Comparison of preservice elementary teachers anxiety about teaching students to identify minerals and rocks and students in geology courses anxiety about identification of minerals

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 22, NO. 1, PP. 63-79 (1985)

COMPARISON OF PRESERVICE ELEMENTARY TEACHERS ANXIETY ABOUT TEACHING STUDENTS TO IDENTIFY MINERALS AND ROCKS AND STUDENTS IN GEOLOGY

COURSES ANXIETY ABOUT IDENTIFICATION OF MINERALS AND ROCKS

MARY E. WESTERBACK and CLEMENCIA GONZALEZ

C. W. Post Campus, Department of Geology-Geography, Greenvale, New York 11548

LOUIS H. PRIMAVERA

St. John’s University, Department of Psychology, Jamaica, New York 11439

Abstract

Students were given clearly defined, characteristics for the identification of minerals and rocks. This system requires visual identification of decisive characteristics, not rote memorization. In addition, this classification system differs from the usual method of first grouping rocks into the igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic categories. In this study the initial grouping of rocks was crystalline or noncrystalline. Two groups of students (preservice elementary teachers & students in geology courses) were tested on their ability to identify the characteristics listed in Figure 1. The preservice teachers were anxious about teaching students to identify minerals and rocks. This initial high anxiety was reduced by completion of the task of identification. Students in geology classes were given the same task as the preservice teachers. However, the students in geology courses were not anxious about identifying minerals and rocks. Further analysis of the geology students showed that students whose grades on the lab exam were above the mean had low initial anxiety and the level of anxiety was reduced after the exam. Geology students with grades below the mean had high initial anxiety and the anxiety level was elevated after the exam. This indicates an inverse relationship between anxiety and performance in these students, and supports the work of researchers in the field of psychology.

Introduction

Recent studies in the field of science education indicate that subject matter is a neglected area of research in science education (Stewart, Finley, & Yarroch, 1981;Fidey, 1981, 1981a; Finley & Smith, 1980; Finley, 1983. Stewart and Atkin (1982) recommend &at science educators emphasize the role knowledge plays in learning and problem solving. They encourage a refocus of science education research on the interaction of students with specific science content. Stewart, Finley. and Yarroch (1981) state “One research focus that would be of particular

0 1985 by the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0022-4308/8S/Ol0063-17$04.00

64 WESTERBACK, GONZALEZ, AND PRIMAVERA

value to teachers is the detailed study of of student learning in narrowly delineated areas of science” (p. 426).

Finley, Stewart, and Yarroch (1982) conducted a survey of earth science, chemistry, physics, and biology teachers to determine what content areas in their subject was difficult and important for students to learn. Mineral classification, metamorphic rock classification, igneous rock classification, and metamorphism were among the top 15 items in earch science for both difficulty and importance.

The task of identification of minerals and the determination of concepts relevant to this task has been investigated by Finley (1981b). In his study the identification of minerals was the dependent variable and the the following mineral properties the independent variables: luster, hardness, cleavage, color, streak, and logical classification rule. In his study hardness, cleavage, and luster accounted for 58.7% of the variance. Finley states that hardness and cleavage are important for the effectiveness of mineral classification. In another study, Finley (1 98 la) dis- cusses igneous rock classification schemes. He states that the nature and organization of content is an important variable.

Finley and Smith’s (1980) study was based on the idea that important components of science processes could be conceived of as task-specific cognitive strategies in which the concepts are the information used to make a sequence of decisions. The authors showed that within a given framework, fourth grade students were able to learn task-specific strategies (comparison of grain size, and determination of color in igneous rocks).

Gaudry and Spielberger (197 1) indicate that the relationship between anxiety and academic achievement is complex. In the studies reported in the psychology literature there appears to be a consistent negative relationship between anxiety and academic achievement.

This study is reported in two parts: Part I describes the study of preservice elementary techers and their anxiety about teaching students to identify minerals and rocks and Part I1 describes the study of students taking geology as an elective to fulfill their science requirement and their anxiety about the identification of minerals and rocks. These two groups of students were given the same lecture and laboratory instruction and the same task to complete. The only difference was that elementary teachers were asked how they felt about teaching others to identify minerals and rocks and students in geology classes were asked how they felt about identifying minerals and rocks.

Purpose

It was the researchers purpose to provide instruction which did not require rote memorization, but instead train students to observe decisive characteristics for grouping minerals and rocks. This task has been identified as difficult (Finley, Stewart & Yarroch, 1982) and little research has been done on specific content areas and anxiety. Therefore, the researchers purpose was to measure initial anxiety levels and anxiety levels after completion of this task in two different student populations (preservice teachers and students in geology classes). Because the scheme used in this system differs from “traditional” approaches, and because the reader must be aware of the teaching strategy a complete description of the criteria for classification decisions follows.

Anxiety and Characteristics for Mineral and Rock Identification

Each of the teachers in the present studies have had more than 15 years experience in teaching college geology. It has been their observation that students tend to memorize the individual samples provided in lab, and not identify the characteristics which will enable them to

TEACHER-STUDENT ANXIETY 65

identify an unknown sample. Consequently, when practical exams are given where the specimens differ from the laboratory examples, students appear not to transfer their knowledge. This appears to provoke anxiety in students.

