Attitudes
Towards
Science:
An
Update
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Jonathan
Osborne,
Graduate
School
of
Education,
Stanford
University
 Shirley
Simon,
Institute
of
Education,
University
of
London
 Russell
Tytler,
Deakin
University
 
 
 Paper
presented
at
the
Annual
Meeting
of
the

 American
Educational
Research
Association,

 San
Diego,
California,

 April
13‐17
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Abstract
 This
paper
provides
an
update
on
recent
research
about
attitudes
of
school
students
towards
science.

It
 builds
on,
and
adds
to,
the
review
conducted
by
the
author
and
colleagues
and
published
in
2003
 (Osborne,
Simon,
&
Collins,
2003).

The
significance
of
this
topic
to
the
field
is
shown
by
the
fact
that
this
 paper
has
been
one
of
the
ten
most
downloaded
article
on
the
IJSE
website
in
2007
(Lee,
Wub,
&
Tsaic,
 2009
(in
press)).
Since
the
publication
of
this
article
a
number
of
important
pieces
of
research
have
been
 published
which
are
presented
and
discussed
here.
These
findings
provide
new
insights
into
the
nature
 of
the
problem
in
contemporary
contexts
and
possible
methods
of
addressing
an
issue
that

is
of
 concern
to
all
developed
countries.




Osborne,
Simon
and
Tytler,
AERA,
2009


1


Introduction
 The
issue
of
attitudes
to
science
remains
one
of
enduring
focus.
In
a
recent
analysis
of
the
trends
in
 research
in
science
education
using
a
citation
analysis,
Lee
et
al.(2009
(in
press))
argue
that
research
on
 the
conative
dimension
of
learning
has
been
one
of
the
principal
foci
of
the
published
body
of
work
in
 the
leading
journals
in
the
field.

Indeed,
they
show
that
a
paper
reviewing
what
is
known
about
 attitudes
towards
science,
published
by
two
of
the
authors
of
this
paper,
is
one
of
the
ten
most
highly‐ cited
papers
between
2003‐7.

The
interest
in
this
domain
of
work
is
perhaps
unsurprising.

The
past
 decade
has
seen
the
publication
of
a
number
of
reports
in
the
developed
world
raising
anxiety
about
the
 future
supply
of
scientists
and
technologists.

These
began
with
the
Robert’s
Report
on
‘the
supply
of
 people
with
science,
technology,
engineering
and
mathematical
skills’
(Roberts,
2002)
in
the
UK,
then
 ‘Europe
Needs
More
Scientists’
(European
Commission,
2004),
followed
by
the
report
‘Rising
above
the
 Gathering
Storm’
(National
Academy
of
Sciences:

Committee
on
Science
Engineering
and
Public
Policy,
 2005)
in
the
USA,
all
of
which
have
been
followed
by
yet
another
UK
report
whose
title
bluntly
proclaims
 the
issue
as
being
one
of
economic
competitiveness
–
‘The
Race
to
the
Top:
A
Review
of
the
 Government’s
Science
and
Innovation
Policies’
(Lord
Sainsbury
of
Turville,
2007).
Finally,
there
has
been
 an
Australian
Report
on
‘Opening
up
pathways:
Engagement
in
STEM
across
the
Primary‐Secondary
 school
transition.’
(Tytler
et
al.,
2008).

Whilst
the
premises
of
some
of
these
reports
are
questionable
 and
their
production
can
be
seen
as
an
attempt
by
the
scientific
community
to
advantage
both
their
 significance
and
funding
by
government,
they
articulate
a
widely
felt
concern
that
there
is
a
problem
 with
student
interest
in
studying
science,
technology,
engineering
and
mathematics
–
otherwise
known
 as
STEM
subjects.
Policy
makers
who
have
been
persuaded
by
such
reports
that
there
is
an
issue
to
be
 addressed
have
looked
to
research
in
science
education
for
evidence
to
inform
the
decision
making
 process
about
what,
if
anything,
should
be
done.
 
 Since
the
publication
of
our
original
paper

–
much
of
it
based
on
work
conducted
in
the
1990s,
 substantially
more
work
has
been
undertaken
which
provides
important
insights
into
the
domain.

Given
 its
importance
to
policy
makers
and
to
researchers,
we
felt
that
it
would
be
of
some
benefit
to
present
 the
main
features
of
the
work
in
an
additional
paper.

These
are:
 • A
body
of
work
critically
examining
the
range
of
extant
instruments
for
measuring
attitudes
 towards
science.

This
has
examined
issues
of
theoretical
grounding,
validity
and
reliability
and
 found
them
wanting
in
one
or
all
of
these
respects.

This
work
has
in
turn
led
to
the
re‐ evaluation
of
existing
instruments
or
instruments
which
has
a
more
rigorous
foundation.
 • A
growing
body
of
research
which
points
to
the
fact
that
an
interest
in
science
(or
not)
is
largely
 formed
for
the
majority
of
young
people
by
age
14.


 • A
revisiting
of
the
issue
of
poor
uptake
of
physical
sciences
by
young
girls
and
a
deeper
 understanding
of
the
nature
of
the
issue
if
not
its
solution.
 • A
rising
body
of
work
grounded
in
theoretical
construct
of
‘identity’
which
has
been
used
as
an
 analytic
lens
to
construct
explanatory
hypotheses
for
students’
choices.
 • A
number
of
surveys
of
student
attitudes
towards
science
which
have
provided
datasets
which
 have
served
the
valuable
function
of
producing
generative
questions
for
the
field
which
need
 further
exploration.
 
 In
this
paper,
we
will
briefly
present,
under
the
themes
outlined
above,
what
we
consider
to
be
the
main
 points
of
interest
for
the
field.

Many
of
these
issues
are
explored
in
more
substantive
detail
in
two
 forthcoming
publications
(Osborne
&
Tytler,
submitted)
and
(Osborne
&
Simon,
in
press).

No


Osborne,
Simon
and
Tytler,
AERA,
2009


2


significance
should
be
read
into
the
order
in
which
we
present
these
features
and
their
salience.

Their
 relevance
to
current
concerns
will
be
discussed
in
our
conclusions
where
we
turn
to
exploring
an
issue
 which
the
field
is
reluctant
to
examine
or
discuss
–
do
we
actually
need
more
scientists?
 
 The
Measurement
of
Attitudes
 The
theoretical
concept
of
an
‘attitude
towards
science’
has
lead
to
many
attempts
at
its
measurement
 and
there
have
been
many
attempts
to
define
both
the
construct
and
the
means
of
its
measurement.

 What
is
meant
by
the
construct
has
been
the
subject
of
some
discussion
–
notably
the
distinction
 between
attitudes
towards
science
and
scientific
attitudes
(Gardner,
1975).

More
careful
elaboration
is
 still
needed.

For
instance,
their
measurement
rests
on
the
questionable
assumption
that
there
is
a
 homogeneous
entity
called
science
when
the
reality
is
that
there
is
a
diversity
of
sciences.

Without
such
 sound
theoretical
foundations,
instruments
lack
construct
validity
(Messick,
1989).

One
means
of
 attempting
to
establish
construct
validity
is
to
use
a
panel
of
experts
and
ask
them
individually
what
 aspects
they
think
the
items
are
attempting
to
test.

However,
this
has
been
criticized
by
Munby
(1982)
 as
it
rests
on
an
assumption
that
the
meanings
attributed
to
the
items
by
the
experts
will
be
the
same
as
 that
attributed
by
the
participants.

The
latter
is
essentially
what
is
termed
face
validity
–
that
is
whether
 the
construct
which
is
operationalized
in
the
items
written
to
assess
it
has
the
same
meaning
for
the
 participants
as
it
does
for
the
researchers.

The
only
means
of
testing
this
is
to
conduct
interview
studies
 with
a
selection
of
participants
to
explore
what
they
understood
the
item
to
be
asking
and
what
were
 the
reasons
for
choosing
the
response
they
did
‐
something
which
has
rarely
been
conducted
in
 designing
and
validating
any
instrument.
 Evidence
that
the
field
has
had
problems
in
developing
instruments
which
meet
the
criteria
of
both
 validity
and
reliability
comes
from
a
recent
comprehensive
review
conducted
of
66
instruments
for
 measuring
attitudes
by
Blalock
et
al.
(2008).

20
of
these
measured
attitudes
towards
science
and
were
 assessed
against
the
criteria
of:
the
extent
to
which
they
were
theoretically
grounded;
what
tests
had
 been
undertaken
of
their
reliability;
the
measures
that
had
been
used
to
establish
their
validity;
how
the
 dimensionality
of
the
instrument
had
been
used
in
reporting
the
scores;
and
the
extent
to
which
the
 instrument
had
been
tested
and
developed
prior
to
its
use.

Using
these
criteria,
the
authors
reported
 that
the
highest
scoring
instrument
was
that
developed
by
German
(1988)
where
‘reliability
estimates
 were
in
the
0.90s,
and
various
methods
of
validity
evidence
were
given
including
content,
discriminant,
 convergent,
contrasting
groups,
and
exploratory
factor
analysis’

(Blalock
et
al.,
2008:970).
The
factor
 analysis
used
supported
a
one‐dimensional
structure,
and
total
scoring
was
used
appropriately.

Yet
this
 instrument
has
only
been
used
in
a
single
study.

In
contrast,
instruments
which
score
poorly
on
their
 criteria
e.g
Moore
and
Sutman’s
Scientific
Attitude
inventory
(Moore
&
Sutman,
1970)
has
been
used
in
 13
additional
studies.

