Gender Differences

This study also interested into looking whether there are difference between MRSM male and female students in their: a) Understanding of the nature of science, 2) Cognitive levels, and 3) Academic achievement. The findings from students responses are reported in the following sections: a. Gender Differences in Understanding of the Nature of Science. Table 10 t-test Comparison of NSKS Mean Scores between Male and Female Students

Gender NSKS Score Mean S.D. Males 169.3 15.7 Females 165.7 9.7 t-value .844 Level of Significance .404

Table 10 compares the mean scores of male and female students in their understanding of the nature of science. From the Table, male students score higher than female student with mean scores of 169.3 to 165.7 respectively. But with p-value of .404 (t=.844) indicates that the difference is statistically insignificant ( p>0.05).

b. Gender Differences in Cognitive levels.

17

Table 11 t-test Comparison of CTSR Mean Scores between Male and Female Students Gender CTSR Score Mean S.D. Males 3.91 1.59 Females 4.59 2.15 t-value -1.142 Level of Significance .261

Table 11 compares the mean scores of male and female students in their level of cognitive reasoning. From the Table, female students score higher than male student with mean scores of 4.59 to 3.91 respectively. But with p-value of .261 (t= -1.142) indicates that the difference is statistically insignificant ( p>0.05).

c.

Gender Differences in Academic Achievement. Table 12

t-test Comparison of CGPA Mean Scores between Male and Female Students

Gender CGPA Score Mean S.D. Males 3.13 0.49 Females 3.17 0.44 t-value -.299 Level of Significance .766

Table 11 compares the mean scores of male and female students in their level of academic achievement. From the Table, female students score higher than male student with
18

mean scores of 3.17 to 3.13 respectively. But with p-value of .7661 (t= -.299) indicates that the difference is statistically insignificant ( p>0.05). To summarize, although gender differences in means scores of NSKS, CTRS, and CGPA are observed, they are statistically insignificant.

3.4

Relationships between Students Understanding of the Nature of Science and Cognitive Levels.

19

The following table displays results of Pearson-r correlation procedure between students understanding of the nature of science and cognitive level. I Table 13 Pearson-r Correlation between NSKS Scores and Cognitive Level NSKS Cognitive Levels r .105 df 38 Sig (1-tailed) .260

Table 13 indicates that there is a very weak correlation between students understanding of the nature of science and cognitive level r (38) = .105, p > .05.

3.5

Relationships between Students Understanding of the Nature of Science and Academic Achievement.

Table 14 Pearson-r Correlation between NSKS Scores and Cognitive Level r .059 NSKS df 38 Sig (1-tailed) .358

Cognitive Levels

Table 13 indicates that there is a very weak correlation between students understanding of the nature of science and cognitive level r (38) = .0.358, p > .05.

4.0

CONCLUSION

20

To summarize, it was found that for the first research question on students overall understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge, students performance on their understanding is at 52%. This indicates that there are almost half of the nature of scientific knowledge that students are not aware of. For the second research question gender differences in academic, cognitive level (CTSR), understanding (NSKS), although a slight differences in mean score are observed in this sample, all the differences are statistically insignificant. Regarding research questions 3 and 4 on relationship between understanding of the nature of science with cognitive level and academic achievement, the findings indicates that relationships are weak ad insignificant. At present, the findings for this sample remain inconclusive.

21

REFERENCES Hogan, K. (2000). Exploring a process of students knowledge about the nature of science. Science Education, 84, 51-70. Kimball, M.E. (1967-1968). Understanding of the nature of science: A comparison of scientist and science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5(2), 110-120. Lawson, A.E. (1978). The development and validation of a classroom test of formal reasoning ability. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15(1), 11-24. Rubba, P.E. & Anderson, H.O. (1978). Development of an instrument to access school students understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 62(4), 449-458.

22