Students were told that in nature it is unrealistic for them to expect that they will be able to identify d minerals and rocks from hand specimens. This goal is not practical even for the professional geologist who can be deceived by hand specimens. However, it is possible to identify common rock forming minerals, and the major categories of rocks.

In lecture and lab students were provided with a conceptual framework to understand the properties of minerals which are important for mineral identification and the origin of rocks and visual texturalfstructural features which reveal this origin.

These studies were designed to develop students ability to observe important criteria for mineral and rock identification and to link these observations with concepts about the conditions under which these earth material were formed. The information on Figure 1 was provided in class and for use during the laboratory practical. The information helps eliminate rote

MINERAL

A. LUSTRE 1. M e t a l l i c 2. Non-meta l l ic

a . G las sy ( v i t r e o u s ) b. Res inous

d. Greasy

f . S i l k y 1. No c l eavage g. D u l l ( f r a c t u r e )

c. Adamantine (diamond l i k e ) C. COLOR

e. P e a r l y D. CLEAVAGE

2. Cleavage 8 . TRANSMISSION OF LIGHT (DIAPHANETY)

1. Non-opaque ( T r a n s p a r e n t & T r a n s l u c e n t ) 2 . Opaque

ROCK

E. CRYSTALINITY OF ROCK H. DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS 1 - C r y s t a l l i n e 2 . N o n - c r y s t a l l i n e 1. FOR IGNEOUS ROCKS

a . L i g h t w i t h f i n e g r a i n s F. TEXTURE/STRUCTU R E b. L i g h t w i t h c o a r s e g r a i n s

1. Glassy c . I n t e r m e d i a t e wi th f i n e g r a i n s 2. V e s i c u l a r d. I n t e r m e d i a t e wi th c o a r s e g r a i n s 3 . F i n e g r a i n e d ( a p h a n a t i c ) e. I n t e r m e d i a t e wi th f i n e AND 4 . Coarse g r a i n e d ( p h a n a r a t i c ) c o a r s e g r a i n s 5. P o r p h y r i t i c f . Dark w i t h f i n e g r a i n s 6 . P e g m a t i t i c g. Dark w i t h c o a r s e g r a i n s I. G n e i s i c 8. S c h i s t o s e 2. FOR METAMORPHIC ROCKS 9 . S l a t e y (METAMORPHIC G R A D E )

1 0 . Massive a . High ( i . e . g n e i s s ) 11. C l a s t i c b. Medium (1.e. s c h i s t ) 1 2 . Non-c l a s t i c c. Low ( i . e . s l a t e )

d. C a n ' t t e l l ( i . e . m a r b l e , q u a r t z i t e ) G. ROCK GROUP

1. Igneous 3 - FOR SEDIMENTARY ROCKS 2. Metamorphic a . Q u a r t z r i c h ( i . e . s a n d s t o n e ) 3 . Sedimentary b. Clay r i c h [ i . e . s h a l e )

c . Carbonate r i c h ( i . e . l imes tone ) d. Organic r i c h ( i . e . Coal) e. E v a p o r i t e s ( i .e . gypsum) f . Me tasomat i t e s ( c h e r t ) -

Fig. 1. Characteristics for identifying minerals and rocks.


memorization and encourages students to observe the characteristics of minerals and rocks use- ful for identification. In the present study the goal was not for students to correctly name the minerals or rocks but to correctly identify distinguishing characteristics important for later identification.

Description of Task

The information on Figure 1 was defined in lecture and illustrated by colored slides. The information was used in lab for the practical task of identification of mineral and rock characteristics. Students practiced the identification of unknowns using this information prior to the actual lab practical.

The first decision a student had to make was the recognition of the sample as a mineral or a rock. In this study all minerals were uniform (homogeneous) and clearly showed the following properties: luster, transmission of light, color, and cleavage or fracture. In lecture luster and transmission of light were taught as related properties. Minerals with metallic luster are always opaque. Minerals with nonmetallic lusters are most likely to be translucent or transparent. Translucence can be difficult to detect if the specimen is thick. Students should examine nonmetallic specimens carefully. Finding an edge and examining this edge in the light may reveal translucence. Hardness was demonstrated in lab but was not used in the practical examinations because we had limited the exam to 45 minutes and also did not want to have our exam speci- ments scratched.

The rock samples used in this course showed textures related to their origins. Most rocks are heterogeneous. However, some rocks are homogeneous or nearly homogeneous, for example, limestones and marbles rich in calcium carbonate and quartz rich quartzite. These rock samples are easily distinguished from the mineral samples of calcite and quartz because the individual mineral samples clearly exhibit cleavage or fracture and the textures of the rock samples show the conditions of formation.

If it is determined that the sample is a rock, the first decision the student must make is: Is the rock crystalline or noncrystalline? Crystalline rock is an inexact general term used for igneous and metamorphic rocks as opposed to sedimentary rocks (American Geological Insti- tute, p. 116). The crystalline rock is a compact, massive rock showing a certain degree of crystallinity expressed by its crystalline texture (granularity) and vitreous luster through one or more of the rock forming silicate minerals. Minerals are all in a crystalline state and form an intergrowth.