What
Blalock
et
al.
point
to
is
the
tendency
for
researchers
not
to
use
existing
 instruments,
but
rather,
to
reinvent
the
wheel
each
time
by
designing
one
anew,
and
then,
not
 subjecting
it
to
the
kind
of
development
required
of
a
good
psychometric
measure.

Hence,
their
work
 offers
an
important
critique
of
work
in
this
field
which
has
not
met
the
normative
standards
one
might
 expect
of
psychometric
research.
 
 Fortunately,
some
recognition
of
these
criticisms
can
be
found
in
more
recent
work.

For
instance,
the
 instrument
developed
by
Kind
et
al.
(2007)
does
define
the
constructs
that
it
is
attempting
to
measure
 and
establishes
its
reliability
and
validity
through
the
use
of
a
factor
analysis
which
demonstrates
that
 the
factors
correspond
to
the
theoretical
constructs
it
seeks
to
measure
and
that
they
are
internally


Osborne,
Simon
and
Tytler,
AERA,
2009


3


consistent.

Likewise,
Owen
et
al.
(2008)
have
re‐evaluated
one
commonly‐used
instrument
–
the
 Simpson‐Troost
Attitude
Questionnaire
(Simpson
&
Troost,
1982)
which
consisted
of
59
items.

Using
a
 sample
of
1812
participants
split
into
two
groups
–
half
of
which
were
used
for
exploratory
factor
 analysis
and
half
for
confirmatory
factor
analysis
–
they
were
able
to
reduce
the
instrument
to
a
five
 factor
model
using
only
22
items
which
they
identified
as
measures
of
the
extent
to
which
the
science
 class
was
motivating;
the
level
of
effort
the
student
applied
to
their
own
learning;
the
influence
of
family
 models;
the
extent
to
which
it
was
enjoyable;
and
a
measure
of
the
influence
of
their
peers
on
their
 liking
for
science.

In
doing
so,
they
have
addressed
many
of
the
criticisms
that
might
be
made
of
earlier
 work
and
have
refined
an
existing
instrument.
In
coming
to
a
view,
either
about
existing
instruments
or
 developing
their
own,
researchers
therefore
do
need
to
ask:
 
 o Whether
clear
descriptions
have
been
articulated
for
the
constructs
that
one
wishes
to
measure.

 o

Whether
separate
constructs
have
been
combined
to
form
one
scale
and
whether
there
is
evidence
 that
these
constructs
are
closely
related
which
would
justify
such
an
action.


o

Whether
the
reliability
of
the
measure
has
been
demonstrated
by
confirming
the
internal
 consistency
of
the
construct
(e.g.,
by
use
of
Cronbach’s
α)
and
by
confirming
the
unidimensionality
 (e.g.,
by
using
factor
analysis).



o

Whether
validity
has
been
demonstrated
by
the
use
of
more
than
one
method,
which
include
the
 use
of
psychometric
techniques.


Failure
to
do
any
one
of
these
would
mean
that
the
work
would
not
be
meeting
the
standards
now
 established
in
the
field
and
weaken
the
significance
and
value
of
the
findings.

In
short,
the
field
has
 moved
on
and
work
which
fails
to
meet
these
standards
is
of
questionable
value.
 
 
 Engaging
Young
People
with
Science
 Student
interest
in
science
at
age
10
has
shown
to
be
high
and
with
little
gender
difference
in
either
 interest
(Murphy
&
Beggs,
2005;
Pell
&
Jarvis,
2001)
or
aptitude
(Haworth,
Dale,
&
Plomin,
2008).

The
 latter
is
particularly
noteworthy
as
it
is
based
on
an
extensive
set
of
data
collected
from
the
Twins
Early
 Development
study
which
has
studied
the
development
of
2674
twins
over
the
past
ten
years.
However,
 emerging
from
a
growing
body
of
research
in
the
past
decade
is
the
finding
that,
by
the
age
of
14,
for
 the
majority
of
students,
interest
or
not
in
pursuing
further
study
of
science
has
largely
been
formed.

 Moreover,
in
the
case
of
girls,
their
attitude
is
significantly
more
negative,
particularly
towards
the
 physical
sciences
(Scantlebury
&
Baker,
2007;
Schreiner,
2006a;
Schreiner
&
Sjøberg,
2004).
 
 Of
particular
note
is
a
recent
analysis
of
data
collected
for
the
US
National
Educational
Longitudinal
 Study
conducted
by
Tai
et
al.
(2006).

These
researchers
showed
that
by
age
14
students
with
 expectations
of
science‐related
careers
were
3.4
times
more
likely
to
earn
a
physical
science
and
 engineering
degree
than
students
without
similar
expectations.

This
effect
was
even
more
pronounced
 for
those
who
demonstrated
high
ability
in
mathematics
–
51%
being
likely
to
undertake
a
STEM
related
 degree.

Indeed
Tai
et
al’s
analysis
shows
that
the
average
mathematics
achiever
at
age
14
with
a
 science‐related
career
aspiration
has
a
greater
chance
of
achieving
a
physical
science/engineering
 degree
than
a
high
mathematics
achiever
with
a
non‐science
career
aspiration
(34%
compared
to
19%).



Osborne,
Simon
and
Tytler,
AERA,
2009


4


Further
evidence
that
children’s
life‐world
experiences
prior
to
14
are
the
major
determinant
of
any
 decision
to
pursue
the
study
of
science
comes
from
a
survey
by
the
Royal
Society
(2006)
of
1141
SET
 practitioners’
reasons
for
pursuing
scientific
careers.

It
found
that
just
over
a
quarter
of
respondents
 (28%)
first
started
thinking
about
a
career
in
STEM
before
the
age
of
11
and
a
further
third
(35%)
 between
the
ages
of
12
‐14.

Similar
evidence
came
from
a
study
by
Maltese
and
Tai
(2008)
based
on
 analysis
of
interviews
with
116
scientists
and
graduate
students.
This
study
found
that
65%
claimed
 interest
in
pursuing
science
prior
to
middle
school
and
a
further
30%
during
middle
and
high
school.
An
 interesting
gender
difference
arose
in
this
study
with
females
more
likely
to
ascribe
school
or
family‐ related
interest
compared
to
males
who
tended
to
claim
intrinsic
or
self‐related
interest
in
science.
 Likewise
a
small‐scale
longitudinal
study
conducted
following
70
Swedish
students
from
Grade
5
(age
 12)
to
grade
9
(age
16)
(Lindahl,
2007)
found
that
their
career
aspirations
and
interest
in
science
was
 largely
formed
by
age
13.

Lindahl
concluded
that
engaging
older
children
in
science
would
become
 progressively
harder.

Similar
data
can
also
be
found
in
the
work
of
Bandura
et
al.
on
children’s
 aspirations
and
career
choices
(Bandura,
Barbaranelli,
Caprara,
&
Pastorelli,
2001).


 
 Taken
together
what
emerges
is
a
very
clear
picture
that
the
critical
phase
for
engendering
an
interest
in
 young
people
in
science
is
the
age
of
10
to
14.
Hence,
these
data
demonstrate
the
importance
of
the
 formation
of
career
aspirations
of
young
adolescents,
long
before
the
point
at
which
many
make
the
 choice
about
which
subjects
to
specialize
in.
These
findings
would
suggest
that
efforts
to
engage
school
 students
with
science
would
be
productively
informed
by:
(a)
understanding
what
are
the
formative
 influences
on
student
career
aspirations
between
the
ages
of
10
and
14;
and
(b)
understanding
better
 how
to
foster
and
maximize
the
interest
of
this
cohort
of
adolescents,
particularly
girls,
in
Science,
 Technology,
Engineering
and
Mathematics
(STEM)
related
careers.

Given
the
considerable
sums
of
 money
invested
in
outreach
activities,
curriculum
development
and
supporting
the
teaching
of
science
 in
schools,
the
evidence
discussed
above
has
important
implications
for
policy
makers.

It
also
points
to
 the
need
to
ensure
that
the
teaching
of
science
in
middle
schools
is
of
the
highest
quality
and
that
 considerable
effort
is
needed
to
inform
students
of
the
potential
career
pathways
afforded
by
the
study
 of
science.
 
 
 Gender
 Gardner
comments
that
‘sex
is
probably
the
most
significant
variable
related
towards
pupils’
attitude
to
 science’.
This
view
is
supported
by
Schibeci’s
(1984)
extensive
review
of
the
literature,
and
more
recent
 meta‐analyses
of
a
range
of
research
studies
(Becker,
1989;
Brotman
&
Moore,
2008;
Murphy
&
 Whitelegg,
2006;
Weinburgh,
1995)
covering
the
literature
between
1970
and
2005.
All
four
studies
 summarize
numerous
research
studies
to
show
that
boys
have
a
consistently
more
positive
attitude
to
 school
science
than
girls
–
a
finding
confirmed
by
the
data
emerging
from
the
ROSE
study
(Sjøberg
&
 Schreiner,
2005)
and
other
recent
work
(Haste,
2004;
Jones,
Howe,
&
Rua,
2000).
Despite
a
large
 number
of
interventions
undertaken
in
the
1980s
and
1990s
to
engage
more
young
women
with
the
 study
of
science,
Jones
et
al
(2000)
were
forced
to
conclude
‘that
the
future
pipeline
of
scientists
and
 engineers
is
likely
to
remain
unchanged’.

