See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276294820

Relationship of students’ attitudes towards science and

academic achievement.

Chapter · January 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 1,569

1 author:

Ernest Afari
University of Bahrain
40 PUBLICATIONS   134 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Educational Robotics: Engaging the STEM mind View project

The Effect of Gender on Mathematics Attitudes among Elementary School Students: A Multiple
Indicators, Multiple Causes (MIMIC) Modeling. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ernest Afari on 23 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PART II
SCIENCE ATTITUDE AND SOCIO-SCIENTIFIC ISSUES
 P
d
A
CHAPTER 9

ve
RELATIONSHIP OF STUDENTS’
ATTITUDES TOWARD
SCIENCE AND ACADEMIC
I
er s
5
ACHIEVEMENT
re
Ernest Afari
1
The Petroleum Institute
Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
s
r 0
ht

INTRODUCTION
2
ig

Motivating students to learn science is one of the challenges facing science

educators. According to the National Commission on Mathematics and
Science teaching for the 21st century (2000) of the U.S. Department of
Education, success in the new global economy and the expansion of knowl-
edge-based careers depend on how well young people are educated in sci-
©

entific and technical disciplines. According to the National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP), since 1969, there has been a decline in sci-
ll

ence achievement scores of students. Over the last thirty years, a national
study examining trends in undergraduate education has revealed a steady
A

decline in student interest in the sciences and mathematics (Astin, 1997).

Since many students are leaving science courses with negative attitudes

Attitude Measurements in Science Education, pages 245–262

Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 245
 246    E. AFARI

towards science, educators have sought ways to improve science curriculum

and instruction (Simpson and Oliver, 1990).
Attitude has been a very difficult concept to describe since it cannot be
directly observed. This has led to a variety of definitions. One definition
that is commonly used to describe attitudes includes the three components

P
of cognition, affect and behaviour (Kind, Jones, & Barmby, 2007; Rajecki,
1990). These three components are defined as “a knowledge about the

d
object, or the beliefs and ideas component (cognitive); a feeling about the
object, or the like or dislike component (affective); and a tendency towards

A
action, or the objective component (behavioural)” (Reid (2006, p. 4). Ac-

ve
cording to Kind et al. (2007), this definition is a sensible view of attitudes
because these components are closely linked. For example, we know about
science (cognitive) and therefore we have a feeling or an opinion about it
(affective) that may cause us to take a particular action (behavioural). As

I
er
suggested by Crano and Prislin (2006), the three components should be
treated more independently, and that attitudes should be viewed as basis
for evaluative judgements. Kind et al. (2007) stated that when we have an
attitude, we judge something along emotional dimensions, such as good or
es
5
bad, harmful or beneficial, pleasant or unpleasant, important or unimport-
ant. Crano and Prislin (2006) pointed out that it is important to notice that
these evaluative judgements are always towards something, often called the
attitude object. Although some researchers have defined attitudes solely in
g 1
r
terms of the affective component (George, 2000; Germann, 1988), Fish-
bein and Ajzen (1975) viewed attitudes as being formed spontaneously and,
s

inevitably, involving the attributes of an object. Attitudes or the affective

ri 0

component of attitudes, therefore, are linked to the beliefs that a person

ht

holds (Kind et al., 2007).

When children start school, their attitude towards learning is derived
primarily from their home environment (Lumsden, 1994). However, suc-
2

cess or failure in the classroom impacts on these initial attitudes and is

shaped by early school experiences which, in turn, impact on subsequent
classroom situations (Lumsden, 1994; Reynolds & Walberg, 1992). In addi-
tion, students’ attitudes are affected by their interactions with their peers
(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Reynolds & Walberg, 1992; Taylor, 1992). Positive
©

and negative experiences of school activities produce learned responses

which may then impact on students’ attitudes as they get older (Dossey,
ll

Mullis, Lindquist & Chambers, 1988).

A ten-year study conducted in North Carolina by Simpson and Oliver
(1990) revealed that the average American youth entered junior high
A

school with a less than positive attitude toward science and that this attitude
did not improve through high school, and that the attitude toward science
became less positive each year from grade six to ten. They also concluded
 Relationship of Students’ Attitudes Toward Science and Academic Achievement    247

that the way students felt about science in grade ten was a strong predictor
of future achievement in science.
Several studies that followed the publication of the TIMSS (Trends in In-
ternational Mathematics and Science Study) as well as many previous stud-
ies have indicated that there is a significant association between student

P
attitudes with achievement outcomes. According to Martin, Mullis, Foy and
Stanco (2012) each successive TIMSS assessment has shown a strong posi-
d

d
tive relationship within countries between student attitudes toward science
and their science achievement, and that the relationship was bidirectional,

A
with attitudes and achievement mutually influencing each other. They re-

ve
ported that the TIMSS 2011 international results in science indicated that
in biology, chemistry, physics, and earth science, the students who liked
learning the subject had higher average achievement than those who only
somewhat liked or did not like learning it.