It is common practice to have students first group rocks into three categories; igenous, sedimentary, and metamorphic. In this study the initial distinction is between crystalline and noncrystalline rocks, followed by textual/structural distinctions, and then igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic grouping. l h s system conforms with the actual practice of field geo- logists.

Crystalline rocks are complex and include many kinds of igneous and metamorphic rocks. In this study only the principal types of crystalline rocks which can be distinguished by visible field characteristics were included. The igneous rocks had clearly visible textures which reveal their origins. Glassy and fine grained igneous rocks result from rapid cooling at or near the surface (extrusive igneous rocks), while coarse grained igneous rocks (intrusive igneous rocks) are formed by slow cooling at great depths. The glassy texture of obsidian was easily observed. Vesicular structure is one where voids can be seen. The voids (vesicles) are formed by the out- lets of volcanic gasses or steam during the solidification of the rock. If the mineral constituents of the igneous rock can be seen with the naked eye the texture is coarse grained (phaneritic).


When the grains are so fine that their constituent minerals cannot be seen without a microscope the texture is fine grained (aphanatic). Rocks with very coarse grains are called pegmatitic. Porphyritic texture results from slow crystrallization at intermediate depths and where the material has been driven rapidly upward before solidification was completed. The result is that the late-formed crystals are finer-grained. Thus porphyritic texture shows two different sized crystals within the same rock. The coarser crystals are called phenocrysts and the finer crystals are referred to as the groundmass. To estimate the mineral composition students were taught to identify the proportion of light (felsic) versus dark (mafic) minerals in igneous rocks by com- paring unknown samples with a standard.

The regionally formed metamorphic rocks composed of more than one mineral showed banding (gneissic rock), schistose texture (schist) or slatey cleavage (slate). Gneissic massive rocks showed alternating bands of platy minerals and granular minerals. The minerals in the shists were platy minerals like mica which gives the rock a foliated (flaky) appearance. The students were taught that there are different grades (intensities) of metamorphism. Gneiss results from high grade regional metamorphism, schist results from medium grade metamorphism and slate results from low grade metamorphism. If the metamorphic rock was calcite rich (marble) the massive mosaic texture often showed the calcite’s cleavage and the calcite would react with acid. In monomineralic metamorphic rocks like marble and quartzite, where the mosaic interlocking texture is common, we distinguish between both through the marked difference of calcite and quartz which are the minerals forming these two rocks. Marble is mostly composed of calcite; quartzite, on the other hand, is formed of quartz grains. Marble could be spotted by the perfect cleavage of calcite, its low hardness as well as its effervescence with cold dilute hydrochloric acid. Quartzite does not show any of these characteristics. Marble and quartzite can be formed under varying metamorphic conditions, and this can only be determined by microscopic examination.

In noncrystalline (sedimentary) rocks there is no crystallinity and the minerals usually show an earthy or dull luster. The sedimentary rocks show one or more of the following characteristics: clastic texture (transported fragments that are later cemented), sedimentary struc- tures such as cross-bedding, depositional layering, and/or fossils. Conglomerate, sandstone, and shale are clastic rocks, and limestones and other organic rocks are nonclastic. There is a special case where limestones are considered as clastic rocks; that is when fragments of the older limestones are transported, deposited, and then cemented together revealing a clastic texture. In practical terms if the rock is carbonate rich (reacts with acid) and the texture of the rock does not show transported fragments (particles), the rock should be classified as a nonclastic carbonate rich rock (limestone). Sometimes it is not easy to distinguish between hand specimens of a shale (clastic) and a limestone (nonclastic), therefore, the reaction of the limestone with acid is decisive. Evapororites (gypsum, halite) and metasomatites (chert) were studied in lab but were not used as test specimens because they may be considered as minerals.

Part I: Preservice Elementary Teachers

Previous studies indicate that preservice elementary teachers are anxious about teaching science (Westerback, 1982) and that this anxiety can be reduced during a sequence of science content courses.

This study was designed to determine ifpreservice elementary teachers were anxious about the specific task, teaching students to identify minerals and rocks, and if this anxiety could be reduced by training.


Research Design and Procedure

Teaching Assignments

Preservice elementary teachers were enrolled in Science 3, Science 1 (laboratory courses), or Science 15 (lecture course only). Although the course numbers differ, the content for the initial period of instruction, during which the study was conducted, is identical in all courses. Students in Science 3 (earth science) met three times a week, students in Science 1 (earth science-biology) met twice a week, and students in Science 15 (earth science-biology) met one evening a week for lecture. The lecture contact hours were identical for Science 3, Science 1 , and Science 15. The laboratory experience consisted of labs on minerals, igneous rocks, sedimentary rocks, and metamorphic rocks. Although the laboratory was not an official part of Science 15, it was included because the “hands on” experience was perceived necessary by the instructors. In addition to lab instruction provided in class, and extra time given by the instructors before and after class, many of the students in Science 15 came to Science 1 and 3 labs given during the day. Teacher I taught the lecture for Science 3 ( N = 19), and Teacher I1 taught the lectures for both Science 1 and Science 15 (N = 39). Teacher I1 taught the laboratory for all students.