However,
it
would
be
better
to
say
that
the
real
difference
is
 in
attitudes
to
the
physical
sciences
and
engineering
(OECD,
2006).

Indeed,
one
of
the
weaknesses
in
 the
extant
data
is
the
tendency
to
measure
attitudes
towards
science
as
a
homogeneous
construct
 rather
than
measuring
attitudes
to
the
separate
sciences
(Murphy
&
Whitelegg,
2006).
Engaging
young
 girls
and
young
women
with
the
study
of
science
remains
a
chronic
problem
and
a
matter
of
concern


Osborne,
Simon
and
Tytler,
AERA,
2009


5


(Adamuti‐Trache
&
Andres,
2008).

It
is
chronic
as,
despite
25
years
of
efforts,
little
if
any
change
has
 been
achieved.


It
is
a
matter
of
concern
because
young
women
who
choose
to
study
science
and
 mathematics
in
high
school
have
an
‘increased
likelihood
of
attending
a
university
and
a
much
broader
 range
of
programme
options
at
the
post‐secondary
level’(Adamuti‐Trache
&
Andres,
2008;
 Csikszentmihalyi
&
Schneider,
2000).

 
 A
useful
review
of
nine
explanatory
hypotheses
for
women’s
lack
of
engagement
with
science
is
offered
 by
Blickenstaff
(2005)
who
argues
strongly
against
those
that
would
suggest
that
there
are
innate
 genetic
differences.

In
his
review,
he
offers
8
other
possible
explanatory
hypotheses
which
are:
 
 1. Girls’
lack
of
academic
preparation
for
a
science
major/career.

 2. Girls’
poor
attitude
toward
science
and
lack
of
positive
experiences
with
science
in
childhood.

 3. The
absence
of
female
scientists/engineers
as
role
models.

 4. Science
curricula
are
irrelevant
to
many
girls.

 5. The
pedagogy
of
science
classes
favors
male
students.
 6. A
‘chilly
climate’
exists
for
girls/women
in
science
classes.

 7. Cultural
pressure
on
girls/women
to
conform
to
traditional
gender
roles

 8. An
inherent
masculine
worldview
in
scientific
epistemology.

 
 Examining
each
of
these,
he
suggests
that
the
problem
is
complex
and
not
amenable
to
simplistic
 solutions.

Nevertheless,
some
useful
insights
come
from
work
that
focuses
on
the
context
in
which
 science
is
presented.

For
instance,
the
ROSE
questionnaire
presents
108
topics
that
students
might
like
 to
learn
and
asks
respondents
to
rate
them
on
a
1
(‘not
at
all’)
to
4
(‘very
interested’)
scale.

Between
 English
boys
and
girls
there
were
80
statistically
significant
differences.
The
top
five
items
for
boys
and
 girls
are
shown
in
Table
1.
 
 Such
a
stark
contrast
would
suggest
that
the
content
of
interest
to
girls
is
significantly
under‐ represented
in
the
curriculum
(Haussler
&
Hoffmann,
2002)

These
data
are
also
supported
by
other
 research
which
would
suggest
that
girls
would
be
interested
in
a
physics
curriculum
for
instance
which
 had
more
human
related
content
(Krogh
&
Thomsen,
2005).
Indeed,
further
evidence
to
support
this
 hypothesis
can
be
found
in
a
recent
survey
of
student
attitudes
based
on
a
sample
of
327
 fourteen/fifteen
year‐old
boys
and
256
girls
which
looked
at
how
their
perception
of
science
was
related
 to
their
personal,
social
and
ethical
values
(Haste,
Muldoon,
Hogan,
&
Brosnan,
2008).

Dividing
the
 sample
into
those
orientated
towards
science
by
positive
responses
to
questions
about
employment
in
 science
and
an
expressed
interest
in
technology,
a
factor
analysis
of
the
data
was
conducted.
Haste
et
al.
 found
four
features
which
discriminated
the
sample.

These
she
called
‘trust
in
the
benefits
of
science’,
 ‘science
in
my
life’,
‘ethical
skepticism’
and
‘facts
and
high‐tech
fixes’.

For
girls,
regardless
of
their
 inclination
towards
science,
the
consideration
of
ethical
factors
was
a
large
positive
explanatory
factor
 of
their
interest
in
science
whilst,
in
contrast,
it
was
a
negative
factor
for
boys.

Likewise,
the
perception
 of
how
science
was
relevant
to
their
lives
was
a
large
contributing
factor
for
girls
positively
inclined
 towards
science
but
not
for
any
other
groups.
In
short,
both
the
context,
purpose
and
implications
 matter
for
girls
and
any
attempt
to
present
a
decontextualised,
value‐free
notion
of
science
will
reduce
 their
engagement.

Such
data
also
strongly
suggest
that
offering
a
homogeneous
curriculum
to
all
is
a
 mistake
–
what
interests
girls
being
unlikely
to
interest
boys
and
vice
versa.
 


Osborne,
Simon
and
Tytler,
AERA,
2009


6



 Boys
 Explosive
Chemicals
 How
it
feels
to
be
weightless
in
space
 How
the
atom
bomb
functions;
 Biological
and
chemical
weapons
and
 what
they
do
to
the
human
body;

 Black
holes,
supernovae
and
other
 spectacular
objects
in
outer
space.


Girls
 Why
we
dream
when
we
are
sleeping
and
 what
the
dreams
might
mean
 Cancer
–
what
we
know
and
how
we
can
treat
 it
 How
to
perform
first
aid
and
use
basic
medical
 equipment;
 How
to
exercise
the
body
to
keep
fit
and
 strong;

 Sexually
transmitted
diseases
and
how
to
be
 protected
against
them



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 Table
1:
The
5
top
ranked
items
boys,
and
girls,
would
like
to
learn
about
in
science.(Jenkins
&
Nelson,
2005)
 



 Further
interesting
work
in
explaining
not
only
girls’
but
also
minority
students’
response
to
science
 comes
from
work
conducted
in
social
psychology
on
how
negative
stereotypes
can
undermine
student
 confidence
(Aronson,
Quinn,
&
Spencer,
1998).

Starting
from
the
premise
that
persistence
in
any
 endeavor
is
sustained
by
a
faith
that
one
will
be
viewed
as
an
individual
and
be
included
in
important
 relationships,
Cohen
and
Steele
have
examined
how
such
stereotypes
erode
this
trust
and
reduce
the
 likelihood
of
academic
success
(Cohen
&
Steele,
2002).

Using
two
treatment
groups
–
one
of
whom
 received
critical
feedback
on
a
specific
piece
of
work
that
simply
documented
its
failings
and
how
its
 remediation
might
be
achieved
versus
a
group
who
received
such
feedback
but
set
in
a
context
of
 explicating
why
the
work
failed
to
meet
the
high
standards
expected
and
a
personal
assurance
of
their
 capability.

The
subjects
were
then
permitted
to
revise
their
work
and
resubmit
it
for
further
 assessment.

When
they
did,
the
performance
of
the
latter
group
improved
so
dramatically
that
the
 average
quality
of
their
work
proved
superior
to
both
the
male
subjects
and
the
other
females
in
the
 other
experimental
condition.
The
implication
of
this
is
profound.

Student
attitudes
and
performance
 can
be
manipulated
by
simple
strategies
that
seek
to
address
threats
that
are
commonly
perceived
by
 groups
who
a
minority
in
any
classroom.
 
 
 Identity
 To
understand
student
responses
to
science,
there
has
been
recent
and
increasing
interest
in
exploring
 the
construct
of
identity.
This
has
been
fruitful
in
exploring
both
the
complexity
of
student
responses
to
 the
science
curriculum,
and
for
making
sense
of
the
response
of
coherent
groups
such
as
indigenous
or
 gender
groupings.

For
instance,
Aikenhead
(2005)
has
argued
that
for
many
students,
especially
 indigenous
students,
coming
to
appreciate
science
requires
an
identity
shift
whereby
students
come
to
 consider
themselves
as
science‐friendly
–
that
is
‘to
learn
science
meaningfully
is
identity
work’
(p.
117).
 Similarly,
he
argues
(p.
64)
that
the
persistence
of
status
quo
versions
of
school
science
in
the
face
of
the
 many
existing
critiques,
e.g.
Osborne
and
Dillon
(2008),
can
only
be
explained
by
the
strong
discursive
 traditions
held
by
teachers
of
science
which
are
a
product
of
their
enculturation
in
their
own
schooling


Osborne,
Simon
and
Tytler,
AERA,
2009


7


and
undergraduate
studies.

Brown
(2004)
has
examined
the
role
of
discourse
in
framing
identity
from
a
 non‐essentialist
perspective
for
minority
students
identifying
four
distinct
responses
to
the
authoritarian
 socio‐intellectual
edifice
that
confronts
most
students
in
the
science
classroom
–
each
of
which
 demonstrates
an
attempt
by
students
to
negotiate
and
resolve
what
appears
to
be
a
clash
of
discourses.

 These
range
from
developing
an
oppositional
discourse
which
avoided
the
use
of
any
scientific
language,
 a
maintenance
discourse
where,
although
there
is
some
use
of
science
specific
discourse,
they
switch
 readily
into
non‐science
specific
genres,
to
those
who
sought
proficiency
by
engaging
in
extensive
use
of
 scientific
language.

What
this
suggest
is
that
acquiring
the
language
of
science
is
a
form
of
identity
work
 and
that
students
need
a
meta‐linguistic
rationale,
however
simple,
for
why
the
language
of
science
is
so
 foreign.
 
