Millet-Lock - GCSE Students Attitudes Towards Animal Use Some Implications For Biology-Science Teachers

EBSCOhost
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=5296e40b-9464-402c-a9e2...
EBSCO Publishing Citation Format: APA (American Psychological Assoc.): NOTE: Review the instructions at http://support.ebsco.com/help/?int=ehost&lang=&feature_id=APA and make any necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal names, capitalization, and dates. Always consult your library resources for the exact formatting and punctuation guidelines.
References Millet, K., & Lock, R. (1992). GCSE students' attitudes towards animal use: Some implications for biology/science teachers. Journal Of Biological Education (Society Of Biology), 26(3), 204. 
GCSE STUDENTS' ATTITUDES TOWARDS ANIMAL USE: SOME IMPLICATIONS FOR BIOLOGY/SCIENCE TEACHERS What are 14/15-year-old students' attitudes towards using animals in schools, research and farming? What implications do their attitudes have for teachers of biology? Abstract A sample of 468 14-15-year-old students from 10 schools responded to a questionnaire about uses of animals in science-related contexts. The contexts investigated were animal experimentation, animals in school and animals in farming. The students were questioned about their experience of animals, their knowledge of animal use and their attitudes towards animals use. The data reported in this paper relate to the students' attitudes. The responses show that the females in the sample tend to be more strongly against animals use than the males, and that students' beliefs vary according to the animal use. The implications of the findings for teaching biological science are considered. Key words: Animals use, Students' attitudes. Introduction The study of science now occupies a significant part of the curriculum for every student up to the age of sixteen. As only a small number of these will go on to become professional scientists, a fundamental reason for the teaching of 'science for all' must be to improve the scientific literacy of the population. Given that the students in our schools today are the future adult population we set out to investigate what the students in their 10th year of school knew and felt about some ways in which animals are used. The use of animals can be a contentious issue, bringing about discussion of animal rights. We were interested in exploring students' views and understanding of some aspects of animal use in
1 of 15
2/29/2012 7:59 AM
EBSCOhost
schools, in scientific research and in farming. If, as adults, the students are to participate in debate relating to scientific issues, they must have an adequate scientific understanding. The foundation for this understanding is ultimately assumed to come from formal education. The assumption that science learnt at school will influence decision making in later life is implicit in Science 5-16: a policy statement (DES, 1985), GCSE National Criteria (SEAC, 1990) and National Curriculum proposals (DES, 1991). All the documents discuss relevant science, where the relevance is to society at large. The Royal Society also recommended a broad and balanced science curriculum to increase public understanding of science (Royal Society, 1985). Consequently, it may be argued that science education should provide some knowledge of science (although the detail may be forgotten over time), some experience of the processes of science, an understanding of the limitations of science and scientific method and some idea of the social, and cultural and ethical implications of science. Scientific issues of public concern are widely reported in the media. Currently these might include human embryo research, global warming, animal experimentation or nuclear energy. A public equipped with the science education described above might be better able to interpret such issues, as communicated by television, newspaper or other medium, and be in a better-informed position to decide their own stance towards the controversies. Little research has been carried out in the area of children's attitudes towards the use of animals. Kellert (1979) in the study of American attitudes, knowledge and behaviour toward wildlife and natural habitats, funded by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, developed a typology of basic adult attitudes towards animals, rather than towards the use of animals by humans. He also identified three stages in the development of children's perceptions of animals (Kellert and Westervelt, undated). He found that between the ages of 13 and 16 children developed a much broader ethical concern and a greater ecological appreciation of animals. Furnham and Gunter (1989) carried out a study of British adolescents' attitudes in which they asked only two questions concerned with animals, in the contexts of testing medicines and cosmetics. Furnham and Pinder (1990) carried out a study examining young people's attitudes to animal experimentation with particular relevance to psychological experiments in animals. Both studies suggested that males are more in favour of animal experimentation than females. The 1990 study also suggested that 'attitudes to animal experimentation are closely interwoven with other political and social issues'. Our study was focused on the use of animals by society, in the context of a relevant science education. We felt that students aged between 14 and 15 would be the most appropriate subjects given Kellert's findings and the place of ethical considerations of science in Key Stage 4 of the Science National Curriculum (DES, 1991). In this paper we will report our findings with regard to students' attitudes and discuss their implications for science teaching. Method
2 of 15
2/29/2012 7:59 AM
EBSCOhost