Sample (N = 58)

Subjects were 58 preservice elementary teachers enrolled in Science 1, 15, and Science 3 at C. W. Post College, Greenvale, NY. Although 64 students registered for the course, six could not be included because they were absent for one of the data collections. Most (98%) of the students were female sophomores and juniors between the ages of 18 and 36. The average age was 20 years. The usual science background of these students was one or two years of high school science. Ninety-three percent of the students had taken biology, 59% earth science, 53% had chemistry, and 24% had physics. Students’ enjoyment of high school science expressed as a ratio of Like:Dislike is 3:1 biology, 2:1 earth science, and 1:l for chemistry and physics. Transfer students who comprised 64% of the sample had taken one or two terms of college science, usually biology. Students enjoyment of college science expressed as a ratio of Like: Dislike is 3 : 1 biology and 2: 1 physical science. Most students had taken hgh school algebra and geometry. About half completed intermediate algebra and 12% completed calculus. Students enjoyment of high school math expressed as a ratio of Like:Dislike is: 4:l algebra, 1:l geometry, intermediate algebra, and calculus.

The Instruments

Demographic Questionnaire

Demographic data were collected on the following variables: ID, age, sex, college standing, hgh school and college science and math backgrounds, level of enjoyment of science and math courses, and educational specialization (elementary or special education).

State-Trait Anxiety Inventoly

Operationally, anxiety about teachmg students to identify minerals and rocks was defined

The STAI is a 40-item self report Likert-type instrument. The fxst 20 items measure state as measured by the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Form Y-1 (STAI) (Spielberger, 1980).

anxiety (A-state) and the second 20 items measure trait anxiety (A-trait).


State anxiety is defined as a transitory emotional state which can be influenced by training (Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970). In this scale subjects are asked to respond to items like “I feel calm,” “I feel indecisive,” and “I feel self-confident.” When an individual perceives a situation as threatening the A-state will be elevated.

Trait anxiety is described as relatively stable individual differences in anxiety proneness. Typical items on the trait scale are: “I feel nervous and restless,” ‘‘I feel like a failure,” and “I am a steady person.”

The STAI has been used in hundreds of studies in the field of psychology. In science education Westerback (1982) has used the STAI since 1977. Early studies utilized the X form of the STAI. More recent studies utilized the Y form (Shenvood & Westerback, 1983). For the X form, state anxiety, Spielberger, Gorsuch, and Luchene (1 970) found reliability coefficients (coefficient alphas as measures of internal consistency) to be from 0.82 to 0.92. For the Y form Westerback (1 982) found the reliability coefficient for 103 preservice elementary teachers during the Spring 1981 semester was 0.95. For the X form, trait anxiety, Spielberger, Gorsuch, and Lushene (1970) report test-retest correlations for the A-trait scale, ranging from 0.73 to 0.86. For the Y form Westerback (1982) found the coefficient alpha for 103 preservice elementary teachers was 0.92. Sherwood and Westerback (1 982) found that the factor-loading pattern of the 103 elementary teachers was very similar to factors reported in a study of two larger samples (N1=1701 and N2=202) of male Air Force recruits. Form Y was used in this study.

The heading on the scales was changed with Spielberger’s permission from “Self-Evaluation Questionnaire” to “How Do You Feel About Teaching Students to Identify Minerals and Rocks?” for the A-State, and “How Do You Feel in General” for the A-Trait. The instrument itself was not altered.

Characteristics of Minerals and Rocks

The listing of characteristics (Fig. 1) was given to each student during the practical exam.

Practical Exam

Each student was tested on 20 samples. The student was allowed sufficient time to describe the sample according to Figure 1, and then changed samples with another student. All students were, thus, tested on the same samples. The student had to decide if the specimen was a mineral or a rock. Once this choice was made the student filled in information as follows: For mineral: luster, transmission of light, color, and cleavage. For rock: crystallinity, texture/structure, rock group, and distinguishing characteristics. Each correct answer was worth one point. Placing the sample in the correct category (mineral or rock) was essential. If the initial choice was incorrect, the student lost 5 points. If all the choices were correct, then 20 points were given for the 20 correctly categorized samples plus I point for each of the 80 remaining characteristics (maxi- mum score 100 points).

Procedure

On the fmt day of class, prior to any instruction, students were asked to complete the STAI “How Do YOU Feel Teaching students to Identify Minerals and Rocks?” (A-State) and “How Do You Feel in General?” (A-Trait), and the demographic questionnaire. Several weeks later, a lab practical was given. After completion of the lab practical, students exchanged papers and corrected the exams. Opportunity was given to question each answer. After each student received and verified their grade, the second STAI was administered.