I
er
A research by Gardner (1995) indicated that there is little support for any
strong relationship between attitude and achievement. However, Shrigley
(1990) argued that attitude and ability scores can be expected to correlate
moderately. Also, Weinburgh (1995) conducted a meta-analysis research
es
5
that examined gender difference (6,753 students; 18 studies) in student at-
titudes toward science, and correlations between attitudes towards science
and achievement in science. The results indicated that a positive attitude
resulted in higher achievement. A longitudinal study conducted by Oliver
g 1
r
and Simpson (1988) showed a strong relationship between attitudes to-
wards science and their achievement in science.
s

Ali and Awan (2013) conducted a study to examine the relationship be-
ri 0

tween students’ attitudes towards science and achievement in science. The

ht

study involved 1,885 grade 10 students in Pakistan. Their results indicated

that attitude towards science had a significantly positive relationship with
achievement. A meta-analysis of relationship between science achievement
2

and science attitude was conducted by Willson (1983) using forty-three

studies. The results indicated that there was a moderate relationship be-
tween achievement of science and attitude between elementary to college.
©

METHOD
ll

Participants

A convenience sample of 352 students from 33 classes in Abu Dhabi,

A

UAE participated in this study of attitude towards learning of science and

academic achievement in science among students at the college level. Of
the 352 students, 121 were males and 231 were females, ranging in age from
 248    E. AFARI

18 years to 24 years. Approximately 95% of the students were UAE nationals

and the remaining 5% of students were other Arab nationals.
Prior to the administration of the questionnaire, students were informed
that participation in the study was voluntary and that they would not be dis-
advantaged in any way should they decide not to take part in the study. They

P
were also informed of the confidentiality involved in the study. The stu-
dents took 20 minutes to complete the questionnaire. There were no miss-
ing data, since all 352 students returned a fully completed questionnaire.

d
A
ve
Instruments

Attitude Questionnaire
I used two scales to assess students’ attitudes to Science, namely, Enjoy-
ment of Science Lessons and Academic Efficacy. The Enjoyment of Science

I
er
Lessons scale, consisting of eight items, was adapted from one scale in the
test of science-related attitudes (TOSRA; Fraser 1981). The second eight-
item Academic Efficacy scale was based on Jinks and Morgan’s (1999) Stu-
dent Efficacy scale (MJSES). A scale description and a sample item for the
es
5
Enjoyment of Science Lessons and Academic Efficacy scales can be found
in the Table 9.1.
The eight-item academic self-efficacy scale was based on Jinks and Mor-
g 1

gan (1999) Student Efficacy Scale (MJSES). The Academic Self-Efficacy

r
scale assesses the extent to which students have confidence in their aca-
demic competence. The frequency response alternatives for each item are
s

Almost Always, Often, Sometimes, Seldom and Almost Never. Examples of

ri 0

items are “I find it easy to get good grades in science” and “I feel that I am
ht

an intelligent student.” The Academic self-efficacy scale has been found to

be valid and useful in numerous past studies in several countries (Afari et
al., 2013; Aldridge & Fraser, 2008). In my study, the Cronbach alpha reli-
2

ability for the academic self-efficacy scale was 0.94 and considered to be
satisfactory.

TABLE 9.1  Scale Description and Sample Item for the Enjoyment of

Science Lessons and Academic Efficacy Scales
©

Scale Scale Description Sample Item

ll

Enjoyment of Science The extent to which students Lessons in Science class are fun.
Lessons enjoy their science lessons.
Academic Efficacy Students’ belief about their I find it easy to get good grades
A

academic competence. in science.

Note: All items used the response alternatives of Almost Always, Often, Sometimes, Seldom
and Almost Never.
 Relationship of Students’ Attitudes Toward Science and Academic Achievement    249

The Enjoyment of Science Lessons scale was used for my study with a
five-point frequency response format of Almost Always, Often, Sometimes,
Seldom and Almost Never. The Enjoyment of Science Lessons scale has
been found to be valid and useful in numerous past studies in several coun-
tries (Aldridge & Fraser, 2008, 2011; Henderson, Fisher & Fraser, 2000). In

P
my study, the Cronbach alpha reliability for the Enjoyment of Science Les-
sons scale was 0.95 and considered satisfactory. Table 9.1 provides a scale
description and sample item for each of the scales used in my study.
d

d
A
Academic Achievement

ve
Achievement tests are the primary sources of data collection for most
educational systems, although they are not without their critics, they are
generally accepted measures of achievement (Bragg, 2012). Therefore, in
order to examine the relationship between the attitude of college students

I
towards science and their academic achievement, the end of semester sci-

er
ence scores for the students were used to assess students’ achievement.