Four hundred and sixty eight students (213 males and 255 females) completed a questionnaire which explored their attitudes, knowledge and experience of animals and animal use. The year 10 students (aged 14-15), of mixed ability, were from 10 state secondary schools in England. The schools were selected with the assistance of local science advisers and inspectors in seven local authorities. The questionnaire was administered by the authors in science lessons at the survey schools. The science lesson context ensured that in the students' minds the activity was science focused and was a means of creating a similar experience in all the schools. The same preamble was given to all students and the questionnaire was promoted as a non-threatening exercise, eliciting honest answers from the students. Questions in a variety of styles explored the students' experience of using animals, their knowledge of animal use (Lock and Millett, 1991) and their attitudes. Attitude was investigated using a Likert-type scale. There were 32 statements relating to the use of animals in schools, in scientific research and in farming (see figure 1). The students were instructed to tick the relevant box, to indicate the extent of their agreement or disagreement with each statement. Although the statements expressed opinions, there was a balance between those which opposed and those which condoned animal use in the contexts described. The statements were grouped into the three sections which were dearly identified for the students. The statements were presented to the students in the same order as they appear in tables 1, 2 and 3. The statements were tested in a number of schools, and subsequently some statements were removed and others re-phrased to make them as unambiguous as possible. The whole questionnaire was validated by semi-structured interviews with students in three schools. Results The extent of agreement, uncertainty or disagreement with each statement in the attitude scale is shown, for males and females, in tables 1, 2 and 3. Table 1 shows attitudes towards animal experimentation. The percentages shown are the responses to each category for males and for females in the sample. Most students are against the use of animals to research cosmetic or household products. Many students feel that research using animals can only tell us about the animals and not about people, and feel that there should be a total ban on animal experiments and that animals should be set free from experimental laboratories. Table 2 shows attitudes towards the use of animals in schools. Although 41 per cent of females and 35 per cent of males thought it wrong to keep animals in schools, most would be happy to investigate garden snail movement or the conditions which woodlice prefer; 45 per cent of males but only 18 per cent of females in the sample thought that dissection might be interesting (not all students in the sample had experience of dissection.) However, 83 per cent of females and 61 per cent of males felt that it was wrong to breed animals purely for dissection. Table 3 gives the responses to the statements relating to use of animals in farming. The trend in
3 of 15
2/29/2012 7:59 AM
EBSCOhost
which females are more anti-animal use than males continues. In response to the statement (28) that it is wrong to kill animals for food, 35 per cent of females agreed compared to only 12 per cent of males in the sample. Keeping animals for their food products without specific mention of slaughter was considered acceptable by 77 per cent of females and 88 per cent of males, although keeping sheep for wool and not for meat brought a response of 60 per cent female agreement and 34 per cent male agreement. The responses were scored on a scale of 1-5 for each statement. A score of I indicated strong disapproval and a score of 5 showed strong approval for the use of animals in the context of the statement. The means of the scores were calculated for each statement. The five highest and five lowest scoring items from the attitude scale are shown in table 4. In table 4 the highest scoring items reflect an acceptance of animals in farming, of using living invertebrates in science/biology lessons and also of the fact that in a life or death situation, the human life may be valued more highly than that of the animals on which the drugs had been tested. The lowest scoring items show that students are against the use of animals for testing household or cosmetic products, and that they are keen to replace the use of animals in scientific research. They also feel that chickens should not be kept in battery cages. The males in the sample consistently scored higher than the females, showing attitudes more prone to approve or condone the use of animals. This reflects Furnham and Pinder's (1990) findings with regard to gender differences. The mean scores for attitude statements related to animal experimentation tend to be lower than those related either to farming or to use of animals in schools. This may suggest that the students feel more strongly against animal use in scientific research than in the other contexts we investigated. Discussion The students' responses to the attitude statements have important implications for those teaching biological components of a science curriculum. In meeting National Curriculum requirements relating to the application and economic, social and technological implications of science, teachers may be acting as mediators between the students' views of the world and the accepted scientific view. The use of animals might be a suitable starting point for discussion about the social issues of science, the nature of the limitations of science, the application of scientific knowledge and the ethics of science. For instance, dissection can be presented as an issue to be debated in terms of benefits to humans, which in turn may lead to discussion of vivisection. Teachers may wish to provide students with examples of vivi-section that have proved beneficial to humans, such as Banting's work in the search for insulin (Bliss, 1982; Newton, 1988). The students should have opportunities to receive information and to air their own opinions. The students' attitudes towards the use of animals will become adult attitudes unless they have the experience of exploring the issues further and coming to understand their own, and others', points of view. In their responses to the attitude statements, the students' perceptions of moral dilemma and their confusion begin to emerge. For example, almost all the statements relating to the use of animals in scientific research elicited low scores (anti-animal use) with the exception of, 'I would take a medicine