Results

Since there were two teachers it was decided to determine first whether the results for their students were the same or different so that a decision could be made about combining the data. Table I shows the means and standard deviations for state and trait anxiety scores for the groups of Teacher I and Teacher 11. Table I1 presents the split-plots analyses of variance for state and trait anxiety scores. The between factor was teacher (I and 11) and the within factor was testings (first day of class and after laboratory examinations). For state anxiety it can be seen that the overall difference between the state anxiety of students of the two teachers was not significant. The difference between the two testings was significant, indicating that for the entire group their state anxiety decreased from testing I to testing 11. One can see that the interaction was not significant, indicating the groups for Teacher I and Teacher I1 did not change differentially from testing I to testing 11. Table I1 also shows that for trait anxiety there were no signifkant effects for teacher, testings and their interaction. Since the students of Teacher I and I1 were not significantly. different on either state or trait anxiety, the effect for teacher was not considered for any additional analyses and the data were combined.

Studies in the field of psychology indicate that a relationship exists between anxiety and academic performance (Gaudry & Spielberger, 1971). Low anxiety appears to be related to high grades and vice versa. In order to examine the relationship between performance on the laboratory examination and change in anxiety in this study, the total group of students was split into two groups, the above mean group and the below mean group using the laboratory examination grade (x= 78.8, S.D. = 9.00). Table 111 shows the means and standard deviations for above and below mean grade groups for two testings of state and trait anxiety. Table I V presents the split-plots analyses of variance, for state and trait anxiety scores. The between factor was grade

TABLE I Comparison of Preservice Elementary Teachers of Two Different

College Teachers for State and Trait Anxiety Scores at the beginning of the Semester and after a Laboratory Exam

SAMPLE BEGINNING AFTER SEMESTER EXAM

A- S TATE

T o t a l Mean N=58 S .D .

T e a c h e r I Mean N=19 S.D.

Teacher I 1 Mean N=39 S.D.

T o t a l Mean N=5 8 S . D .


Teacher I 1 Mean N=39 S.D.

5 0 . 4 8 1 5 . 4 5

4 7 . 7 4 1 5 . 9 3

5 1 . 8 2 1 5 . 2 4

A- TRA IT

3 7 . 5 9 7 . 7 1

3 6 . 5 3 7 . 8 3

3 8 . 1 0 7 . 7 0

4 0 . 9 0 8 . 1 5

3 7 . 1 6 7 . 0 2

4 2 . 1 2 8 . 1 2

3 7 . 1 2 7 . 5 5

3 5 . 6 3 7 . 2 8

3 7 . 8 5 7 . 6 6


TABLE I1 Analysis of Variance for Students of Two Different Teachers for

Two Testings of Anxiety about Teaching Students to Identify Minerals and Rocks Using the STAI (A-State) and Feelings in

General (A-Trait), Form Y, Fall 1982

P Source Sum of Squares d . f . Mean Square E

Teacher ( A ) Error

T e s t i n g s (B) A x B NS Error 2

Teacher ( A ) Error 1

T e s t i n g s (B) A x B Error 2

594.09 10533.74

2664.97 13.92

6246.11

91-80 5686.21

6.28 2.60

859.61

A-STATE

1 594.09 3.158 NS 56 188.10

1 2664.97 23-892 <.OOl 1 13.92 .124

56 111.54

A-TRAIT

1 91-80 .904 NS 56 101.54

1 6.28 -409 NS 1 2.60 -170 NS

56 15.35

group (above and below the mean) and the within the factor was testings (first day of class and after laboratory practical). For state anxiety it can be seen that the effect for grade groups and the interaction of grade groups were not significant. There was a significant effect for testings indicating, for the overall group, subjects decreased in state anxiety from the first to the second testing. For trait anxiety, the effects for grade groups, testings, and their interaction were all nonsignificant. Thus, the results for analysis of grade groups indicates that there was no relationship between grade and anxiety change.

TABLE I11 Means and Standard Deviations for Scores on the State Trait

Anxiety for Student Lab Exam Grades above the Mean (78.8%) and Student Lab Exam Grades below the Mean at the beginning

of the Semester and after a Lab Exam

Beginning Lab Semester Exam

Above Mean N=34

Below Mean N=2 4

Above Mean N=34

Below Mean N=2 4

Mean S.D.

Mean S . D .

Mean S.D.

Mean S.D.

A-STATE

50.00 15.45

51.17 15.75

A-TRAIT

38.15 7.18

36 -79 8.51

39.67 7.58

42 -63 8.57

36 -79 7.75

37 -58 7.40

1 2 WESTERBACK, GONZALEZ, AND PRIMAVERA

TABLE IV Analysis of Variance for Two Testings of State and Trait Anxiety

for Preservice Elementary Teachers Whose Laboratory Examination Grades Were above and below the Mean Grade of 78.6%

Source Sum of Squares d . f . Mean Square E P

A-STATE

Grade Groups ( A ) 119.13 1 119.13 .606 NS Error 1 11008.70 56 196.58

T e s t i n g s (B) 2664.97 1 2664.97 23.925 <.001 A x B 22.33 1 22.33 .201 NS Error 2 6237.70 56 111.39

A-TRAIT

Grade Groups ( A ) 2.25 1 2.25 .022 NS

Testings (B) 6.28 1 6.28 .424 NS

Error 1 5175.15 56 103.14

A x B 32.35 1 32.35 2.183 NS Error 2 829.86 56 14.82

Discussion

Examination of the means and standard deviations indicate that this group of preservice elementary teachers had hgher initial state anxiety levels than would be expected in college students (Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970).