Students’ Academic Efficacy es

According to Bandura (1977), a potent influence on student behaviour is
5
the beliefs that they hold about their capabilities. According to social cogni-
tive theory, students are more likely to have an incentive to learn if they be-
lieve that they can produce the desired outcomes (Bandura, 1986). Hence,
g 1
r
academic efficacy beliefs are powerful predictors of the choices that students
make, the effort that they expend and their persistence in facing difficul-
ties. Furthermore, aside from task value, a major motivational component
s
ri 0

of expectancy-value theory is ones academic efficacy beliefs. In their expec-

tancy-value theory, Eccles and Wigfield (2002) envisage the direct influence
ht

of students’ expectation beliefs on both achievement-related choices and

performance. Furthermore, according to Pajares (2002), academic efficacy
is intimately related to students’ self-regulated learning. Students with high
2

academic efficacy are more likely to put in more effort, consistently evaluate
their progress and apply self-regulatory strategies (Schunk & Pajares, 2005).
The influence of motivational constructs (learning goal orientation,
science task value and academic efficacy) in science learning on students’
effort regulation in science classrooms involving 1360 science students in
©

grades 8, 9 and 10 in Perth, Australia was examined by Velayutham and Al-

dridge (2012). Their results indicated that motivational beliefs of learning
ll

goal orientation, task value and academic efficacy significantly influenced

students’ self-regulation in science learning. Research conducted previous-
ly has established that academic efficacy is a predictor of academic achieve-
A

ment (Bandura, 1997; Edman & Brazil, 2007; Gore, 2006; Hsieh, Sullivan &
Guerra, 2007; Tyler & Boelter, 2008) and influences academic motivation
and learning (Adeyemo, 2007; Pajares, 1996).
 250    E. AFARI

ANALYSES AND RESULTS

The interrelationships among the set of variables of the attitude to Science

scales (Enjoyment of Science Lessons and Academic self-efficacy) were ex-
plored using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Specific hypotheses con-

P
cerning the structure underlying the set of variables of the attitude scales
was confirmed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). EFA was per-
formed on the sample using SPSS version 22 and CFA was performed using

d
AMOS version 22.

A
The 16 items of the attitude scales were subjected to principal compo-

ve
nents analysis (PCA) using SPSS version 22. The suitability of the data for
factor analysis was first assessed by inspecting the correlation matrix for
evidence of coefficients greater than .3, as recommended by Tabachnick
and Fidell (2007). The inspection of the correlation matrix revealed the

I
er
presence of many coefficients of .3 and above, indicating that factor analy-
sis may be appropriate. Also to help assess the factorability of the data, two
statistical measures generated by SPSS, namely, Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
(Bartlett, 1954), and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling
es
adequacy (Kaiser, 1970, 1974). The KMO value was .95, which exceeds the
5
recommended value of .6 (Kaiser, 1970, 1974) and the Bartlett’s Test of
Sphericity (Bartlett, 1954) was statistically significant, supporting the factor-
ability of the correlation matrix.
g 1
r
Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to extract the factors fol-
lowed by oblique rotation of factors using Oblimin rotation. PCA revealed
the presence of two components with eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining
s
ri 0

9.24%, 2.14% of the variance respectively. An inspection of the screeplot

revealed a clear break after the second component. Using Catell’s (1966)
ht

scree test, it was decided to retain two components for further investigation.
Although the Kaiser’s criterion and the scree test are well known for
determining the number of factors to be retained, an additional technique
2

gaining popularity (Choi, Fuqua & Griffin, 2001; Stober, 1998), is Horn’s
parallel analysis (Horn, 1965). Parallel analysis has been shown to be the
most accurate criterion to use in the assessment of the number of factors
to retain (Hayton, Allen & Scarpello, 2004; Hubbard & Allen, 1987; Zwick
&Velicer, 1986), given that both Kaiser’s criterion and Catell’s scree test
©

have a tendency to overestimate the number of factors. Using the Kaiser’s

criterion, only factors with an eigenvalues greater than or equal to 1 are
ll

retained. The Catell’s scree, however involves plotting each of the eigen-
values of the factors and inspecting the plot to find a point at which the
shape of the curve changes direction and becomes horizontal. The factors
A

above the break in the plot are retained as these contribute the most to the
explanation of the variance in the data set (Pallant, 2007). Parallel analysis
is a Monte Carlo simulation technique that aids researchers in determining
 Relationship of Students’ Attitudes Toward Science and Academic Achievement    251

the number of factors to retain in Principal Component and Exploratory

Factor Analysis (Ledesma & Valero-Mora, 2007). Parallel analysis compares
the size of the eigenvalues with those obtained from a randomly generated
data set of the same size. Those eigenvalues that exceed the corresponding
values from the random data sets are retained for further analysis.

P
The results of the parallel analysis are reported in Table 9.2, using the
Monte Carlo PCA for parallel analysis (computer software) developed by
Watkins (2000). The results showed only two components with eigenvalues
d

d
exceeding the corresponding criterion values for a randomly generated
data matrix of the same size (16 items × 352 respondents). Considering the

A
ve
results of the parallel analysis, which agreed with the number of factors,
suggested by the scree test, it was decided to retain two factors for further
analysis. The two-component solution explained a total of 71.08% of the
variance, with Component 1 contributing 9.24% and Component 2 con-
tributing 2.14%.