4 of 15
2/29/2012 7:59 AM
EBSCOhost
that had been tested on animals if it would save my life' (statement 5, table 4). The students are unable to reconcile their views of animal use in a situation that directly places the value of human life against the value of animal life. In science lessons, they should begin to rehearse the arguments expressed by adults. Morality, or ethics, should be presented as a choice between alternatives, not as simplistic right or wrong solutions to problems. Animals are used in many ways by society and many children may have experience of animals as pets. This affinity with certain animal species influences their opinion and many adolescents may face moral dilemmas of their own with regard to animal use; many adolescents use 'cruelty-free' cosmetic products or become vegetarian. The teacher's role is to extend the students' experience and knowledge of animal use and to provide opportunities for them to consider some of the dilemmas faced by scientists. Although the sample was not nationally representative, there is no reason to consider that it has any particular bias. We feel that the need for curriculum development is clear, particularly where the questionnaire revealed confusion or uncertainty in attitudes and a corresponding lack of knowledge (Lock and Millett, 1991). For example, most students were uncertain whether animal research improved human life (statement 8, table 1) and very few were able to identify medical advances linked to animal research. In response to the statement, 'Animal experiments only tell us about animals and not about people', 60 per cent of females and 51 per cent of males indicated agreement and a third of all males and females were unsure of their feelings. The students need accurate evidence relating to the use of animals in scientific research, so that they may hold an informed opinion, not one based on hearsay. One area in which the students completing the questionnaire expressed interest to the researchers, was that of alternatives to animal experiments. The statement (16,table 1) stating that alternatives to animal experiments should be sought elicited 92 per cent agreement among females and 74 per cent agreement among males. However, the majority were unable to identify any alternatives to animals in research procedures and those who did make a suggestion preferred human volunteers. The application of knowledge of life processes in medicine and agriculture is an aspect of National Curriculum science. Students should gain an understanding of physiological principles and how such principles might be utilized to develop new drugs or diagnose disease --even if the model used is an animal, not human. They should learn that science can be a tool that enables humans to adapt to their environment but that the choice of action can involve questions of morality. Some aspects of the debate surrounding animal experimentation, in both historical and current concerns, may help students to understand some of the complexity of science. This may be a way of demonstrating the link between science as a search for knowledge and the application of such knowledge. When dealing with socially controversial issues of a scientific nature, the teacher must consider the students' beliefs. If the aim is to educate and not to inculcate, attitudes towards classroom issues such as dissection or the use of animals in investigations are important starting points for discussion. If a teacher is prepared to discuss the morality of, for instance, dissection in biology, he or she must respect the choice made by the students. The consequence of this action may necessitate the provision of dissection for some and alternative activities for others. The students should be able to
5 of 15
2/29/2012 7:59 AM
EBSCOhost
challenge their own beliefs and to justify their opinions. Education should enable them to communicate their views and give them the ability to select the evidence they need to support their arguments. The findings of this survey suggest justification for teaching controversial issues, such as the use of animals, in science not only to meet National Curriculum requirements, but also for the benefit of all students. Attitudes are influenced by experience; by the media, peers, family and education. Within the science curriculum we feel that there is a place to clarify confusion related to the complexities of some animal-related science issues, as perceived by our students. Teachers should be sensitive to the range of attitudes in their class and be aware that females are inclined to be more 'pro-animal' and therefore anti-animal use, specifically in contexts that may conjure up images of cruelty or suffering. A relevant science curriculum should provide for the needs of students now and in their future. Acknowledgements The data reported here were collected as part of the Animals and Science Education research project funded by the Biomedical Education Research Trust.