 Indeed,
there
is
widespread
concern
in
many
countries
about
gaps
in
performance
in
science
and
other
 subjects
between
majority/minority
or
indigenous/non‐indigenous
students
(e.g.
Thomson
&
De
Bortoli
 (2008)).
Aikenhead
and
Ogawa
(2007)
argue
that
school
science
tends
to
portray
scientific
ways
of
 knowing
as
free
from
value
and
without
context.
This
way
of
presenting
school
science,
without
multiple
 or
contested
views,
tends
to
marginalize
some
students
on
the
basis
of
their
“cultural
self‐identities”
 (Aikenhead
&
Ogawa,
2007,
p.
540).

As
Aikenhead
argues
(Aikenhead,
2001,
p.
338)
it
is
only
a
small
 minority
of
students
whose
“worldviews
resonate
with
the
scientific
worldview
conveyed
most
 frequently
in
school
science.
All
other
students
experience
the
single‐mindedness
of
school
science
as
 alienating,
and
this
hinders
their
effective
participation
in
school
science”.
A
further
problem
is
the
need
 to
represent
a
broader
range
of
future
identities
consonant
with
scientific
work.
McKinley
(2005)
 identifies
the
difficulty
experienced
by
Maori
women
scientists
in
managing
inconsistent
images
of
 themselves
—
as
women,
as
Maori,
as
scientists
—
and
argues
that
competing
legacies
of
science,
 knowledge,
and
culture
have
built
strong
cultural
stereotypes
of
Maori
women,
who
in
interviews
 describe
themselves
as
being
discriminated
against,
prejudged
and
overlooked
in
their
scientific
roles.

 
 In
a
similar
vein,
Johnson
(2007)
in
the
U.S.
has
described
barriers
to
science‐interested
minority
 females’
continuing
participation
in
STEM
such
as
lack
of
sensitivity
to
their
difference,
discouragement,
 and
a
sense
of
alienation
from
school
science.
Johnson
described
how
even
a
laudable
activity
like
 asking
questions
of
students
in
lectures
can
advantage
white
male
students
who
are
more
competitive
 and
confident,
and
cause
women
to
feel
a
loss
of
status,
robbing
them
of
the
only
opportunity
to
get
to
 know
their
teachers
on
a
personal
level.
In
describing
the
experience
of
these
women
moving
through
 undergraduate
science,
Johnson
concludes:
 
 The
 first
 step
 in
 making
 science
 more
 encouraging
 …
 is
 for
 scientists
 to
 recognize
 that
 science
 has
 a
 culture,
 and
 that
 certain
 types
 of
 students
 may
 find
 it
 challenging
 to
 understand
 and
 navigate
 this
 culture
 …
 if
 scientists
 cannot
 let
 go
 of
 narrow,
 decontextualized
 presentations
 of
 science,
they
will
have
difficulty
winning
the
respect
of
women
who
see
their
interest
in
science
 as
 inextricably
 united
 to
 their
 altruism.
 …
 Science
 has
 a
 rich
 history
 of
 service
 to
 humanity.

 When
 scientists
 present
 their
 lectures
 with
 no
 allusion
 to
 this
 context,
 it
 may
 not
 be
 because
 they
are
uninterested
in
it
but
only
because
such
ties
are
so
obvious
to
them
already
(p.
819).


The
evidence
presented
here
demonstrates
that
contemporary
youth
is
not
a
homogeneous
population.
 Moreover,
young
people
in
today’s
society
see
themselves
as
free
to
choose
their
form
of
address,
 religion,
social
grouping,
politics,
education,
profession,
sexuality,
lifestyle
and
values
(Beck
&
Beck‐ Gernsheim,
2002).
This
is
a
considerable
transformation
from
40
years
ago
when
choice
was
much
more


Osborne,
Simon
and
Tytler,
AERA,
2009


8


limited
and
expressed
predominantly
in
terms
of
a
young
person’s
choice
of
profession.
Adolescence
is
a
 particularly
significant
time
when
young
people
are
first
confronted
by
the
need
to
construct
their
sense
 of
self.
As
has
been
well
documented,
this
situation
creates
a
state
of
insecurity
or
moratorium
(Head,
 1985).
In
some
senses,
this
angst
is
not
new,
but
the
range
of
choices
presented
to
contemporary
youth
 is
now
much
greater.
Gee
(2002),
for
instance,
has
argued
for
a
fluid
definition
of
identity
as
‘the
kind
of
 person
one
is
recognized
as
being
at
a
given
time
and
place’
(p99).

The
decision‐making
landscape
that
 young
people
negotiate
as
they
select
their
school
subjects,
decide
who
they
want
to
be,
and
aspire
to
 fulfilling
futures
is
complex
terrain
making
it
difficult
to
define
who
they
are
and
where
subject
choice
 becomes
one
important
marker
for
defining
who
they
are
to
others.
Furthermore,
analysis
is
 complicated
by
the
fact
that
the
barriers
that
hinder
young
people’s
decision‐making
are
not
always
 immediately
apparent
and
will
change
over
time,
and
change
in
degree,
as
students
grow
and
develop
 (Alloway,
Dalley,
Patterson,
Walker,
&
Lenoy,
2004;
Engineering
and
Technology
Board,
2005;
Fouad,
 Hackett,
Haag,
Kantamneni,
&
Fitzpatrick,
2007;
McMahon
&
Patton,
1997;
Walker,
2007;
Walker,
2006;
 Walker,
Alloway,
Dalley‐Trim,
&
Patterson,
2006).

 
 There
is,
however,
a
significant
body
of
research
on
the
impact
of
identity
on
the
education‐related
 choices
of
young
people
(Archer,
Hollingworth,
&
Halsall,
2007;
Archer,
Pratt,
&
Phillips,
2001;
Archer
&
 Yamashita,
2003;
Boaler,
1997;
Connell,
1989;
Francis,
2000).

This
shows
that
many
of
students’
 choices—whether
or
not
to
continue,
which
subjects
to
continue
with,
who
I
will
aspire
to
become— impact
upon
each
student’s
success
or
failure
in
fulfilling
his
or
her
aspirations.

However,
it
should
be
 noted
that
‘choice’
is
a
highly
constrained
concept
in
the
context
of
education,
and
experienced
as
 limited
or
expansive
depending
upon
a
number
of
factors,
including
prior
academic
performance,
school
 location,
and
prior
choices
of
an
equally
constrained
nature.

For
instance,
Fouad,
Byars‐Winston
and
 Angela
(2005)
found,
in
the
U.S.
context,
that
while
race
does
not
have
an
impact
on
students’
career
 aspirations,
it
impacts
on
the
barriers
that
students
encounter
as
they
attempt
to
fulfil
those
aspirations.

 
 The
attraction
of
identity
as
a
theoretical
construct
for
interpretive
and
explanatory
perspectives
is
that
 it
goes
beyond
concerns
such
as
curricula,
intrinsic
interest
or
career
intentions,
to
frame
aspirations
 and
perceptions
in
terms
of
social
relationships
and
self‐processes
instead
(Lee,
2002).
Identity
theory
 understands
that
the
self
(or
selves)
is
bounded
by
social
structures,
and
that
interactions
shape
the
 organization
and
content
of
self.
Analysing
decisions
to
participate
in
and
choose
STEM
courses
and
 careers
through
an
identity
framework,
involves
emphasising
relationships
with
family,
teachers,
peers,
 and
others,
and
identifying
the
degree
of
synergy,
or
disjuncture,
experienced
by
young
people
between
 their
everyday
lives
and
the
educational
pursuit
of
STEM
(See
Archer,
Hollingworth,
&
Halsall,
2007).
 
 Two
recent
studies
which
have
used
the
notion
of
‘identity
types’
have
contributed
to
our
 understanding
of
how
youth
respond
to
science,
school
science
and
environmental
issues.
Haste
(2004)
 conducted
a
survey
of
the
values
and
beliefs
that
704
eleven
to
twenty‐one
year
old
UK
individuals
held
 about
science
and
technology.
Her
analysis
identified
four
distinct
groups
of
students:
the
‘green’
who
 held
ethical
concerns
about
the
environment
and
sceptical
about
interfering
with
nature,
and
were
 predominantly
girls
under
16;
the
‘techno‐investor’
who
were
enthusiastic
about
technology
and
the
 beneficial
effects
of
science,
trusted
scientists
and
the
government,
and
were
mostly
male;
the
‘science
 oriented’
who
were
interested
in
science
and
had
faith
in
the
general
application
of
scientific
ways
of
 thinking,
and
were
mostly
male;
and
the
‘alienated
from
science’
who
were
bored
with
science
and
 skeptical
of
its
potential,
and
who
were
predominantly
female.
Haste
found
that
girls
were
not
less


Osborne,
Simon
and
Tytler,
AERA,
2009


9


interested
in
science
or
science
careers
than
boys,
but
focused
on
different
things.
They
related
more
 strongly
to
‘green’
values
associated
with
science
(socially
responsible
and
people‐oriented
aspects
of
 science)
than
to
the
‘space
and
hardware’
aspects
which
often
dominate
communication
about
science.
 She
argues
that
the
science
curriculum
needs
to
represent
both
these
dimensions
of
science,
and
to
 acknowledge
the
value
aspects
and
ethical
concerns
surrounding
science
and
its
applications.
 
 Schreiner’s
(2006b)
study,
conducted
in
Norway,
administered
a
questionnaire
which
had
been
 extensively
validated
to
a
sample
of
1204
students
drawn
from
53
randomly
selected
schools
consisting
 of
equal
numbers
of
boys
and
girls.