The preservice elementary teachers in this study were anxious about teaching students to identify minerals and rocks. State anxiety, which measured students anxiety about teaching students to identify minerals and rocks, was changed in a positive direction for the group after completion of the identification task. In this case the model used to instruct students to recognize the characteristics for identification of minerals and rocks appears to have been successful in both identification of specimens and in reduction of anxiety. However, in this descriptive study, it is not possible to say that method of teaching was the only factor which contributed to the reduction of state anxiety.

Although the analysis of grade groups indicates that there was no relationship between grades and anxiety levels it is possible that this effect was masked by the hgh achievement of the group. Nearly all students were academically successful and nearly all had significant state anxiety reduction. As expected trait anxiety remained unchanged in this study.

It should be noted that the responses on the demographic questionnaire indicate that these students were not negative about their previous science and math experiences. This is contrary to statements in the literature of science education which repeatedly state that elementary teachers are frightened of science.

Part XI: Students in a Required Geology Course

Sample (N = 51)

Although there were 56 students in Geology 1 courses, 5 students of Teacher 111’s section were not included in the analysis because this group was too small to compare to the other two


larger classes. Fifty-nine percent of the sample was male, 82% were freshmen and sophomores. The percentage of completed high school science courses for these students was: 94% biology, 61% earth science, 65% chemistry, and 41% physics. Enjoyment of high school science expressed as a Like:Dislike ratio was 3:2 biology, 3 : l earth science, 3:1 chemistry, and 2:l physics. All students completed high school algegra, 96% geometry, 76% intermediate algebra, and 16% calculus. Enjoyment of math expressed as a Like:Dislike ratio was 2:1 algebra, 1:l geometry, 3:2 intermediate algebra, and 1:l calculus. Fifty-nine percent of the students were business majors, 12% undecided, other majors were: criminal justice, geology, and other science.

Instruments The same instruments were used for this sample as in Part I.

Procedure: The procedure was identical to Part I except that this group was asked to respond to the

STAI a state “How Do You Feel About Identifying Minerals and Rocks?” and the lab exam had 10 samples of minerals and rocks instead of 20. The 10 samples were selected from the 20 used with the preservice elementary teachers. All the categories of minerals and rocks in the Part I exam were represented. In this case each correct response on the lab exam was worth 2 points (50 responses). The exam was shortened to make administration of the test and student feed- back more comfortable during a regular lecture session.

Results Data for the students of Teacher I and I1 were compared to determine if they could be

combined. Table V shows the means and standard deviations for state and trait anxiety scores

TABLE V

Comparison of Geology Students of Teachers I and I1 for State and Trait Anxiety Scores at the beginning of the Semester

and after a Laboratory Exam

SAMPLE BEGINNING LAB SEMESTER EXAM

A-STATE

T o t a l N=51

Mean S.D


T e a c h e r I1 Mean N=25 S.D.

A- TRA I T

T o t a l N=51

T e a c h e r I N=26

Mean S.D.

Mean S.D.

39.22 40.88 10.10 14.22

31.19 31.89 10.63 11.38

41.32 9.26

35.39 7.35

34.37 7.04

44.00 16.33

36.00 8.22

34.39 6.94

T e a c h e r I1 Mean N=25 S.D.

36.48 37.68 7.66 9.22


of geology students of Teachers I and I1 at the beginning of the semester and after a laboratory examination. Table VI presents the split-plots analyses of variance for state and trait anxiety scores. The between factor was teacher (I and 11) and the within factor was testings (first day of class and after completion of the laboratory examination). For both state and trait anxiety, it can be seen that there were no significant differences for teachers, testings, and their interaction. This indicates that for geology students there was no change in state and trait anxiety. Since the students of Teacher I and I1 were not significantly different on either state or trait anxiety, the effects for teacher was not considered for any additional analyses and the data were combined.

The literature in the field of psychology indicates that there is a relationship between anxiety and academic performance (Gaudry & Spielberger, 1971). Low anxiety appears to be related to high grades and vice versa. In order to examine this relationship in this study, the students were split into two grade groups, the above mean group and the below mean group (x = 76, S.D. = 13.01). Table VII presents the means and standard deviations for STAI scores of the above and below the mean grade groups on the laboratory examination. Table VIII presents the split-plots analysis of variance for state and trait anxiety scores. The between factor was laboratory examination grade groups and the within factor was testings (first day of class and after the laboratory examination). For state anxiety there was an overall difference between grade groups. Students in the higher grade group had lower anxiety and vice versa. These results indicate an inverse relationship between grades and state anxiety and agree with results found in other studies (Gaudry & Spielberger, 1971). There was no significant difference between the two testings. The interaction, plotted in Figure 2, was significant and shows that the state anxiety was reduced from testing I to testing I1 for the above mean group but increased from testing I to testing I1 for the below mean group. This shows desensitization for the above mean group and sensitization for the below mean group. For trait anxiety there were no significant effects for grade groups, testings and their interactions.