Table 1 Attitudes towards animal experimentation (percentage of males and females responding to each category) Agree F M 12 25
Attitude statement 1. New medicines should be tested on animals before they are taken by humans 2. I believe in a total ban animal experiments 3. I would prefer to take medicines that had not been tested on animals 4. I think that medicine that had been tested on animals if it would save my life 5. I would take a medicine that had been tested on animals if it would save my life 6. Deodorants should be tested on animals' skin to make sure they are safe for humans to use 7. I would stop buying a product if I found out that it had been tested on animals
60
41
69
43
60
40
63
85
13
68
32
6 of 15
2/29/2012 7:59 AM
EBSCOhost
8. Research from animal experiment improves the lives of people. 9. I think that no more cosmetic products (like shampoo or lipstick) should be tested on animals 10. I think that household cleaning products should not be tested on animals 11. I think that should be set free experimental laboratories 12. A new washing-up liquid should be tested on animals' skin before being sold in the shops 13. Medicines used for treating pet dogs should be tested on laboratory dogs first 14. I think that animals should still be used to research diseases for which there are no cures 15. Animals experiments only tell us animals and not about people. 16. I think scientist should find alternatives to animals experiments
17
38
88
71
94
80
75
63
10
18
36
16
32
60
51
92
74
Attitude statement 1. New medicines should be tested on animals before they are taken by humans 2. I believe in a total ban animal experiments 3. I would prefer to take medicines that had not been tested on animals 4. I think that medicine that had been tested on animals if it would save my life 5. I would take a medicine that had been tested
Uncertain F M 26 24
23
32
23
33
27
32
7 of 15
2/29/2012 7:59 AM
EBSCOhost
on animals if it would save my life 6. Deodorants should be tested on animals' skin to make sure they are safe for humans to use 7. I would stop buying a product if I found out that it had been tested on animals 8. Research from animal experiment improves the lives of people. 9. I think that no more cosmetic products (like shampoo or lipstick) should be tested on animals 10. I think that household cleaning products should not be tested on animals 11. I think that should be set free experimental laboratories 12. A new washing-up liquid should be tested on animals' skin before being sold in the shops 13. Medicines used for treating pet dogs should be tested on laboratory dogs first 14. I think that animals should still be used to research diseases for which there are no cures 15. Animals experiments only tell us animals and not about people. 16. I think scientist should find alternatives to animals experiments
31
14
11
19
27
40
43
41
14
20
25
18
48
39
41
40
32
33
19
Attitude statement 1. New medicines should be tested on animals before they are taken by humans 2. I believe in a total ban animal experiments
Uncertain F M 62 50
17
28
8 of 15
2/29/2012 7:59 AM
EBSCOhost
3. I would prefer to take medicines that had not been tested on animals 4. I think that medicine that had been tested on animals if it would save my life 5. I would take a medicine that had been tested on animals if it would save my life 6. Deodorants should be tested on animals' skin to make sure they are safe for humans to use 7. I would stop buying a product if I found out that it had been tested on animals 8. Research from animal experiment improves the lives of people. 9. I think that no more cosmetic products (like shampoo or lipstick) should be tested on animals 10. I think that household cleaning products should not be tested on animals 11. I think that should be set free experimental laboratories 12. A new washing-up liquid should be tested on animals' skin before being sold in the shops 13. Medicines used for treating pet dogs should be tested on laboratory dogs first 14. I think that animals should still be used to research diseases for which there are no cures 15. Animals experiments only tell us animals and not about people. 16. I think scientist should find alternatives to animals experiments
23
12
29
87
68
29
40
21
6 1
15 11
13
87
73
34
25
43
28
16
Table 2 Attitudes towards use of animals in schools (percentage of meals and females responding to each category).