I
er
To help in the interpretation of these two components, Oblimin rota-
tion was performed. The rotated solution revealed the presence of a simple
structure (Pallant, 2007; Thurstone, 1947), with both components showing
a number of strong loadings and all variables loading substantially on only
es
5
one component (see Appendix A).
CFA using maximum likelihood estimation was conducted on the sam-
ple using AMOS Version 22 (Arbuckle, 2007) to evaluate model fit. A good
g 1

model fit can be indicated by a non-significant chi-square (Pallant & Bailey,

r
2005), however, other factors can influence this figure, and so several fit
indices were used to measure model fit, as recommended by Hair, Black,
s

Babin & Anderson (2010), Harrington (2009) and Kline (2010). For the
ri 0

incremental fit statistics (Goodness of Fit Index: GFI; the Tucker-Lewis In-
ht

dex: TLI; and the Comparative Fit: CFI) values between .90 and .95 indicate
reasonable fit and values between .95 and 1.00 indicate good fit (Tabach-
nick & Fidell, 2001). Standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) is
2

another absolute fit index commonly referred to. For the SRMR, value of
less than 0.05 would indicate a well-fitting model (Byrne, 2010).The Root

TABLE 9.2  Comparison of Eigenvalues from PCA and

Criterion Values from Parallel Analysis
©

Actual Eigenvalue Criterion Value from

Component from PCA Parallel Analysis Decision
ll

1 9.24 1.38 accept

2 2.14 1.30 accept
A

3 .73 1.24 reject

4 .61 1.18 reject
5 .55 1.14 reject
 252    E. AFARI

Mean-Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) is described by Byrne

(2010) as the most informative statistic in determining model fit as it into
account the number of variables that are estimated in the model. The RM-
SEA values between .05 and .08 indicate reasonable fit and values of less
than or equal to .05 would indicate a good fit (Kline, 2010).

P
Descriptive Statistics
Table 9.3 shows some descriptive statistics for each of the constructs of

d
the attitude questionnaire (Enjoyment of Mathematics Lessons and Aca-

A
demic Self-Efficacy). All means were greater than 3.0, ranging from 3.27

ve
to 4.09, indicating an overall positive response to the constructs that were
measured in this study. The skewness ranged from –.98 to –.30 and kurtosis
ranged from –1.17 to –.02. According to Kline’s (2010) recommendations,
the skewness and kurtosis indices should be below an absolute value of 3.0
and 8.0, respectively.

I
er
As recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), the data was exam-
ined for multivariate normality, multicollinearity and outliers before assess-
ing the factor structure of the responses. The bivariate correlations, tol-
es
5
erance, and variance inflation values indicated that neither bivariate nor
multivariate multicollinearity was present. Because maximum likelihood es-
timation assumes multivariate normality of the observed variables, the data
g 1
r
TABLE 9.3  Descriptive Statistics for the Attitude Scales
(enjoyment of science lessons and academic efficacy)
s
ri 0

Standard
Construct Mean deviation Skewness Kurtosis
ht

EOS1 3.98 1.02 –.61 –.51

EOS2 4.09 1.01 –.66 –.69
2

EOS3 4.09 1.12 –.97 –.12

EOS4 4.06 1.02 –.83 –.18
EOS5 3.27 1.46 –.30 –1.17
EOS6 3.82 1.23 –.76 –.47
EOS7 3.87 1.09 –.47 –.92
EOS8 3.81 1.16 –.46 –.94
©

AE1 4.00 1.02 –.72 –.31

AE2 4.09 1.01 –.98 .45
AE3 3.94 1.06 –.80 –.10
ll

AE4 3.97 1.05 –.87 .31

AE5 3.86 1.10 –.46 –.56
A

AE6 3.94 1.13 –.86 –.11

AE7 4.01 1.04 –.81 –.02
AE8 3.83 1.11 –.46 –.97
 Relationship of Students’ Attitudes Toward Science and Academic Achievement    253

were examined with respect to univariate and multivariate normality (Teo

& Lee, 2012). The value of the Mardia’s coefficient (a standard measure of
multivariate normality) obtained in this study, using AMOS, was 76.17. This
value, as required, was less than [p (p + 2)] where p = the number of ob-
served variables in the model; 16(18) = 288 (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2008).