As most of the preservice elementary teachers were female, there was no opportunity to examine differences in anxiety levels between the sexes. Some science educators suggest that

TABLE VI Analysis of Variance for Geology Students of Two Different

Teachers for Two Testings of the State Trait Anxiety Inventory, Form Y, Fall 1982

Source Sum of S q u a r e s d.f. Mean S q u a r e E P

A-STATE

Teacher ( A ) 668.61 1 668.61 3.401 NS ErrOK 1 9632.64 49 196 -58

T e s t i n g s ( B ) 70.83 1 70.83 .710 NS A x B 25.17 1 25.17 .252 NS Error 2 4887.49 49 99.74

A-TRAIT

Teacher ( A ) 187.84 1 187 -84 1.807 NS ErrOK 1 5091.24 49 103.90

T e s t i n g s (B) 9.42 1 9.42 .580 NS A X E 8.60 1 8.60 .528 NS E K K O K 2 796 -48 49 16 -25


TABLE VII Means and Standard Deviations of Two Testings of the State

Trait Anxiety Inventory of Geology Students Whose Lab Exam Grades Were above the Mean (76%) and Geology Students Whose Lab Exam Grades Were below the Mean

B e g i n n i n g Lab Semester Exam

A-STATE

Above Mean Mean 38.41 34.48 N=27 S.D. 10.26 10.48

B e l o w Mean Mean 40.13 48.08 N=2 4 S . D . 10.05 14.61

A-TRAIT

Above Mean Mean N=27 S.D.

Below Mean Mean N=24 S.D.

35.11 34.11 7.62 7.43

35.71 38.13 7.18 8.70

females are more anxious about science than males (Mallow, 1981). Therefore, the relationship between sex and anxiety for geology students was examined. Table IX presents the means and standard deviations for the two testings of state and trait anxiety for male and female students in geology courses. Table X presents the split-plots analyses of variance for state and trait anxiety scores. The between factor was sex and the within factor was testings (first day of class

TABLE VIII Analysis of Variance for Two Testings of State and Trait Anxiety

for Geology Students Whose Lab Exam Grades Were above and below the Mean Lab Grade of 76%

Source Sum of Squares d . f . Mean Square E P

Grade Groups ( A ) Error 1

T e s t i n g s ( B ) A x B Error 2

Grade Groups ( A ) Error 1

T e s t i n g s ( B ) A x B Error 2

3737.58 7804.70

102.22 598.94 4429.34

401.29 5984.68

17.29 10.32 860.39

A-STATE

1 54

1 1

54

A- TRA I T

1 54

1 1

54

3737.58 25.859 <.001 144.53

102.22 1.246 NS 598.94 7.302 <.01 82.02

401.29 3.621 NS 110.83

17.29 1.085 NS 10.32 .648 NS 15.93


Beginning After l a b Semester Exam

Fig. 2. Mean state and trait anxiety scores for two testings of the STAI for (1) students whose grade was above the mean (76%) on a laboratory exam, and (2) students whose grade was below the mean (76%) on a laboratory exam.

TABLE IX Means and Standard Deviations for Two Testings of the

State Trait Anxiety Inventory for Male and Female Geology Students, Fall 1982

SAMPLE FIRST SECOND TESTING TESTING

Males Mean N=3 4 S.D.

Females Mean N=22 S . D

Males N=34

Mean S . D .

Females Mean N=22 S . D

A-STATE

3 8 . 2 3 10.06

3 9 . 4 6 1 0 - 4 1

A-TR A IT

36 -18 7 . 4 9

3 4 . 7 7 8.09

4 1 . 4 4 1 4 . 4 2

3 9 . 3 6 1 3 . 8 3

3 8 . 3 5 8.90

3 3 . 4 1 7 . 1 4

TEACHER-STUDENT ANXIETY

TABLE X Analysis of Variance for Two Testings of State and Trait Anxiety

for Male and Female Geology Students, Fall 1982

P S o u r c e Sum of S q u a r e s d . f . Mean Square E

A-STATE

S e x ( A ) 4.92 1 4.92 -023 NS Error 1 11537 -36 54 213.65

T e s t i n g s (B) 102.22 1 102.22 1.113 NS A x B 72.59 1 72-59 -791 NS Error 2 4955.69 54 91 -77

A-TRAIT

S e x ( A ) Error 1

2.376 NS 269.09 6116.87 54 113.28 269.09 1

T e s t i n g s ( B ) 17.29 1 17.29 1.186 NS A x B 83 - 7 0 1 83 -70 5.742 .05 Error 2 787.02 54 14.57

and after the laboratory examination). For both state and trait anxiety there was no significant effect for sex or testings. For trait anxiety there was a significant interaction. This interaction, presented in Figure 3, shows that the trait anxiety level of the males increased from testing I to testing 11, while the trait anxiety of the females decreased from testing I to testing 11. In order to determine if the difference between trait anxiety could be accounted for by a difference in academic performance between males and females a t-test was performed between the mean grades of males (z= 73.94, S.D. = 13.53) and females (z= 79.09, S.D. = 11.24) and found not signlficant. (t = 1.544 (54) p > 0.05).

32 t 1 L I I

First Second Testing

Fig. 3. Mean state and trait anxiety scores for two testings of the STAI for (1) females and (2) males enrolled in Geology 1. State scores are represented by solid lines and trait scores are represented by dashed lines.