From
a
cluster
analysis
of
her
sample,
she
identified
5
distinct
 student
types
each
of
whom
had
a
different
response
to
science.
As
with
the
Haste
study,
the
categories
 were
highly
gender
specific,
similar
to
Haste’s,
and
showed
different
patterns
of
response
to
a
range
of
 items
relating
to
the
perceived
value
of
school
science
and
science,
and
their
future
aspirations.

 Drawing
on
these
data,
Schreiner
interprets
the
low
recruitment
into
STEM
subjects
in
wealthy,
modern
 societies
in
terms
of
changing
values
of
youth
in
late
modern
societies
‐
an
analysis
which
has
a
 significant
identity
component.
 
 To
make
sense
of
the
data,
Schreiner
and
Sjoberg
(2007,
p.
242)
draw
on
three
perspectives:

 1. Issues
that
are
perceived
as
meaningful
for
young
people
in
a
country
are
dependent
on
the
 culture
and
the
material
conditions
in
the
country

 2. An
educational
choice
is
an
identity
choice
(see
alsoAikenhead,
Calabrese,
&
Chinn,
2006)

 3. Young
people
wish
to
be
passionate
about
what
they
are
doing
and
they
wish
to
develop
 themselves
and
their
abilities.
They
experience
a
range
of
possible
and
accessible
options
 regarding
their
futures,
and
among
the
many
alternatives,
they
choose
the
most
interesting.

 
 A
major
national
project
of
early
and
modernist
industrial
societies
has
been
a
commitment
to
progress
 and
growth.

In
this
project
scientists
and
engineers
have
been
seen
as
crucial
to
people’s
lives
and
well‐ being.

Likewise,
in
less‐developed
countries,
young
people
have
a
rather
heroic
image
of
scientists.
In
 late
modern
societies,
however,
these
values
have
changed.

Many
of
these
have
a
diminishing
industrial
 base
where
material
needs
are
satiated
compared
to
previous
generations.
In
this
context
the
role
and
 value
of
the
scientist
and
technologist
is
diminished
–
especially
when
compared
with
the
sports
and
 media
personalities
that
dominate
the
news
media.
 
 Schreiner
and
Sjoberg
speculate
that
the
main
reason
that
young
people,
especially
girls,
are
reluctant
 to
participate
in
the
physical
sciences
is
because
they
often
perceive
the
identities
of
engineers
and
 physicists
as
incongruent
with
their
own.
There
is
an
abundant
literature
(Boaler,
1997;
Lightbody
&
 Durndell,
1996;
Mendick,
2006;
Walkerdine,
1990)
which
argues
that
STEM
subjects
and
careers
have
a
 masculine
image
that
leads
girls
to
reject
identities
connected
with
STEM.
Schreiner
and
Sjoberg
(2007)
 argue
that,
if
this
perspective
is
correct
–
and
that
the
identities
of
youth
in
late
modern
societies
are
 connected
with
late
modern
values
such
as
self
realization,
creativity
and
innovation,
working
with
 people,
helping
others,
and
making
money
–
then
attracting
more
students
into
STEM
pathways
will
 require
transforming
the
images
of
STEM
work
to
address
the
ideals
of
contemporary
youth,
and
 updating
the
content
and
practice
of
school
STEM
subjects
to
make
these
values
more
apparent.

 


Osborne,
Simon
and
Tytler,
AERA,
2009


10


This
research
into
the
interactions
of
identity
with
the
nature
of
science
and
school
science
is
important
 in
illuminating
the
complexity
of
the
issue
of
response
to
school
science
and,
that
if
we
are
to
engage
 students
with
science
in
school,
more
thought
needs
to
be
given
both
to
the
complex
and
varied
 histories
of
students
that
attend
our
classes,
and
to
the
nature
of
the
science
curriculum.
We
cannot
 hope
for
a
simple
match,
and
the
strong
message
is
that
if
we
are
to
enlist
young
people
into
science
 subjects
or
even
science‐friendly
positions,
then
it
will
be
necessary
to
present
a
richer
version
of
the
 science
and
its
value
in
school.

 
 
 New
Data
Sets
 One
of
the
consequences
of
the
importance
assigned
to
the
issue
of
‘attitudes
towards
science’
by
policy
 makers
and
politicians
is
that
a
large
body
of
national
and
international
work
has
been
funded
which
has
 collected
relevant
or
salient
data.

Good
data
sets
commonly
serve
two
functions
–
either
they
offer
 explanatory
accounts
of
social
phenomenon
or,
as
is
the
case
with
much
of
the
data
on
attitudes,
they
 raise
significant
questions
which
generate
testable
hypotheses.

Some
of
the
data
gathered
from
the
 ROSE
study
(Schreiner
&
Sjøberg,
2004)
has
already
been
referred
to
in
this
paper.

One
of
particular
 interest
is
the
plot
of
the
regression
line
between
the
values
of
the
UN
Human
Development
index,
 which
is
measured
using
a
combination
of
indicators
such
as
literacy
rates,
mortality
rates,
GDP
per
 capita
etc,
and
the
national
average
score
across
all
the
interest
items
in
the
ROSE
questionnaire
for
all
 countries
which
is
shown
in
Fig
1
beneath.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Figure
1.
Scatter‐plot
with
regression
line:
HDI
values
(horizontal
axis)
and
the
national
 average
score
across
all
108
items
for
what
students
might
want
to
learn
about
(vertical
axis)
for
all
countries.



 This
scatterplot
shows
a
very
well‐defined
negative
correlation
of
‐0.85
between
the
two
indices
and
a
 clear
demarcation
between
developed
economies
and
the
developing
world
raising
the
question
of
 what
is
it
that
might
explain
why
youth
in
the
Western
world
is
less
interested
in
the
study
of
science?

 The
phenomenon
is
even
more
surprising
given
that
schools
in
the
Western
world
have
better
facilities
 and
better‐trained
teachers
yet
are
clearly
less
successful
at
engaging
students.

Clearly
the
answer
is
 deeply
cultural.

However,
does
any
explanatory
hypothesis
lie
in
the
values
of
the
contemporary
culture


Osborne,
Simon
and
Tytler,
AERA,
2009


11


in
which
western
youth
is
situated
where
future
employment
(at
least
until
now)
has
not
been
a
major
 threat
and
where
some
of
the
issues
of
identity
discussed
previously
are
more
to
the
fore?

Indeed,
 some
would
argue
that
the
nature
of
contemporary
culture
with
immediate
access
to
information
has
 made
students
better
at
multi‐tasking
but
less
capable
of
extended
abstract
thought
and
application
–
 the
kind
of
thinking
commonly
required
by
the
study
of
the
sciences
(Greenfield,
2009;
Sefton‐Green,
 2007;
Tapscott,
2009).

Hence,
their
unwillingness
to
pursue
a
subject
which
might
be
perceived
as
 challenging.
Alternatively
the
explanation
might
simply
lie
in
the
multiple
pathways
afforded
by
the
 study
of
subjects
other
than
science
in
the
developing
world.


 
 Further
data
confirming
this
trend
identified
by
Sjoberg
and
Schreiner
comes
from
an
analysis
of
the
 1999
TIMSS
study
by
Ogura(2006).

As
well
as
its
focus
on
declarative
knowledge,
TIMSS
also
had
a
set
of
 measures
for
students’
attitudes
towards
science.





Fig
2:

Plot
of
data
from
the
1999
TIMSS
study
by
country
of
students’
average
science
scores
versus
the
 percentage
of
students
with
a
high
score
for
their
positive
attitudes
towards
science.



 The
picture
emerging
from
the
recent
TIMSS
study
is
more
complex
and
the
relationship
between
 attitude
and
attainment
less
clearly
defined
but
it
is
notable
that,
with
the
exception
of
Kazakhstan,
no
 countries
where
students
achieve
a
high
TIMSS
score
have
a
high
positive
attitude
to
science.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Osborne,
Simon
and
Tytler,
AERA,
2009


12



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Fig
3:

Plot
of
positive
attitudes
towards
science
score
versus
their
average
science
score
by
county
 
from
the
2007
TIMSS
(Martin,
Mullis,
&
Foy,
2008)
study
of
student
performance

 


What
these
data
point
to
is
that
students
who
achieve
highly
on
such
tests
are
less
likely
to
have
a
 positive
attitude
to
science.

Whether
it
is
a
product
of
the
pedagogy
specific
to
those
countries
or
 whether
it
is
a
product
of
the
value
placed
on
science
by
the
youth
in
some
countries
is
unclear.

What
is
 clear
is
that
there
is
an
issue
which
many
countries
have
to
address
–
their
youth
demonstrate
 comparatively
high
performance,
compared
to
other
countries,
yet
the
subject
fails
to
engage
them.

 One
thesis,
as
we
have
already
suggested,
would
suggest
that
this
phenomenon
is
a
product
of
their
 cultural
context.

Another
might
point
to
the
growing
rise
of
assessment
as
a
means
of
making
schools
 accountable
for
the
performance
of
their
students.
Such
assessment
is
often
high
stakes
and
there
is
an
 increasing
body
of
research
emerging
that
suggests
that
such
testing
has
little
positive
effect
on
student
 achievement
(Cheng,
Watanabe,
&
Curtis,
2004;
Nichols,
Glass,
&
Berliner,
2006)
and
leads
to
a
 narrowing
of
the
curriculum
and
an
emphasis
on
performance
rather
than
master
learning
(Au,
2007).