9 of 15
2/29/2012 7:59 AM
EBSCOhost
Attitude statement 17. I would find dissecting (cutting apart)a dead animal interesting 18. I don't think that woodlice come to any harm if they are used in investigation to find out what conditions they prefer 19. I think that is wrong to breed animals that will only be used for dissection 20. I think that is wrong to keep animals in school 21. I would dissect a part of an animal that had been killed for food (e.g. sheep's eye) 22. It is good idea to keep animals in school to watch how they live 23. I would object to any animal material being used for dissection 24. I think that watching earthworm to see how fast they crawl is cruel 25. I would rather learn about animals from books than by watching living animals 26. I think watching other people dissect is acceptable 27. I would not mind watching garden snails moving to find out more about them
Agree F M
18
45
48
59
83 41
61 35
26
57
36
49
52
22
31
15
31
27
20
32
72
74
Attitude statement 17. I would find dissecting (cutting apart)a dead animal interesting
Uncertain F M
16
24
10 of 15
2/29/2012 7:59 AM
EBSCOhost
18. I don't think that woodlice come to any harm if they are used in investigation to find out what conditions they prefer 19. I think that is wrong to breed animals that will only be used for dissection 20. I think that is wrong to keep animals in school 21. I would dissect a part of an animal that had been killed for food (e.g. sheep's eye) 22. It is good idea to keep animals in school to watch how they live 23. I would object to any animal material being used for dissection 24. I think that watching earthworm to see how fast they crawl is cruel 26. I think watching other people dissect is acceptable 27. I would not mind watching garden snails moving to find out more about them
35
29
83 9
61 19
31
22
27
19
31
37
32
34
23
27
21
17
Attitude statement 17. I would find dissecting (cutting apart)a dead animal interesting 18. I don't think that woodlice come to any harm if they are used in investigation to find out what conditions they prefer 19. I think that is wrong to breed animals that will only be used for dissection 20. I think that is wrong to keep animals in school 21. I would dissect a part of an animal that had
Disagree F M
66
31
16
12
7 28
20 43
11 of 15
2/29/2012 7:59 AM
EBSCOhost
been killed for food (e.g. sheep's eye) 22. It is good idea to keep animals in school to watch how they live 23. I would object to any animal material being used for dissection 24. I think that watching earthworm to see how fast they crawl is cruel 25. I would rather learn about animals from books than by watching living animals 26. I think watching other people dissect is acceptable 27. I would not mind watching garden snails moving to find out more about them
47
24
32
26
16
41
36
61
35
55
61
41
Table 3 Attitudes towards use of animals in farming (percentage of meals and females responding to each category). Agree F M 35 12
Attitude statement 28. I believe that is wrong to kill animals for food 29. I think it is good idea to grow trout in fish farms keeping animals to provide food (eggs, milk) for people is acceptable to me 30. Keeping animals to provide food (eggs, milk) for people is acceptable to me 31. Farmers should keep sheep for their wool and not for their meat 32. It is best to keep chickens in battery cages for egg laying
22
57
77
88
60
34
12
Attitude statement
Uncertain F M
12 of 15
2/29/2012 7:59 AM
EBSCOhost
28. I believe that is wrong to kill animals for food 29. I think it is good idea to grow trout in fish farms keeping animals to provide food (eggs, milk) for people is acceptable to me 30. Keeping animals to provide food (eggs, milk) for people is acceptable to me 31. Farmers should keep sheep for their wool and not for their meat 32. It is best to keep chickens in battery cages for egg laying
32
23
58
32
16
24
30
15
15