P
Therefore the requirement of multivariate normality was satisfied and
therefore the data considered adequate for confirmatory factor analysis.
d

d
Convergent Validity
The convergent validity and the discriminant validity of the 16 items of

A
ve
the questionnaire were examined using confirmatory factor analysis (involv-
ing SEM). In assessing the convergent validity of the measurement items in
relation to their constructs, I examined the item reliability of each measure,
composite reliability of each construct, and the average variance extracted,
as proposed by Fornell and Larcker (1981). The item reliability was checked

I
er
by assessing the loadings for each individual item. Regarding reliability at the
item level, the minimum requirement suggested for item loading is 0.7 (Bar-
clay, Higgins & Thompson, 1995; Chin, 1998; Hair, Black, Babin & Anderson,
2010; Hulland, 1999). The item loadings, composite variance and the aver-
es
5
age variance extracted for the research model are reported in Table 9.4. All

TABLE 9.4  Item Loadings, Composite Reliability and Average

g 1
r
Variance Extracted
Item Average Variance Composite
Latent Variable Item loadings Extracted (AVE) Reliability (CR)
s
ri 0

AE8 .74
ht

AE7 .70
AE6 .90
AE5 .82
Academic Efficacy 0.67 0.94
2

AE4 .89
AE3 .80
AE2 .85
AE1 .83

EOS8 .87
©

EOS7 .90
EOS6 .87
EOS5 .76
ll

Enjoyment of
EOS4 .87 0.71 0.95
Science Lessons
EOS3 .81
A

EOS2 .89
EOS1 .78

Note: CR = (∑λ)2/(∑λ)2 + ∑(1 – λ2); AVE = ∑λ2/∑λ2 + ∑(1 – λ2)

 254    E. AFARI

item loadings were found to be above the recommended cut-off point. Thus,
convergent validity was satisfactory at the item level.
At the construct level, an alpha reliability of 0.70 and higher was recom-
mended to reflect adequate reliability (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). The
results in Table 9.4 showed that the reliabilities of the academic efficacy and

P
enjoyment of science scales were .94 and .95 respectively, which are above
the minimum value recommended by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994). The
final criterion for convergent validity used was a measure of the average

d
variance extracted (AVE) for each factor. Fornell and Larcker (1981) and

A
Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) recommended a minimum value of 0.5 for

ve
AVE. Results of the analysis showed that the AVE values for all scales were
above 0.5. Therefore, the measurement properties satisfied all three neces-
sary criteria of convergent validity.

Discriminant Validity

I
er
Discriminant validity assesses the degree to which the constructs are
empirically different. The data analysis results (Table 9.5) supported the
discriminant validity because, for each construct, the square root of the
es
AVE for each construct was larger than its correlation with other constructs.
5
Therefore, the analyses supported that the individual constructs could be
discriminated from each other.
g 1

Test of the Measurement Model

r
The research model in Figure 9.1 was tested using the SEM approach,
using AMOS 22. In this study, all of the fit indices mentioned earlier were
s
ri 0

used. The results of the model fit of this study are reported in Table 9.6. All
the values satisfied the recommended level of acceptable fit, with the excep-
ht

tion of the χ2. Hair et al. (2010) noted that, as the sample size increases,
there is a tendency for the χ2 to indicate significant differences.
For these reason, the ratio of χ2 to its degrees of freedom (χ2/df) was
2

used, with a ratio of 5 or less being indicative of an acceptable fit between

the hypothetical model and the sample data. The results of the model fit,

TABLE 9.5  Inter-Construct Correlations and Square Root

of Average Variance Extracted
©

Enjoyment of
Construct Science Lessons Academic Efficacy
ll

Enjoyment of Science Lessons .84

Academic Efficacy .76** .82
A

*
p < 0.05; **p < 0.01
Note: The bold elements in the main diagonal are the square roots of average
variance extracted.
 Relationship of Students’ Attitudes Toward Science and Academic Achievement    255

Enjoyment

P
d

d
Achievement

A
ve
Academic
Efficacy

I
er
Figure 9.1  The research model (Attitude scales and Achievement).

TABLE 9.6  Fit Indices for the Research Model es

5
Model fit indices Values Recommended guidelines

χ2 319.90, p < 0.001 Nonsignificant

χ2/df 2.88 <5
g 1
r
TLI .95 ≥ .90
CFI .96 ≥ .90
RMSEA .05 < .08 (adequate fit)
s
ri 0

SRMR .04 < .05

ht

Source: Hair et al. (2010)

as shown by the various fit indices in Table 9.6, indicate that the research
2

model fits the data fairly well.

Relationship between Attitudes and Academic Achievement

Relationship between students’ attitudes (enjoyment of science lessons
and academic efficacy) and academic achievement were explored using
SEM. The research model specifying three correlated latent variable; a sec-
©

ond order enjoyment of science lessons and academic efficacy and also aca-
demic achievement was tested (see Figure 9.1). As indicated in Table 9.6,
ll

the model had good fit to the data (χ2 = 319.90, CFI = .96, TLI = .95, RM-
SEA = .05 and SRMR = .04).
A

There was a strong positive correlation between enjoyment of science

lessons and academic efficacy (r = .76, n = 352, p < .01) and a medium posi-
tive correlation between academic achievement and enjoyment of science
 256    E. AFARI

TABLE 9.7  Correlations Between Students’ Attitudes (enjoyment

of science lessons and academic efficacy) and Academic Achievement
Enjoyment Academic efficacy Achievement

P
Enjoyment of Science Lessons
Academic efficacy .76**
Achievement .35** .38**

d
**
p < .01

A
ve
(r = .35, n = 352, p < .01) and also academic achievement and academic
efficacy (r = .42, n = 352, p < .01). This suggest that enjoyment of science
lessons and academic efficacy might influence science achievements, and
also those students who exhibit adequate or strong science ability are more
likely to enjoy science lessons and acquire increased academic efficacy. The

I
er
correlations are displayed in Table 9.7.