 At
the
very
least,

the
question
arises
of
whether
such
testing
is
doing
more
harm
than
good
–
 particularly
when
policy
makers
are
keen
that
more
students
should
pursue
the
study
of
science.
 
 Embedded
in
the
full
data
sets
for
the
recent
PISA
study
are
student
responses
which
measure
student
 interest
in
the
further
study
of
science.

In
contrast
to
the
reports
raised
by
the
scientific
community,
 these
data
would
suggest
that
the
interest
in
the
study
of
science
is
reasonable
with
over
a
third
 interested
in
the
future
study
of
science
and
a
fifth
interested
in
doing
advanced
science.


Osborne,
Simon
and
Tytler,
AERA,
2009


13


Australia
 %

UK
 %

USA
 %

Average

 (All
Countries)
 %

I
would
like
to
work
in
a
 career
involving
science

39

34

45

37

I
would
like
to
study
 science
after
secondary
 school

34

33

45

31

I
would
like
to
spend
my
 life
doing
advanced
 science

15

13

24

21

Country

Whilst
a
distinction
clearly
exists
between
the
aspiration
and
the
reality,
it
is
nevertheless
an
indication
 that
the
study
of
science
continues
to
interest
a
significant
proportion
of
the
student
cohort.
 
 The
Future
Demand
for
Scientists
 Much
of
the
concern
about
science
education
has
been
generated
by
a
concern
that
there
will
be
 insufficient
supply
to
support
future
demands.

Sufficient
data
and
scholarly
argument
exists
to
question
 the
validity
of
this
premise.

For
instance,
Teitelbaum
(2007)
points
to
the
fact
that
the
trends
in
 unemployment
for
STEM
related
professionals
tracks
that
for
the
population
as
a
whole
–
a
feature
that
 would
not
be
expected
if
there
was
a
genuine
shortage
in
the
supply.

Furthermore,
the
number
of
 tenure‐tracked
positions
in
the
life
sciences
in
the
US
has
remained
virtually
static
during
the
past
 decade
whilst
the
numbers
of
doctoral
students
graduating
has
increased
by
50%.

During
this
period
 the
success
rate
for
NIH
Funded
grants
has
decreased
from
a
peak
of
32%
in
the
year
2000
to
23%
in
the
 year
2005
–
hardly
a
data
set
that
would
support
any
thesis
that
there
is
a
shortage
of
supply.

Jagger’s
 analysis
of
PhD
awards
globally
in
2002
and
2003
(Jagger,
2007)
showed
that
125,011
SET
doctoral
 students
were
awarded
during
this
period
with
one
fifth
of
these
in
the
USA.

Given
the
growth
in
 Chinese
universities,
there
is
no
reason
to
suggest
that
it
will
not
continue
to
expand.

Likewise,
a
 seminar
held
on
the
research
on
future
skills
demands
by
the
NSF
(National
Research
Council,
2008)
 questioned
the
arguments
that
suggested
the
supply
chain
was
failing
to
fulfill
societal
needs.

For
 instance,
in
responding
to
a
specific
question
about
whether
there
was
a
national
shortage
of
scientists,
 one
of
the
contributors
–
a
management
professor
from
MIT
stated
that:
 
 ‘none
 of
 the
 companies
 she
 has
 talked
 to
 has
 suggested
 that
 there
 is
 a
 shortage
 of
 qualified
 chemists
 or
 life
 scientists.
 She
 said
 that
 employers'
 greatest
 concern
 "is
 not
 numbers,
 it
 is
 training".
 
 She
 cite
 the
 example
 of
 managers
 who
 told
 her
 they
 could
 interview
 hundreds
 of
 candidates
 for
 an
 organic
 chemistry
 position
 but
 wish
 they
 knew
 how
 to
 identify
 those
 candidates
who
"can
behave
collaboratively"
and
have
other
broad
competencies
discussed
at
 the
 workshop.
 She
 argued
 that
 the
 degree
 to
 which
 scientists
 have
 these
 other
 capabilities
 "really
seems
to
be
the
problem".(p27)


Both
this
report
and
others
suggest
that
the
kinds
of
skills
demanded
by
individuals
in
the
future
will
be
 a
creative
approach
to
problem
solving,
complex
communication
skills
and
an
ability
to
synthesize
from
 different
domains
of
knowledge
(Gilbert,
2005;
Hill,
2008).

Hill,
in
particular,
argues
that
the
developed


Osborne,
Simon
and
Tytler,
AERA,
2009


14


world
is
moving
to
a
‘post‐scientific
society’.

By
this
he
does
not
mean
that
we
will
no
longer
be
 dependent
on
advanced
technologies
but
rather
that
much
of
the
basic
research
will
increasingly
be
 either
mechanized
or
undertaken
at
sites
where
it
is
cheaper
to
do
(and
where
individuals
might
be
 better
educated
in
a
knowledge
of
science)
such
as
the
BRIC
(Brazil,
Russia,
India
and
China)
countries.

 Rather
the
advanced
societies
will
increasingly
depend
on
wealth
generation
from
individuals
who
have:
 
 a
core
understanding
of
scientific
and
technical
principles
but
an
equally
strong
preparation
in
 business
 principles,
 communications
 skills,
 multicultural
 understanding,
 a
 foreign
 language
 or
 two,
human
psychology,
and
one
or
more
of
the
creative
arts.
Their
education
must
emphasize
 making
connections
among
ideas,
people,
organizations,
and
cultures,
often
across
boundaries
 that
no
one
has
thought
to
try
to
cross
before.’
(Hill,
2008)


Consequently
a
post‐scientific
society
will
actually
need
fewer
scientists
than
are
currently
employed
 today.

If
Hill
is
right,
it
is
questionable
whether
societies
should
encourage
their
youth
to
study
science
 for
its
instrumental
value
for
future
careers
as,
by
the
time
they
graduate,
these
may
not
exist.

The
only
 defensible
position
from
which
societies
might
encourage
the
study
of
science
for
all
its
young
people
 rests
in
the
basic
liberal
notion
that
science
is
a
distinct
domain
of
knowledge
which
offers
us
the
best
 explanations
we
have
of
the
material
world;
that
many
of
these
represent
outstanding
intellectual
and
 creative
achievements;
and
that
a
knowledge
of
this
domain
and
its
epistemic
values
will
enhance
 students’
individual
capabilities
and
what
they
might
offer
to
the
world
in
their
coming
futures.
 


Osborne,
Simon
and
Tytler,
AERA,
2009


15


References
 Adamuti‐Trache,
M.,
&
Andres,
L.
(2008).
Embarking
on
and
Persisting
in
Scientific
Fields
of
Study:
 Cultural
capital,
gender,
and
curriculum
along
the
science
pipeline.
International
Journal
of
 Science
Education,
30(12),
1557
‐
1584.
 Aikenhead,
G.
(2001).
Students'
ease
in
crossing
cultural
borders
into
school
science.
Science
Education,
 85(2),
180‐188.
 Aikenhead,
G.
(2005).
Science
Education
for
Everyday
Life:
Evidence
Based
Practice.
New
York:
Teachers
 College
Press.
 Aikenhead,
G.,
Calabrese,
A.,
&
Chinn,
P.
(2006).
FORUM:
Toward
a
politics
of
place‐based
science
 education.
Cultural
Studies
of
Science
Education,
1(2),
403‐416.
 Aikenhead,
G.,
&
Ogawa,
M.
(2007).
Indigenous
knowledge
and
science
revisited.
Cultural
Studies
of
 Science
Education,
2(3),
539‐620.
 Alloway,
N.,
Dalley,
L.,
Patterson,
A.,
Walker,
K.,
&
Lenoy,
M.
(2004).
School
students
making
education
 and
career
decisions:
Aspirations,
attitudes
and
influences:
Final
report.
Canberra:
Department
 of
Education,
Science
and
Training
(DEST),
Australian
Government.
 Archer,
L.,
Hollingworth,
S.,
&
Halsall,
A.
(2007).
`University's
not
for
me
—
I'm
a
Nike
person':
Urban,
 working‐class
engagement
young
people's
negotiations
of
`style',
identity
and
education.
 Sociology,
41(2),
219
‐
237.
 Archer,
L.,
Pratt,
S.,
&
Phillips,
D.
(2001).
Working
class
men's
constructions
of
masculinity
and
 negotiations
of
(non)participation
in
higher
education.
Gender
and
Education,
13(4),
431
‐
449.
 Archer,
L.,
&
Yamashita,
H.
(2003).
Theorising
inner‐city
masculinities:
'race',
class,
gender
and
 education.
Gender
&
Education,
15(2),
115‐132.
 Aronson,
J.,
Quinn,
D.
M.,
&
Spencer,
S.
(1998).
Stereotype
threat
and
th
academci
underperformance
of
 minorities
and
women.
In
J.
K.
Swim
&
C.
Stangor
(Eds.),
Prejudice:
The
target's
perspective.
San
 Diego:
Academic
Press.
 Au,
W.
(2007).
High
Stakes
Testing
and
Curricular
Control:

