Students Perception of Science and Technology in Science Learning: A Gender Comparative Study
DOI:
10.29303/jpm.v19i1.6153Published:
2024-01-17Issue:
Vol. 19 No. 1 (2024): January 2024Keywords:
Gender; Learning; Science and Technology; Student’s PerceptionArticles
Downloads
How to Cite
Downloads
Metrics
Abstract
Teachers face a dilemma. On the one hand, science and technology significantly benefit students, providing greater opportunities for future generations. On the other hand, students' interest in science and technology continues to decrease. The rapid advance of science and technology also widens inequities and enhances gender differences. Understanding students' perceptions of technology in learning, especially science, and their daily lives is necessary. The research employs both descriptive and comparative methods as its primary methodologies. The descriptive method provides an overview of students' perceptions of science and technology. The comparative method helps uncover differences in students' perceptions based on gender. The study encompasses 200 participants from a junior high school in Kerinci. This research utilized the "My Opinions about Science and Technology" questionnaire. The questionnaire was translated into Indonesian and formatted into an online survey using Google Forms. It comprises 16 research statements about science and technology designed to collect essential data, employing a 4-point scale response. The Independent Samples T-test, facilitated by SPSS, compared male and female perceptions of science and technology. The descriptive statistics reveal that the average student perception is 3.06. Based on the level of each student, no students are categorized as having a low level of perception of science and technology. Based on gender, female students exhibit an average perception of 3.02, and males display an average of 3.11. Based on the mean or average values, it can be concluded that there is a difference in the average perception between female and male students, with male students showing a higher perception of science and technology than female students. The independent samples t-test results confirm that the average perception of females regarding science and technology is lower than that of males, with a mean difference of -0.093 on a 4-point scale. The disparity in perception based on gender was found to be statistically significant. Male students have a higher percentage of high-level perception compared to female students. Males exhibit high perceptions regarding the development of scientific theories, the impact of science and technology on environmental problems, and the potential for science and technology to improve life, create more interesting jobs and help eradicate poverty and famine. The theoretical and practical implications of these results are discussed.
References
Schreiner, C., & Sjøberg, S. (2004). Background, rationale, questionnaire development and data collection for ROSE (The Relevance of Science Education) – a comparative study of students’ views of science. Unipub. http://www.ils.uio.no/forskning/rose/
OECD. (2018). The Future of Education and Skills: Education 2030. In OECD Education Working Papers. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/
Roth, W.-M. (2001). Learning Science through Technological Design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 768–790.
Pranata, O. D. (2023a). Enhancing Conceptual Understanding and Concept Acquisition of Gravitational Force through Guided Inquiry Utilizing PhET Simulation. Saintek: Jurnal Sains Dan Teknologi, 15(1), 44–52.
Wieman, C. E., Adams, W. K., Loeblein, P., & Perkins, K. K. (2010). Teaching Physics Using PhET Simulations. The Physics Teacher, 48(4), 225–227.
Pranata, O. D. (2023b). Physics Education Technology (PhET) as Confirmatory Tools in Learning Physics. Jurnal Riset Fisika Edukasi Dan Sains, 10(1), 29–35.
Sastria, E. (2023). Indonesian Pre-service and In-service Science Teachers’ TPACK Level. International Journal of Biology Education Towards Sustainable Development, 3(1), 1–15.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Hsu, Y.-S. (2015). Development Of Science Teachers’ TPACK: East Asian Practices (Y.-S. Hsu (ed.)). Springer.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the Science of Learning. Pearson.
Wulandari, W., & Pranata, O. D. (2023). Analisis Kecerdasan Emosional Siswa dalam Pembelajaran Sains. Diksains: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Sains, 3(2), 124–133.
Putri, D. H., & Pranata, O. D. (2023). Eksplorasi Kejenuhan Siswa dalam Pembelajaran Sains Setelah Pandemi. Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan Sains (JIPS), 4(2), 62–70.