Attitude statement 28. I believe that is wrong to kill animals for food 29. I think it is good idea to grow trout in fish farms keeping animals to provide food (eggs, milk) for people is acceptable to me 30. Keeping animals to provide food (eggs, milk) for people is acceptable to me 31. Farmers should keep sheep for their wool and not for their meat 32. It is best to keep chickens in battery cages for egg laying
Disagree F M 33 65
18
11
16
36
82
74
Table 4 Highest and lowest scoring items on the attitude scale Mean scores All F M
Attitude statement 30. Keeping animals to provide food (eggs, milk) for 5. I would take a medicine that had been tested on animals if it
3.944
3.810
4.104
13 of 15
2/29/2012 7:59 AM
EBSCOhost
would save my life 27. I would not mind watching garden snails moving to find out more about them 18. I don't think that woodlice come to any harm if they are used in investigations to find out what conditions they prefer 28. I believe that it is wrong to kill animals for food
3.882
3.686
4.117
3.745
3.724
3.770
3.431 3.298
3.325 2.913
5.557 3.756
Lowest scoring items (including disapproval of animal use in use in each context) Mean scores Attitude statement All F M 10. I think that household cleaning products should not be tested on animal 32. It is best to keep chickens in battery cages for egg laying 16. I think scientists should find alternatives to animal experiments 12. A new washing-up liquid should be tested on animals' skin before being sold in the shops 9.I think that no more cosmetic products (like shampoo or lipstick) should be tested on animals
1.697 1.718 1.721
1.427 1.585 1.488
2.019 1.877 2.000
1.839
1.638
2.080
1.857
1.580
2.188
Figure 1 Animal uses described in the attitude statements. Animals in research Using animals for fundamental research Using animals in applied research e.g. diagnosis, safety evaluation Animals in education Keeping animals Use of living animals Dissection Animals in farming
14 of 15
2/29/2012 7:59 AM
EBSCOhost
Meat production Animal products Farming systems References Bliss, M. (1982) The discovery of insulin. Edinburgh, Scotland: Paul Harris Publishing. DES (1985) Sciences 5-16: a statement policy. London: HMSO. DES (1991) National Curriculum science for ages 5-16. Proposals of the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Wales. London: HMSO. Furnham, A. and Gunter, B. (1989) The anatomy of adolescence: young people's social attitudes in Britain. London: Routledge. Furnham, A. and Pinder, A. (1990) Young people's attitudes to experimentation on animals. The Psychologist, 10, 444-448. Kellert, S. (1979) Contemporary values of wildlife in American society. In Wildlife values, ed. Shaw, W. W. and Zube, E. H. pp. 31-60. Fort Collins, Colorado, USA: US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Kellert, S. and Westervelt, M. (undated) Children's attitudes, knowledge and behaviour towards animals (phase V). Washington DC, USA: US Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Lock, R. and Millett, K. (1991) The Animals and Science Education Project Report. Birmingham: University of Birmingham. Newton, D. P. (1988) Making science education relevant. London: Kogan Page. Royal Society (1985) The public understanding of science. London: Royal Society. SEAC (1990) GCSE National Criteria. London: HMSO. ~~~~~~~~ By Katherine Millett and Roger Lock At the time of writing Katherine Millett was a researcher with the Animals and Science Education Project. She is currently Head of Science at Wheatly Park School, Holton, Oxfordshire OX9 IQH. Roger Lock is a Lecturer in Science Education in the School of Education, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT. Copyright of Journal of Biological Education (Society of Biology) is the property of Society of Biology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
15 of 15
2/29/2012 7:59 AM

Millet-Lock - GCSE Students Attitudes Towards Animal Use Some Implications For Biology-Science Teachers

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Millet-Lock - GCSE Students Attitudes Towards Animal Use Some Implications For Biology-Science Teachers

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

EBSCOhost

1.697 1.718 1.721

1.427 1.585 1.488

2.019 1.877 2.000

Вам также может понравиться