Harold W. Kohnl Dickinson College Corlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Student Opinion Polls Their role in science education
The are several reasons for the use of a student opinion poll in elementary science courses. For one, a teacher who fails to take into account the feelings, reactions, and opinions of his students is not teaching. He is lecturing. The use of an opinion poll, passed out during the first class meeting, can immediately establish a rapport between the teacher and the class. Second, the opinion poll helps student motivation. Motivation is indeed a key word these days. Most students in the elementary science courses are poorly motivated. They are enrolled not because they want to be but because they have to he. The questionnaire used should pose questions about current scientific events and controversies. Many of the students when they find that they know little about these scientific problems, or more correctly that they have little hard facts on which to base their opinions, become eager to learn more about them. Another triumph for relevance! Third, a baseline for the spectrum of student abilities is established. The auestionnaire can include auestions on scientific preparatfon. Also student attitudes'toward certain problems such as technoloeical solutions to oollution " problems, military orientation or financing of research, moral responsibilities of scientists. etc.. can reveal differences in student attitudes and of wh&h the teacher should he aware. It seems axiomatic that the attitudes of, for example, ghetto blacks a t a local community college would be different than those of white students at any ivy league university. The questionnaire allows the teacher to realize just what those differences are. Otherwise the teacher has made an assumption based on no data. Such assumptions can he, and often are, w r ~ n g . ~ Fourth, the questionnaire itself has a certain amount of research value. A great deal has been written, especially since the late C. P. Snows classic Rede lecture ("The Scientific Revolution and the Two Cultures") about science
Presented at the May 5, 1972 meeting of the Pennsylvania Association of College Chemistry Teachers, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 'Present address: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 450 East Town St.. Columbus, Ohio 43216. As an example (discussed in a local seminar) concern for the environment does not extend to ghetto dwellers. Once this is brought out it seems logical; their environment is so bad that national parks and free flawing wild rivers mean little to them. Thus, the assumption that an environmental twist will turn any student on is not justified. 3McNarry, L. R., and O'Farrell, D. R., Science, 172, 1060 (19711. Staff Report, Bull. Atam. Sci., 32 (May, 1971). Mead, M., and Metraux, R., Science, 126, 384 (1957). Snow, A., and Cohen, L. K., J. Ed. Res., 61, 456 (19681. Of these references two work with small student samples questioned in depth and one is obviously out of date. C o p i e s of the questionnaire will be sent on request. J I am indebted to Professor Wilhelm Kempf of the Dickinson College Computer Center for the computer programming and results. My tendency is to lump all three of these categories together since one usually votes and spends according to his upbringing. 'Copies of this questionnaire are also available on request. 714
/
Journal of Chemical Education
and society, science and the concerned citizen, science for nonscientists, science and relevance, ad infiniturn. Such articles and discussions are invariably written by scientists. Research directors of large corporations and institutes seem particularly prone to write on this subject, and the "Letters to the Editor" section of Chemical and Englneering News, Physics Today, Geotimes, etc. are full of such discussions. Public opinions about science are discussed ad nauseum. But most such discussions are based again on no data.3 By using an opinion poll one may hope eventually to obtain hard data on what the public is thinking. At least one can find out what his particular public is thinking. Finally one can refer back to the questionnaire during the course as material relevant to these scientific questions occur. During a one semester non-majors course we had a panel discussion and a debate on the role of technology in pollution abatement. During the frequent short quizzes students with extra time were urged to write a short essay on a pertinent subject. Such subjects were desirable qualities in a personal transportation system, the desirability of a laboratory in a non-majors course, technological fixes, science versus scientism, the role of the non-majors course in education, etc. A good deal of interest in the questionnaire and its results was evinced by several colleagues as well as by the students themselves. Even the programming of the results was used by the computer center as an exercise. Many of us found the questionnaire most valuable. The Questionnaire
A short three page multiple choice questionnaire' with fifteen apparent questions (which subdivided into twentytwo responses) was distributed to beginning students a t Dickinson, Gettysburg, and Wilson colleges at the heginning of the 1971-72 school year. Chemistry students, both science majors and non-maiors were the main samole: . . small groups of physics, language and mathematics students were also sampled. Eizht samoles com~risine464 usable replies were obtained. 'k short 'form of the 1971-72 questionnaire follows. AddI-Identification 2-Chemiafry 3-Physics &Blank 5-Mathematier &Merit Bedgea ?-Attitude 8-National Pmblems 9-World Pmblema LO-Pollution Il-Moliuation 12-TV 13~TVTime 14-Mmn 15-SST 16-Nuclear Power I?-Bomb Testing 18Car 19-Car O m e n h i p 20-Car Availability 21-lnfelleet 22-We11 or Poorly Informed 23-Self Evaluation.