A
Qualitative
Metasynthesis.
Educational
 Researcher,
36(5),
258‐267.
 Bandura,
A.,
Barbaranelli,
C.,
Caprara,
G.
V.,
&
Pastorelli,
C.
(2001).
Self‐Efficacy
Beliefs
as
Shapers
of
 Children's
Aspirations
and
Career
Trajectories.
Child
Development,
72(1),
187‐206.
 Beck,
U.,
&
Beck‐Gernsheim,
E.
(2002).
Individualization.
London:
Sage
Publications
Ltd.
 Becker,
B.
J.
(1989).
Gender
and
science
achievement:
a
reanalysis
of
studies
from
two
meta‐analyses.
 Journal
of
Research
in
Science
Teaching,
26,
141‐169.
 Blalock,
C.
L.,
Lichtenstein,
M.
J.,
Owen,
S.,
Pruski,
L.,
Marshall,
C.,
&
Toepperwein,
M.
(2008).
In
Pursuit
 of
Validity:
A
comprehensive
review
of
science
attitude
instruments.
International
Journal
of
 Science
Education,
30(7),
961
‐
977.
 Blickenstaff,
J.
C.
(2005).
Women
and
science
careers:
leaky
pipeline
or
gender
filter?
Gender
and
 Education,
17(4),
369‐386.
 Boaler,
J.
(1997).
Reclaiming
school
mathematics:
the
girls
fight
back.
Gender
and
Education,
9(3),
285
‐
 305.
 Brotman,
J.
S.,
&
Moore,
F.
M.
(2008).
Girls
and
science:
A
review
of
four
themes
in
the
science
 education
literature.
Journal
of
Research
in
Science
Teaching,
45(9),
971‐1002.
 Brown,
B.
(2004).
Discursive
Identity:
Assimilation
into
the
Culture
of
Science
and
its
Implications
for
 Minority
Students.
Journal
of
Research
in
Science
Teaching,
41‐8(810‐834).
 Cheng,
L.,
Watanabe,
Y.,
&
Curtis,
A.
(Eds.).
(2004).
Washback
in
language
testing:
Research
contexts
and
 methods.
Mahwah,
NJ:
Lawrence
Erlbaum
Associates.


Osborne,
Simon
and
Tytler,
AERA,
2009


16


Cohen,
G.
L.,
&
Steele,
C.
M.
(2002).
A
barrier
of
mistrust:

How
negative
stereotypes
affect
cross‐race
 mentoring.
In
J.
Aronson
(Ed.),
Improving
academic
achievement:

Impact
of
psychological
 factors
on
education.
San
Diego:
Academic
Press.
 Connell,
R.
W.
(1989).
Cool
guys,
swots
and
wimps:
The
interplay
of
masculinity
and
education.
Oxford
 Review
of
Education,
15(3),
291‐303.
 Csikszentmihalyi,
M.,
&
Schneider,
B.
(2000).
Becoming
Adult:

Preparing
Teenagers
for
the
World
of
 Work.
New
York:
Basic
Books.
 Engineering
and
Technology
Board.
(2005).
Factors
influencing
Year
9
career
choices:
National
 Foundation
for
Educational
Research.
 European
Commission.
(2004).
Europe
needs
More
Scientists:
Report
by
the
High
Level
Group
on
 Increasing
Human
Resources
for
Science
and
Technology.
Brussels:
European
Commission.
 Fouad,
N.,
Byars‐Winston,
A.,
&
Angela,
M.
(2005).
Cultural
context
of
career
choice:
meta‐analysis
of
 race/ethnicity
differences.
Career
Development
Quarterly.
 Fouad,
N.,
Hackett,
G.,
Haag,
S.,
Kantamneni,
N.,
&
Fitzpatrick,
M.
E.
(2007,
August).
Career
choice
 barriers:
Environmental
influences
on
women's
career
choices.
Paper
presented
at
the
Annual
 Meeting
of
the
American
Psychological
Association
Convention,
San
Francisco,
CA.
 Francis,
B.
(2000).
The
gendered
subject:
students'
subject
preferences
and
discussions
of
gender
and
 subject
ability.
Oxford
Review
of
Education,
26(1),
35‐48.
 Gardner,
P.
L.
(1975).
Attitudes
to
Science.
Studies
in
Science
Education,
2,
1‐41.
 Gee,
J.
(2002).
Identity
as
an
analytic
lens
for
research
in
education.
Review
of
Research
in
Education,
25,
 99‐125.
 Germann,
P.
J.
(1988).
Development
of
the
Attitude
toward
Science
in
School
Assessment
and
its
use
to
 Investigate
the
Relationship
between
Science
Achievement
and
Attitude
toward
Science
in
 School.
Journal
of
Research
in
Science
Teaching,
25(8),
689‐703.
 Gilbert,
J.
(2005).
Catching
the
Knowledge
Wave?
The
Knowledge
Society
and
the
Future
of
Education.
 Wellington,
New
Zealand:
NZCER
Press.
 Greenfield,
P.
M.
(2009).
Technology
and
Informal
Education:
What
Is
Taught,
What
Is
Learned.
Science,
 323(5910),
69‐71.
 Haste,
H.
(2004).
Science
in
my
future:
A
study
of
the
values
and
beliefs
in
relation
to
science
and
 technology
amongst
11‐21
year
olds:
Nestlé
Social
Research
Programme.
 Haste,
H.,
Muldoon,
C.,
Hogan,
A.,
&
Brosnan,
M.
(2008,
Sept
11,
2008).
If
Girls
Like
Ethics
In
Their
 Science
And
Boys
Like
Gadgets,
Can
We
Get
Science
Education
Right?
Paper
presented
at
the
 Annual
Conference
of
the
British
Association
for
the
Advancement
of
Science,
Liverpool.
 Haussler,
P.,
&
Hoffmann,
L.
(2002).
An
intervention
study
to
enhance
girls'
interest,
self‐concept,
and
 achievement
in
physics
classes.
Journal
of
Research
in
Science
Teaching,
39(9),
870‐888.
 Haworth,
C.
M.
A.,
Dale,
P.,
&
Plomin,
R.
(2008).
A
Twin
Study
into
the
Genetic
and
Environmental
 Influences
on
Academic
Performance
in
Science
in
nine‐year‐old
Boys
and
Girls.
International
 Journal
of
Science
Education,
30(8),
1003
‐
1025.
 Head,
J.
(1985).
The
Personal
Response
to
Science.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press.
 Hill,
C.
(2008).
The
Post‐Scientific
Society.
Issues
in
Science
and
Technology.
 Jagger,
N.
(2007).
Internationalising
Doctoral
Careers.
Paper
presented
at
the
Conference
Name|.
 Retrieved
Access
Date|.
from
URL|.
 Jenkins,
E.,
&
Nelson,
N.
W.
(2005).
Important
but
not
for
me:
students'
attitudes
toward
secondary
 school
science
in
England.
Research
in
Science
&
Technological
Education,
23(1),
41‐57.


Osborne,
Simon
and
Tytler,
AERA,
2009


17


Johnson,
A.
C.
(2007).
Unintended
consequences:
How
science
professors
discourage
women
of
color.
 Science
Education,
91(5),
805‐821.
 Jones,
G.,
Howe,
A.,
&
Rua,
M.
(2000).
Gender

Differences
in
Students'
Experiences,
Interests,
and
 Attitudes
towards
Science
and
Scientists.
Science
Education,
84,
180‐192.
 Kind,
P.
M.,
Jones,
K.,
&
Barmby,
P.
(2007).
Developing
Attitudes
towards
Science
Measure.
International
 Journal
of
Science
Education,
29(7),
871‐893.
 Krogh,
L.
B.,
&
Thomsen,
P.
V.
(2005).
Studying
students’
attitudes
towards
science
from
a
cultural
 perspective
but
with
a
quantitative
methodology:
border
crossing
into
the
physics
classroom.
 International
Journal
of
Science
Education,
27(3),
281‐302.
 Lee,
J.
D.
(2002).
More
than
ability:
Gender
and
personal
relationships
influence
science
and
technology
 Involvement.
Sociology
of
Education,
75(4),
349‐373.
 Lee,
M.‐H.,
Wub,
Y.‐T.,
&
Tsaic,
C.‐C.
(2009
(in
press)).
Research
Trends
in
Science
Education
from
2003
 to
2007:
A
content
analysis
of
publications
in
selected
journals.
International
Journal
of
Science
 Education.
 Lightbody,
P.,
&
Durndell,
A.
(1996).
Gendered
career
choice:
Is
sex‐stereotyping
the
cause
or
the
 consequence?
Educational
Studies
in
Mathematics,
22(2),
133‐146.
 Lindahl,
B.
(2007).
A
Longitudinal
Study
of
Student's'
Attitudes
Towards
Science
and
Choice
of
Career.
 Paper
presented
at
the
80th
NARST
International
Conference
New
Orleans,
Louisiana.
 Lord
Sainsbury
of
Turville.
(2007).
The
Race
to
the
Top:

A
Review
of
Government's
Science
and
 Innovation
Policies.
London:
HM
Treasury.
 Maltese,
A.
V.,
&
Tai,
R.
H.
(2008).
Eyeballs
in
the
Fridge:
Sources
of
Early
Interest
in
Science.
Paper
 presented
at
the
Annual

Meeting
of
the
American
Educational
Research
Association,
New
York.
 Martin,
M.
O.,
Mullis,
I.
V.
S.,
&
Foy,
P.
(2008).
TIMSS
2007
International
Science
Report:
Findings
from
 IEA’s
Trends
in
International
Mathematics
and
Science
Study
at
the
Fourth
and
Eighth
Grades

 .
Boston,
MA:
TIMSS
&
PIRLS
International
Study
Center,
Lynch
School
of
Education.
 McKinley,
E.
(2005).
Brown
bodies,
white
coats:
Postcolonialism,
Maori
women
and
science.
Discourse:
 studies
in
the
cultural
politics
of
education,
26(4),
481
‐
496.
 McMahon,
M.,
&
Patton,
W.
(1997).
School
as
an
influence
on
the
career
development
of
students:
 comments
by
young
people
and
considerations
for
career
educators.
Australian
Journal
of
 Career
Development,
6(1),
23‐26.
 Mendick,
H.
(2006).
Masculinities
in
mathematics.
Maidenhead:
Open
University
Press.
 Messick,
S.
(1989).
Validity.
In
R.
L.
Linn
(Ed.),
Educational
measurement
(3rd
ed.,
pp.
9‐98).
New
York:
 Collier
Macmillan.
 Moore,
R.
W.,
&
Sutman,
F.
X.
(1970).
The
development,
field
test
and
validation
of
an
inventory
of
 scientific
attitudes.
Journal
of
Research
in
Science
Teaching,
7,
85‐94.
 Munby,
H.
(1982).
The
impropriety
of
“panel
of
judges”
validation
in
science
attitude

 scales.
.
Journal
of
Research
in
Science
Teaching,
19,
617‐619.
 Murphy,
C.,
&
Beggs,
J.
(2005).
Primary
Science
in
the
UK:
A
Scoping
Study.

