Comparative Analysis Of Secondary School Students’ Attitudes Towards Science And Its Learning: The Singapore Experience Based Upon Gender, Academic Levels And Streams Differences

Kumar Laxman*, Dr. Yap Kueh Chin**
* Corresponding Author, National Institute of Education, Singapore.
** National Institute of Education, Singapore
Periodicity:May - July'2009


Students’ normative perceptions of the nature of Science and their worldviews on the relevance of Science in pragmatic everyday contexts influence their keenness in wanting to learn Science and develop scientific mindsets. The chief goal of the research study delineated in this paper was to examine patterns of commonalities and variations in the attitudes of students enrolled in Singapore secondary schools towards Science as an organized disciplinary field of knowledge and the efficacy of the teaching of Science subjects in the classrooms. A constructed survey was administered as the primary means of data collection and statistical methods were used to analyze the collected data corpus to establish salient research findings. Generally students found Science to be of utility in making better sense of sensory experiences and understanding the complexities of the mechanistic functioning of this universe. Students were also generally satisfied with the quality of teaching being carried out in their classrooms. However, interestingly, gender, academic levels and streams based differences did emerge in scrutinizing students’ responses on their conceptions of the structural character of Science and the approaches adopted in the pedagogical delivery of Science content matter during lesson time.


Student Attitudes, Perception of Science, Science Education, Comparative Studies.

How to Cite this Article?

Dr. Kumar Laxman and Dr. Yap Kueh Chin (2009). Comparative Analysis Of Secondary School Students’ Attitudes Towards Science And Its Learning: The Singapore Experience Based Upon Gender, Academic Levels And Streams Differences. i-manager’s Journal on Educational Psychology, 3(1), 23-33.


[1]. Ausubel, D. (2000). The acquisition and retention of knowledge a cognitive view. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers
[2]. Chiapetta, E. L., & Koballa, T. R. (2005). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.
[3]. Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New York: Basic Books.
[4]. Gunstone, R. F. & Mitchell, I. J. (1998). Metacognition and conceptual change. In Mintzes, J.J., Wandersee, J.H. & Novak, J.D. (Eds.). Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
[5]. Koballa, Jr., T. R., Crawley, F. E., & Shrigley, R. L. (1990). A summary of science education-1988. Science Education, 74 (3), 369-381.
[6]. Lederman, N. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331-359.
[7]. Linn, M.C. (1992). Science education reform: Building the research base. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 821-840.
[8]. Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., Gonzalez, E.J., & Chrostowski, S.J. (2004), Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
[9]. Mintzes J., Wandersee, J., & Novak, J. (2000). Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view (Rev. ed.). San Diego: Academic Press.
[10]. Nakhleh, M. B. (1993). Are our students conceptual thinkers or algorithmic problem solvers? Proceedings of Symposium: Lecture and Learning: Are they compatible? Journal of Chemical Education, 70 (1), 52-55.
[11]. Novak, J.D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86(4), 548-571.
[12]. Pushkin, D.B. (1998). Post-formal thinking and science education: How and why do we understand concepts and solve problems? In J. Kinchella (Ed.), Postformal thinking: Questioning educational psychology and the education it supports. New York: Garland Publishers.
[13]. Roehler, L. & Cantlan, D. (1997). Scaffolding: A powerful tool in social constructivist classrooms. In Hogan, K. & Pressley, M. (Eds.,. Scaffolding student learning. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
[14]. Schreiner C (2006) Exploring a ROSE-garden. Norwegian Youth's Orientations Towards Science - Seen as Signs of Late Modern Identities. Doctoral thesis, University of Oslo, Norway.
[15]. Schreiner C, Sjøberg S (2004) Sowing the seeds of ROSE. Background, rationale, questionnaire development and data collection for ROSE (Relevance of Science Education) - a comparative study of students' views of science and science education. Acta Didactica, 4. Oslo, Norway: University of Oslo Department of Teacher Education and School Development.
[16]. Trowbridge, L. W., Bybee, R.W., & Powell, J.C. (2004). Teaching secondary school science; Strategies for developing scientific literacy, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Purchase Instant Access

Single Article

North Americas,UK,
Middle East,Europe
India Rest of world
Pdf 35 35 200 20
Online 35 35 200 15
Pdf & Online 35 35 400 25

If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article
Options for accessing this content:
  • If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
    Library Recommendation Form
  • If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
  • New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.