A few examples of the questions are given below. A breezy style along with a disclaimer at the beginning were used to put the students at their ease and to increase the honesty of the responses. Opinion Survey This is an opinion suruey, not a test. There are no "right" or "wmng" an3uer.. only honest ones. Try to give 'lrener" answers rather than carefully thought out guesses as to what my opinions might k.I1 already know what I think, I want to know what you think). 2) What is yourattitudetowardsscience in general and chemistry in particular? Great Affection Friendly Toiersnes
Economic Sociological
Technological Military Educational Other 51 Pollution is surely a serious pmhlem. In your opinion will the solution come in the msinfmm: Legal and politiealsetion Educsfionsl activity Technological advancer in pollution control Social pressure and changes Economiclactorn Other 7) Marshall M d u h a n considers TV a more important medium than the book. What ikyour attitudeand how muchdoyouwarch? Most TV ia w0rthles3 Most TV teaches you som~a~~~~teschesyousomethingthiig KidrwafchtoomuchTV SomeTV(%fo%I isvorthwsfehing Ofher 7al IwatchTVOne houraday orless onatotwo hourssdsy Twoto four hours a day More than four hours s day lSevoral students remarked in thinspace that they did not watch TV at all1 81 The Apoilo Moon progrsmwss one or mans greatest technolo@cal and intellectual leafa A po1itiea1 gimmick Adomonstratian ofnations1 prestige and strength A iremendour wasteoftime, money and talent 91 We need the S S T ~ To create jobs TOimprove intercontinental transportation Like a hole in the head AS B backup for the military
ofher 111 Atmospheric nuclear bomb testingwas stopped because Publicopinion war sgainrf if Thesciontiatsconvinced the military that if was harmful Research at tho national labmatorier showed that it was h s m f u l The need totest bombs hasdiminished The Rubrian tests frightened both sides into an agreement Other
Results
The results were coded, entered on punch cards, and computer sorted and correlated by standard methods.5 At first a profile was run on each group as well as a total profile. Following this. a binarv correlation of the total sample was run. Exoerimental Results. Both the nrofiles and the cross correiations shook our preconceived notions ahout what students think, how they think, or indeed, whether they are thinking. In the first place, the profiles of science majors are indistinguishable from those of non-science majors except for address 7 (question 2, see above). None of the binary cross correlations gave us chi squared values large enough to be outside the errors of pure chance (at the 30% confidence level.) In other words, the way the students answered one question had little to do with the way they answered another. Even attitudes, the one criterion which differentiated science and non-science majors did not correlate with resnonses about the various scientific auestions of the day. We did find one correlation. that of attitude towards science with the amount of scientific preparation, including mathematics. Those who were indifferent or hostile in their attitude towards sciencealso had the least scientific
preparation academically. One might then believe that their lack of familiarity leads to hostility or indifference. It seems (to me) more plausible that since they dislike science to begin with, this group simply avoids science courses. The profiles were interesting and (to me) a hit surprising. By and large the students were favorably disposed towards science (71%) with 24% indifferent and only 4% actively hostile. Our national problems in their opinion are primarily sociological (36.5%). economic (1590) or political (11.9%); 13.590 checked all three of these catego~ i e s Only . ~ 2.6% thought they were technological, and only an additional 8.490 checked several categories including technological. On the other band fully 40% expected technological advances to account principally (21.190) or in part (18.9%) for pollution abatement. The cross correlation of questions 8 and 10 showed that a disproportionate number of students (chi squared = 6.7) who had not included technology as one of our most serious national problems expected tecbnological solutions to the pollution problem. Unless they do not consider pollution much of a problem one is forced to the conclusion that they consider anti-pollution technoloev -.easv. . he students were mostly enthusiastic about the Apollo Moon uroaram (56.2%) althoueh manv commented on the cost (16.1%); they were equally down-on the SST (57.790) although (11.2%) left this blank. Their enthusiasm for nuclear power was not overwhelming (34.7%) hut 17.790 declined comment, many adding that they did not know enough about the subject, and the remaining half were about evenlv split in their reasons for beine dubious about it. Also 14% declined comment on nuclear bomb testing because of a lack of knowledae or information. Most of the students are in school because they want better jobs (34.4%), to accumulate knowledge for its own sake (27.8%), or to find themselves (18.1%). Conformity (1.7%) or just having fun (2.4%) scored very low in this category (much to my astonishment). Also they are generally antagonistic toward TV, watching less than one hour a day (75.8%) or one to two hours a day (14.9%). During the course of the semester I found that a surprising number subscribed to magazines, newspapers, or both. At any rate whatever their attitude, it does not seem to come from TV or a t least they do not think so. Some of the questions did not pan out very well or are now dead issues. A new questionnaire' has been prepared which includes questions on oceanoaaphy, . .~ resource management, scientific morals, genetic research, the relation of science and technolow. We are hopine . - to get results from a less parochial sample this year. Acknowledgment
The assistance of professors Monack and Yingst of Wilson College, Parker and Russo of Gettyshurg College, and Leyon Steiner and Kempf of Dickinson College in distrihuting and collecting the questionnaires is gratefully acknowledged.
Volume 50. Number 10, October 1973
/
715