Final
Report
to
the
Wellcome
 Trust.
London:
Wellcome
Trust.
 Murphy,
P.,
&
Whitelegg,
E.
(2006).
Girls
in
the
Physics
Classroom:
A
Review
of
Research
of
Participation
 of
Girls
in
Physics.
London:
Institute
of
Physics.
 National
Academy
of
Sciences:

Committee
on
Science
Engineering
and
Public
Policy.
(2005).
Rising
 Above
the
Gathering
Storm:
Energizing
and
Employing
America
for
a
Brighter
Economic
Future.
 Washington,
DC:
National
Academy
Sciences.


Osborne,
Simon
and
Tytler,
AERA,
2009


18


National
Research
Council.
(2008).
Research
on
Future
Skill
Demands.
Washington
D.C.:
National
 Academies
Press.
 Nichols,
S.,
Glass,
G.
V.,
&
Berliner,
D.
(2006).
High
Stakes
Testing
and
Student
Achievement:
Does
 Accountability
Pressure
increase
Student
Learning?
Education
Policy
Analysis
Archives,
14(1),
1‐ 172.
 OECD.
(2006).
Evolution
of
Student
Interest
in
Science
and
Technology
Studies
Policy
Report
Paris:
OECD.
 Ogura,
Y.
(2006).
Graph
of
Student
Attitude
v
Student
Attainment.
Based
on
data
from:
Martin,
M.O.
et
 al.
(2000).
TIMSS
1999
International
Science
Report:
Findings
from
IEA's
Repeat
of
the
Third
 International
Mathematics
and
Science
Study
at
the
eighth
grade.
Chestnut
Hill,
MA:
Boston
 College.:
National
Institute
for
Educational
Research:
Tokyo.
 Osborne,
J.
F.,
&
Dillon,
J.
(2008).
Science
Education
in
Europe:
Critical
Reflections.
London:
Nuffield
 Foundation.
 Osborne,
J.
F.,
Simon,
S.,
&
Collins,
S.
(2003).
Attitudes
towards
Science:
A
Review
of
the
Literature
and
 its
Implications.
International
Journal
of
Science
Education,
25(9),
1049–1079.
 Owen,
S.
V.,
Toepperwein,
M.
A.,
Marshall,
C.
E.,
Lichtenstein,
M.
J.,
Blalock,
C.
L.,
Liu,
Y.,
et
al.
(2008).
 Finding
pearls:
Psychometric
reevaluation
of
the
Simpson‐Troost
Attitude
Questionnaire
(STAQ).
 Science
Education,
92(6),
1076‐1095.
 Pell,
T.,
&
Jarvis,
T.
(2001).
Developing
attitude
to
science
scales
for
use
with
children
of
ages
from
five
 to
eleven
years.
International
Journal
of
Science
Education,
23(8),
847‐862.
 Roberts,
G.
(2002).
SET
for
success:
The
supply
of
people
with
science,
technology,
engineering
and
 mathematics
skills.
London:
HM
Treasury.
 Scantlebury,
K.,
&
Baker,
D.
(2007).
Gender
issues
in
science
education
research:
Remembering
where
 the
difference
lies.
In
S.
Abell
&
N.
Lederman
(Eds.),
Handbook
of
research
on
science
education

 
(pp.
257‐286).
Mawhah,
New
Jersey:
Lawrence
Erlbaum.
 Schibeci,
R.
A.
(1984).
Attitudes
to
Science:
an
update.
Studies
in
Science
Education,
11,
26‐59.
 Schreiner,
C.
(2006a).
EXPLORING
A
ROSE‐GARDEN:
Norwegian
youth's
orientations
towards
science
‐
 seen
as
signs
of
late
modern
identities:

Thesis
submitted
for
Doctor
Scientarium.
Oslo:
Faculty
of
 Education.
 Schreiner,
C.
(2006b).
Exploring
a
ROSE‐garden:
Norwegian
youth's
orientations
towards
science
‐seen
as
 signs
of
late
modern
identities.,
University
of
Oslo,
Oslo.
 Schreiner,
C.,
&
Sjøberg,
S.
(2004).
Sowing
the
seeds
of
ROSE.

Background,
Rationale,
Questionnaire
 Development
and
Data
Collection
for
ROSE
(The
Relevance
of
Science
Education)
‐
a
comparative
 study
of
students'
views
of
science
and
science
education
(pdf)
(Acta
Didactica
4/2004).
.
Oslo:
 Dept.
of
Teacher
Education
and
School
Development,
University
of
Oslo.
 Schreiner,
C.,
&
Sjøberg,
S.
(2007).
Science
education
and
youth's
identity
construction
‐
two
 incompatible
projects?
In
D.
Corrigan,
J.
Dillon
&
R.
Gunstone
(Eds.),
The
Re‐emergence
of
 Values
in
the
Science
Curriculum.
Rotterdam:
Sense
Publishers.
 Sefton‐Green,
J.
(2007).
Youth,
Technology,
and
Media
Culture.
Review
of
Research
in
Education,
30,
 279‐306.
 Simpson,
R.
D.,
&
Troost,
K.
M.
(1982).
Influences
of
committment
to
and
learning
of
science
among
 adolescent
students.
Science
Education,
69(1),
19‐24.
 Sjøberg,
S.,
&
Schreiner,
C.
(2005).
How
do
learners
in
different
cultures
relate
to
science
and
 technology?
Results
and
perspectives
from
the
project
ROSE.
Asia
Pacific
Forum
on
Science
 Learning
and
Teaching,
6(2),
1‐16.


Osborne,
Simon
and
Tytler,
AERA,
2009


19


Tai,
R.
H.,
Qi
Liu,
C.,
Maltese,
A.
V.,
&
Fan,
X.
(2006).
Planning
Early
for
Careers
in
Science.
Science,
312,
 1143‐1145.
 Tapscott,
D.
(2009).
grown
up
digital:
how
the
net
generation
is
changing
your
world.
New
York:
McGraw
 Hill.
 Teitelbaum,
M.
(2007).
Do
We
Need
More
Scientists
and
Engineers?
Paper
presented
at
the
Conference
 Name|.
Retrieved
Access
Date|.
from
URL|.
 The
Royal
Society.
(2006).
Taking
A
Leading
Role.
London:
The
Royal
Society.
 Thomson,
S.,
&
De
Bortoli,
L.
(2008).
Exploring
scientific
literacy:
How
Australia
measures
up.
 Camberwell:
ACER.
 Tytler,
R.,
Osborne,
J.
F.,
Williams,
G.,
Tytler,
K.,
Clark,
J.
C.,
Tomei,
A.,
et
al.
(2008).
Opening
up
 pathways:
Engagement
in
STEM
across
the
Primary‐Secondary
school
transition.
A
review
of
the
 literature
concerning
supports
and
barriers
to
Science,
Technology,
Engineering
and
 Mathematics
engagement
at
Primary‐Secondary
transition.
Commissioned
by
the
Australian
 Department
of
Education,
Employment
and
Workplace
Relations.
Melbourne:
Deakin
University.
 Walker,
E.
(2007).
The
Structure
and
Culture
of
Developing
a
Mathematics
Tutoring
Collaborative
in
an
 Urban
High
School.
High
School
Journal,
91(1),
57‐67.
 Walker,
K.
(2006).
Aiming
high
:
Australian
school
leavers'
career
aspirations
and
the
implications
for
 career
development
practice.
Australian
Journal
of
Career
Development,
15(2),
53‐60.
 Walker,
K.,
Alloway,
N.,
Dalley‐Trim,
L.,
&
Patterson,
A.
(2006).
Counsellor
practices
and
student
 perspectives
:
perceptions
of
career
counselling
in
Australian
secondary
schools.
,
.
Australian
 Journal
of
Career
Development,
15(1),
37‐45.
 Walkerdine,
V.
(1990).
Schoolgirl
Fictions.
London:
Verso.
 Weinburgh,
M.
(1995).
Gender
Differences
in
Student
Attitudes
toward
Science:
A
Meta‐Analysis
of
the
 Literature
from
1970
to
1991.
Journal
of
Research
in
Science
Teaching,
32(4),
387‐398.
 
 


Osborne,
Simon
and
Tytler,
AERA,
2009


20