Relationship between Attitudes and Achievement

for Males and Females
es
5
Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was used to investigate
the relationship between Students’ Attitudes (enjoyment of science and
Academic efficacy) and Achievement for 121 male students and 231 female
students. The results of correlations of student’s attitudes (enjoyment of
g 1
r
science and Academic efficacy) and achievement for male students and fe-
male students separately are reported in Table 9.8.
s

From Table 9.8, it can be seen that the correlation between enjoyment

ri 0

and academic efficacy for female was r = .73, while for males it was slightly
ht

higher, r = .79. Testing the statistical significance of the difference between

the two correlation coefficients revealed that there was a statistically sig-
nificant difference in the strength of the correlation between enjoyment
2

TABLE 9.8  Correlations Between Students’ Attitudes (enjoyment

of science lessons and academic efficacy) and Academic Achievement
for Male Students and Female Students
Gender Enjoyment Academic Efficacy Achievement
©

Female Enjoyment — .73** .32**

(N = 585) Academic Efficacy — .45**
ll

Achievement —
Male Enjoyment — .79** .41**
A

(N = 454) Academic Efficacy — .44**

Achievement —

**
p < .01
 Relationship of Students’ Attitudes Toward Science and Academic Achievement    257

and academic efficacy for males and females, and that enjoyment explained
statistical significantly more of the variance in academic efficacy for males
than for females.
Correlation between enjoyment of science lessons and achievement for fe-
male was r = .32, while for males it was slightly higher, r = .41. Testing the sta-

P
tistical significance of the difference between the two correlation coefficients
also revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in the strength
of the correlation between enjoyment of science lessons and achievement for
d

d
males and females, and that enjoyment of science lessons explained statistical

A
significantly more of the variance in achievement for males than for females.

ve
Finally, correlation between academic efficacy and achievement for female
was r = .45, while for males it was slightly lower, r = .44, but there was no sta-
tistically significance difference in the strength of the correlation between
academic efficacy and achievement for males and females.

I
er
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
es
This chapter has reported a study that examined the relationship between
5
college students’ attitudes towards science and their academic achievement
in the UAE. Two distinct aspects of students’ attitudes (enjoyment of sci-
ence lessons and academic efficacy) were used for the study. A sample of
g 1
r
352 students responded to attitude questionnaires and the end of semester
science scores for the students were used to assess students’ achievement.
The findings suggest that student’s attitudes toward the learning of sci-
s
ri 0

ence and academic achievement were positively correlated and significant

at .01 level. I also investigated the correlation between student’s attitudes
ht

toward science and academic achievement for male and female students.
The results revealed that there was a statistically positive significant differ-
ence between enjoyment of science lessons and achievement for males and
2

females, and that enjoyment of science lessons explained statistical signifi-

cantly more of the variance in achievement for males than for females. But
there was no statistically significance difference in the strength of the corre-
lation between academic efficacy and achievement for males and females.
The findings suggest that science educators should be encouraged to
©

nurture students’ self-efficacy beliefs as these are related to academic suc-

cess. Also, science educators might promote student enjoyment of science
ll

lessons as this also influence success in academic achievement in science. My

results also revealed that students’ enjoyment of science lessons was strongly
correlated by their perceptions of their academic efficacy. This is consistent
A

with recent studies that reported that academic enjoyment was significantly
positively associated with students’ academic efficacy (Pekrun, Goetz, Fren-
zel, Barchfeld & Perry, 2011; Sakiz et al., 2012). With more positive attitudes
 258    E. AFARI

towards science lessons, it is possible that more students might choose to

pursue science-oriented courses in college and science-related careers.
The study involved a relatively small number of students (352) students
from three colleges in Abu Dhabi) and so the generalisation of the results to
other populations should be made with caution. Although the UAE is a coun-

P
try with seven emirates (states) with at least seven colleges in each emirate, no
sample was drawn from any of the other six emirates. Other limitations are
the multilevel nature of my study and also the fact that my analyses were cor-

d
relational in nature and hence no causal inferences among the variables are
warranted. The results of this study have the potential to motivate educators

A
ve
and policy makers to improve student’s learning environments, which hope-
fully will lead to improved students’ enjoyment of their science lessons and
confidence in their academic competence. This study has shown that there
is a relationship between students’ attitudes towards learning of science and
academic achievement in science, and hence positive attitude towards learn-

APPENDIX
I
er
ing of science could enhance the achievement in science.

es
Pattern and Structure Matrix for PCA with Oblimin
5
Rotation of Two Factor Solution of EOS & AE-16 Items
Pattern Structure
g 1