I8 WESTERBACK, GONZALEZ, AND PRIMAVERA

Discussion

In this study two different groups of students were given the same instruction and the same task to complete. Preservice elementary teachers were asked how they felt about teaching others to do this task, while students in geology courses were asked how they felt about doing the same task.

Although no formal analysis was done to compare preservice elementary teachers and students in geology courses, the high initial state anxiety means of the prospective teachers indicate they were more anxious about the task of teaching students to identify minerals and rocks than geology students were about the identification of minerals and rocks. Possibly, the prospective teachers were more anxious because they anticipated the responsibility of teaching this material to others. Students in geology, taking this course for a science elective, may not be concerned about their ability to perform the task of identification of minerals and rocks.

Examination of the demographic responses (in sample description) also indicates that these students, like the prospective teachers, were not anxious about their previous math and science experiences. They did not exhibit “science anxiety.”

Examination of state and trait anxiety levels for the sample as a whole indicates there were no significant changes in these measures between testing I and testing I1 suggesting the group was homogeneous. However, when the sample was split into two groups (above and below the mean laboratory examination grade), the analyses shows the above mean group (lower anxiety) showed a decrease in anxiety from testing I to testing 11. Likewise, students in the below mean group (higher anxiety) showed elevated scores from testing I to testing 11. (Figure 2 ) This indicates the sample was not homogeneous.

There were no significant overall differences in STAI scores of males and female students for state or trait anxiety and no differences in scores for the two testings. The interaction for state anxiety was not significant. However, for trait anxiety the scores of the males were slightly elevated and the females slightly reduced. This significant difference, cannot be ex- plained by the slightly higher achievement of females in this study.

Implications

The results of these studies indicate that anxiety about a specific task, the characteristics for identification of minerals and rocks, appears to be reduced by successful completion of that task. In this study two different groups of students were examined, and in both cases anxiety reduction took place.

There appears to be differences in initial state anxiety levels between preservice elementary teaches and students taking geology courses about the characteristics for identification of minerals and rocks. Preservice elementary teachers show much more concern. Their initial state anxiety levels were markedly reduced for the group as a whole. The grades for this group were high. This high achevement level appears to be associated with the decrease in state anxiety. These students may have been motivated to learn to distinguish the characteristics for identification of minerals and rocks because they anticipate doing t h s task with children in their student teaching. Students in geology classes may not perceive any practical need for t h s information as most plan careers in nonscience disciplines. This lack of concern is reflected in their lower initial anxiety scores and perhaps by lower grades on the laboratory exam.

It was interesting to note that there were no significant differences between male and female students taking geology courses on anxiety about characteristics for identifying minerals and rocks. This does not support the contention that females may be more anxious about science than males (Mallow, 1981).


The data from geology students support the concept that a relationship exists between achievement as measured by grade and anxiety levels. Students with high achievement on a task appear to have lower anxiety and vice versa. This supports studies in the field of psychology.

Acknowledgment

These studies were supported by a research grant from the Research Committee of C.W. Post Center, Greenvale, NY. This conceptual framework for mineralogy and petrology was out- lined by Dr. Nanny Azer, Department of Geology-Geography, C.W. Post College. The authors wish to thank Dr. Robert Pepper, C.W. Post Academic Computing, for assistance in obtaining computer output, and Ruth Sullivan for assistance in word processing.

References

American Geological Institute. (1962). Dictionary of geological terms. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company.

Finley, F. N. (1981a). A philosophical approach to describing science content: An example from geologic classification. Science Education, 65, 5 14-5 19.

Finley, F. N. (1981b). An empirical determination of concepts contributing to successful performance of a science process: A study of mineral classification. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19,689-696.

Finley, F. N. (1983). Science processes. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 1,47-54. Finley, F. N. & Smith, E. L. (1980). Effects of strategy instruction on the learning, use and

vertical transfer of strategies. Science Education, 64,367-375. Finley, F. N., Stewart, J., & Yarroch, W. L. (1982). Teachers’ perceptions of important and

difficult science content. Science Education, 66,531-538. Gaudry, E., & Spielberger, C. D. (1971). Anxiety and academic achievement. Sydney:

Wiley-Australia. Mallow, J. V. (1981). Science anxiety: Fear of science and how to overcome it. New York:

Thomond. Sherwood, R. D., & Westerback, M. E. A factor analytic study of the state trait anxiety in-

ventory utilized with preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene, R. E. (1970). STIA Manual for the state trait anxiety inventory. California: Consulting Psychologist Press.

Stewart, J. R., & Athn, J. A. (1982). Information processing psychology: A promising paradigm for research in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19, 321- 332.

Stewart, J., Finley, F. N., & Yarroch, W. L. (1981). Science content as an important con- sideration in science education research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19, 425- 432.

Westerback, M. E. (1982). Studies on attitude toward teaching science and anxiety about teaching science in preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

20,225-229.

19,603-616.

Manuscript accepted June 15,1984

Documents

Comparison of preservice elementary teachers anxiety about teaching students to identify minerals and rocks and students in geology courses anxiety about identification of minerals