Pranata, O. D., Sastria, E., Ferry, D., & Zebua, D. R. Y. (2023). Analysis of Students’ Emotional Intelligence and Their Relationship with Academic Achievement in Science. Proceedings of the International Conference on Social Science and Education, ICoeSSE, 395–410.
Miller, P. H., Blessing, J. S., & Schwartz, S. (2006). Gender differences in high-school students’ views about science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(4), 363–381.
Steegh, A. M., Höffler, T. N., Keller, M. M., & Parchmann, I. (2019). Gender differences in mathematics and science competitions: A systematic review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(10), 1431–1460.
UNESCO. (2021). Cracking the Code: Girls’ and women’s education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). In Education 2030 (Vol. 110, Issue 6).
Kang, J., Hense, J., Scheersoi, A., & Keinonen, T. (2019). Gender study on the relationships between science interest and future career perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 41(1), 80–101.
Morgan, G. A., Leech, N. L., Gloeckner, G. W., & Barret, K. C. (2004). SPSS for Introductory Statistics. Use and Interpretation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. All.
Tisza, G., Papavlasopoulou, S., Christidou, D., Voulgari, I., Iivari, N., Giannakos, M. N., Kinnula, M., & Markopoulos, P. (2019). The role of age and gender on implementing informal and non-formal science learning activities for children. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series.
Jansen, M., Schroeders, U., & Lüdtke, O. (2014). Academic self-concept in science: Multidimensionality, relations to achievement measures, and gender differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 11–21.
Campbell, J., Cho, S., & Tirri, K. (2017). Mathematics and Science Olympiad Studies : The Outcomes of Olympiads and Contributing Factors to Talent Development of Olympians. 5(1), 49–60.
Perry, D. G., & Pauletti, R. E. (2011). Gender and adolescent development. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 61–74.
Miller, A. L., Fassett, K. T., & Palmer, D. L. (2021). Achievement goal orientation: A predictor of student engagement in higher education. Motivation and Emotion, 45(3), 327–344.
Wenning, C. J. (2006). A Framework for Teaching The Nature of Science. J. Phys. Tchr. Educ. Online, 3(3), 3–10. http://www2.phy.ilstu.edu/pte/publications/teaching_NOS.pdf
Brooks, H. (1994). The relationship between science and technology. Research Policy, 25(3), 477–486.
Jones, M. G., Howe, A., & Rua, M. J. (2000). Gender differences in students’ experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education, 84(2), 180–192.
Cahyani, V. D., & Pranata, O. D. (2023). Studi Aktivitas Belajar Sains Siswa di SMA Negeri 7 Kerinci. Lensa (Lentera Sains): Jurnal Pendidikan IPA, 13(2), 137–148.
Wieman, C. E., & Perkins, K. K. (2006). A powerful tool for teaching science. Nature Physics, 2(5), 290–292.
Pranata, O. D., & Seprianto, S. (2023). Pemahaman Konsep Siswa Melalui Skema Blended learning Menggunakan Lembar Kerja Berbasis Simulasi. Karst : Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Dan Terapannya, 6(1), 8–17.
Siu-Ping, N., & Chak-Him, F. (2020). Flipped Classroom With Simulation Assists Students Learning the Vector Knowledge. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 8(12), 35.
Author Biographies
Atila Ledia Putri, Tadris Biologi, Fakultas Tarbiyah dan Ilmu Keguruan, IAIN Kerinci
Ogi Danika Pranata, IAIN Kerinci
Tadris Fisika
Emayulia Sastria, IAIN Kerinci
Tadris Biologi
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Atila Ledia Putri, Ogi Danika Pranata, Emayulia Sastria
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The following terms apply to authors who publish in this journal:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal first publication rights, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International License (CC-BY License) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and first publication in this journal.
2. Authors may enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., posting it to an institutional repository or publishing it in a book), acknowledging its initial publication in this journal.
3. Before and during the submission process, authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website), as this can lead to productive exchanges as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