Item Component 1 Component 2 Component 1 Component 2 Communalities

r
EOS1 .78 –.39 .77 –.38 .75
EOS2 .89 –.41 .85 –.41 .73
s
ri 0

EOS3 .81 –.12 .85 –.11 .73

EOS4 .87 –.30 .88 –.29 .78
ht

EOS5 .76 –.36 .75 –.36 .50

EOS6 .87 –.41 .87 –.41 .86
EOS7 .90 –.44 .89 –.43 .78
2

EOS8 .87 –.44 .86 –.44 .82

AE1 .22 .83 .23 .84 .67
AE2 .39 .85 .40 .82 .78
AE3 .33 .80 .33 .78 .70
AE4 .36 .89 .36 .87 .78
AE5 .40 .82 .41 .84 .69
©

AE6 .42 .90 .42 .87 .73

AE7 .37 .70 .37 .72 .46
ll

AE8 .35 .74 .36 .75 .63

Note: Bolded items indicate major loadings for each item.

A
 Relationship of Students’ Attitudes Toward Science and Academic Achievement    259

REFERENCES

Adeyemo, D. A. (2007). Moderating influence of emotional intelligence on the link

between academic self-efficacy and achievement of university students. Psy-
chology and Developing Societies, 19, 199–213.

P
Afari, E., Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., & Khine, M. S. (2013). Students’ perceptions
of the learning environment and attitudes in game-based mathematics class-
rooms. Learning Environments Research, 16, 131–150.
d

d
Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2008). Outcomes-focused learning environments: Determi-
nants and effects. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

A
Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2011). Effects and determinants of outcomes-focused

ve
learning environments. Curriculum and Teaching, 26, 5–31.
Ali, M. S., & Awan, A. S. (2013). Attitude towards science and its relationship with
students’ achievement in science. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Re-
search in Business, 4(10), 707–718.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2007). Amos™ 16 user’s guide. Chicago: SPSS.

Education, 38(6), 647–658.

I
er
Astin, A. (1997). How “good” is your institution’s retention rate? Research in Higher

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
es
5
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The Partial Least Squares (PLS)
g 1
r
approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and uses as an il-
lustration. Technology Studies, 2, 285−309.
Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square ap-
s

proximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 16 (Series B), 296–298.

ri 0

Bragg, L. A. (2012). Testing the effectiveness of mathematical games as a pedagogi-

ht

cal tool for children’s learning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 10(6), 1445–1467.
Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applica-
2

tions, and programming. Routledge, Taylor & Francis group.

Catell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 1, 245–276.
Chin, W.W. (1998). Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quar-
terly, 22, vii–xvi.
Choi, N., Fuqua, D., & Griffin, B. W. (2001). Exploratory analysis of the structure of
©

scores from the multidimensional scales of perceived self efficacy. Educational

and Psychological Measurement, 61, 475–489.
Crano, W. D., & Prislin, R. (2006). Attitudes and persuasion. Annual Review of Psy-
ll

chology, 57, 345–374.

Dossey, J. A., Mullis, I. V. S., Lindquist, M. M., & Chambers, D. L. (1988). The math-
A

ematics report card: Trends and achievement based on the 1986 National Assessment.
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual
Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132.
 260    E. AFARI

Edman, J. L., & Brazil, B. (2007). Perceptions of campus climate, academic efficacy
and academic success among community college students: An ethnic com-
parison. Social Psychology of Education, 12, 371–383.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduc-
tion to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

P
Fornell, C., & Larker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with un-
observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,
18, 39–50.

d
Fraser, B. J. (1981). Test of Science-Related Attitudes (TOSRA). Melbourne: Australian
Council for Education Research.

A
Gardner, P. L. (1975). Attitudes to science: a review. Studies in Science Education, 2,

ve
1–14.
George, R. (2000). Measuring change in students’ attitudes toward science over
time: An application of latent variable growth modelling. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 9, 213–225.

I
er
Germann, P. J. (1988). Development of the attitude toward science in school assess-
ment and its use to investigate the relationship between science achievement
and attitude toward science in schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
25(8), 689–703.
Gore, P. A. (2006). Academic self-efficacy as a predictor of college outcomes: Two
es
5
incremental validity studies. Journal of Career Studies, 14, 92–115.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Harrington, D. (2009). Confirmatory Factor Analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University
g 1
r
Press.
Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in
exploratory factor Analysis: A tutorial on Parallel Analysis. Organizational Re-
s
ri 0

search Methods, 7, 191–205.

Henderson, D., Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (2000). Interpersonal behaviour, learn-
ht

ing environments, and student outcomes in senior biology classes. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 37, 26−43.
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis.
2

Psychometrika, 30, 179–185.

Hsieh, P., Sullivan, J. R., & Guerra, N. S. (2007). A close look at college students:
Self-efficacy and goal orientation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18, 454–479.
Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management re-
search: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20,
195–204.
©

Hubbard, R., & Allen, S. J. (1987). An empirical comparison of alternative methods

for Principal Component Extraction. Journal of Business Research, 15, 173–190.
ll

Jinks, J. L., & Morgan, V. (1999). Children’s perceived academic self-efficacy: An

inventory scale. Clearing House, 72, 224−230.
A

Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second generation Little Jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401–415.

