How to Make Science Attractive: Understanding Science Anxiety Using Cardiac Vagal Tone and Identifying Pedagogical Methods to Improve Science Literacy, Motivation, and Interest

Sunday, February 17, 2013
Auditorium/Exhibit Hall C (Hynes Convention Center)
Karim Ibrahim , University of Hartford, West Harftord, CT
Lourdes P. Dale , University of Hartford, West Harftord, CT
John Mehm , University of Hartford, West Harftord, CT
Background Science engagement and literacy is a concern in the United States (Orbach, 2005).Science anxiety is reported in the literature to negatively impact students’ comprehension of science concepts and motivation to pursue science-based careers. In the following study, we examine science anxiety encountered in a typical university science course. The objectives of this study are to (a) examine the anxiety response to science-based stimuli, (b) understand the impact of science anxiety on motivation and learning, and (c) propose novel pedagogical strategies.Methods Eight participants who were college-aged adults were recruited from a private university and assessed using standardized questionnaires for science anxiety, motivation, learning style, and an interview. A task was administered examining anxiety across 4 conditions using science-based stimuli (e.g., simple and complex pictorial or descriptive passage cues). Cues were shown for 45 seconds followed by a control image. Participants rated their anxiety for each cue using the Subjective Units of Discomfort Scale.The autonomic response was also measured. Perceptions of varying syllabi conditions were collected for traditional topics (e.g., cell division, genetics) and high impact topics in society (e.g., autism, cancer).Results Participants displayed higher anxiety scores for complex (M=348.75) compared to simple stimuli (M=205.63). Means of anxiety scores for pictorial complex stimuli (M=240.63) was greater than pictorial simple (M=101.88). Participants reported the highest learning styles for kinesthetic modalities (M = 6.63, SD = 4.03) and lowest for visual modalities (M = 4.75, SD = 2.82). Analysis of the means of science motivational constructs indicated that participants scored high on self-motivation (M = 21.0, SD = 1.77) and lowest on intrinsic motivation (M = 16.5, SD = 2.27). Participants also scored high on self-efficacy (M = 18.63, SD = 1.30) and self-determination (M = 18.13, SD = 4.67) compared to career motivation (M = 16.87, SD = 6.01). Intrinsic motivation strongly correlated with visual learning, r(6) = .81, p < .01.  Kinesthetic learning style was strongly correlated with career motivation, r(6) = .82, p < .01), as well as self-determination, r(6) = .79, p < .01, and grade motivation, r(6) = .82, p < .01. Anxiety during complex descriptive stimuli was negatively correlated with intrinsic motivation, r(6) = -.77.  Additionally, anxiety scores for simple pictorial stimuli was negatively correlated with intrinsic motivation, r(6) = -.81, and career motivation, r(6) = -.71. Participants reported similar motivation for both traditional (M = 11.12, SD = 2.17) and novel syllabi (M = 11.63, SD = 3.96). Conclusions Content details combined with the mode of delivery may impact science motivation and decrease anxiety. Syllabus and course redesign that integrate major concepts embedded within high impact topics in society (e.g., cancer, stem cells, heart disease) may provide an effective means of engaging students in the sciences.