Kaiser, H. F. (1970). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–36.
Kind, P., Jones, K., & Barmby. P. (2007). Development attitudes towards science
measures. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 871–893.
 Relationship of Students’ Attitudes Toward Science and Academic Achievement    261

Kline, R.B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Ledesma, R. D., & Valero-Mora, P. (2007). Determining the number of factors to re-
tain in EFA: An easy-to-use computer program for carrying out parallel analy-
sis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12, 1–11.

P
Lumsden, L. (1994). Students’ motivation to learn. Emergency Librarian, 22(2),
31–32.
Martin, O., Mullis, I. V. S., Foy, P., & Stanco, G. M. (2012). TIMSS 2011 International
d

d
results in science (MA). Retrieved September 6, 2014 from http://timssand-
pirls.bc.edu/timss2011/encyclopedia-timss.html

A
ve
National Center for Education Statistics (2001). 1998 National Assessment of Educa-
tional Progress (NAEP) high school transcript study (NCES 2001477). Washington
DC: US Department of Education.
National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st century
(2000). Before its too late: A report to the nation from the National Commission on

I
er
Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st century. Jessup, MD: Education Pub-
lications Center. Retrieved September 6, 2014 from http://weirdsciencekids.
com/files/Before_It_s_Too_Late.pdf
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994).Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
es
5
McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, J. S., & Simpson, R. D. (1988). Influences of attitude toward science, achieve-
ment motivation, and science self concept on achievement in science: a lon-
gitudinal study. Science Education, 72, 143–155.
g 1
r
Pajares, E. (1996). Self–efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational
Research, 66, 543–578.
Pajares, F. (2002). Gender and perceived self-efficacy in self-regulated learning.
s
ri 0

Theory into Practice, 41, 116–125.

Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using SPSS
ht

(3rd ed.). Allen &Unwin.

Pallant, J. F., & Bailey, C. M. (2005). Assessment of the structure of the Hospital
Anxiety and Depression Scale in musculoskeletal patients. Health and Qual-
2

ity of Life Outcomes, 3(82). Retrieved September 6, 2014 from http://www.

hqlo.com/content/3/1/82
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Barchfeld, P., & Perry, R. P. (2011). Measuring
emotions in students’ learning and performance: The achievement emotions
questionnaire (AEQ). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 36–48.
Rajecki, D. W. (1990). Attitudes. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.
©

Reid, N. (2006). Thoughts on attitude measurement. Research in Science and Technol-

ogy Education, 24(1), 3–27.
ll

Reynolds, A. J., & Walberg, H. J. (1992). A process model of mathematics achieve-

ment and attitude. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(4),
306–328.
A

Sakiz, G., Pape, S. J., & Hoy, A. W. (2012). Does perceived teacher affective sup-
port matter for middle school students in mathematics classrooms? Journal
of School Psychology, 50, 235–255.
 262    E. AFARI

Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2005). Competence beliefs in academic function-

ing. In A. J. Elliot & C. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation
(pp. 85–104). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Shrigley, R. L. (1990). Attitude and behavior are correlates. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 27(2), 97–113.

P
Simpson, R. D., & Oliver, J. S. (1990). A summary of major influences on attitude
toward and achievement in science among adolescent students. Science Educa-
tion, 74, 1–18.

d
Stober, J. (1998). The Frost multidimensional perfectionism scale revisited: more
perfect with four (instead of six) dimensions. Personality and Individual Dif-

A
ferences, 24, 481–491.

ve
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007).Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston,
MA: Pearson Education.
Taylor, L. (1992). Mathematical attitude development from a Vygotskian perspec-
tive. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 4(3), 8–23.
Teo, T., & Lee, C. B. (2012). Assessing the factorial validity of the Metacognitive Aware-

I
er
ness Inventory (MAI) in an Asian Country: A confirmatory factor analysis. The
International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 10(2), 92–103.
Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple factor analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press. es
Tyler, K., & Boelter, C. (2008). Linking black middle school students’ perceptions of
5
teachers’ expectations to academic engagement and efficacy. The Negro Educa-
tion Review, 59(1–2), 27–44.
Velayutham, S., Aldridge, J. M. (2012). Influence of psychosocial classroom environ-
g 1

ment on students’ motivation and self-regulation in science learning: A struc-

r
tural equation modeling approach. Research in Science Education, online, 1–21.
Watkins, M. W. (2000). Monte Carlo PCA for parallel analysis [computer software].
State College, PA: Ed & Psych Associates.
s
ri 0

Weinburgh, M. (1995). Gender differences in student attitudes toward science. Jour-

nal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 387–398.
ht

Willson, V. L. (1983). A meta-analysis of the relationship between science achieve-

ment and science attitude: Kindergarten through college. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 20(9), 839–850.
2

Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the
number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 432–442.
©
ll
A

View publication stats