Research Article:A Focus on Student Assets in the Science Classroom

In the past decade, research has begun to demonstrate the important effects of a new approach to the development of well-adjusted young people: a focus on what is called “developmental assets acquisition”. This approach to working with children and adolescents reverses the way educators have perceived intervention and prevention policies for youth by focusing on positive conditions for thriving.

The Search Institute’s work suggests that young people must experience a majority of these assets if they are to thrive, yet their research indicates that less than half of the students polled in a 1996-97 school year study of 213 U.S. towns and cities experience twenty-five of the forty assets (Search Institute 1996). The Institute provides only general commentary on the importance of these assets: “adult support, positive intergenerational relationships, safe places, clear and consistent boundaries, participation in constructive activities, commitment to learning, consistent attention to values and practice serving others”. No emphasis is placed on categorizing one asset as more valuable than another and no account of cumulative impacts of select assets is discussed.
The central goal of this study is to determine the legitimacy and impact of developmental assets and to examine ways in which a science classroom may facilitate such development. The study focuses on three interrelated questions: can practitioners adopt an asset driven approach to instruction; does prior academic experience impact the development of assets in young people; and are there practical classroom tools that may be used to intensify asset building?
In order to confirm the presence or absence of assets in the classroom, it was necessary to develop a means of gauging student opinion. The tools available for asset research have been surveys and the method of asking kids directly. This poses a problem due to the inability to control student interpretation of the questions in written form, plus personal contact may have skewed results due to the individual conducting the interview. With this in mind a survey was conducted that focused on the aforementioned questions without the bulk of information that would come from trying to visit all forty assets. With no particular tool available, a survey was designed to assess assets in the curricular context of a science classroom.
The construction of a survey posed many challenges. The survey had to be designed to give either specific yes or no answers or strict response choices. Open-ended responses were not included because of the wide variety of responses (including those less than genuine) that could be anticipated. It was essential that the survey be brief enough that it would be completed yet exhibit the depth necessary to target asset presence or absence.
The survey was distributed to 152 high school seniors anonymously
with a return ratio of 69%. This particular group was chosen because of their status as seniors in the educational system and because of the potential to assume greater maturity and a stronger degree of school and life experience. Surveys returned were completed by 50.5% males, 49.5% females, 48% students currently enrolled in a science class, 81% indicating enrollment in Springfield City Schools since at least 7th grade and 92% indicating enrollment in North High School since their freshman year. Initial hopes were that the survey be taken by a majority of the currently enrolled seniors to compare data taken by the Springfield City Schools and the Search Institute years earlier. However, the return rate on surveys was compromised largely by the lack of attendance of seniors in homeroom where the surveys were distributed and by homeroom teachers neglecting to return surveys for tabulation. In addition, it was found near the conclusion of the research that the senior class was not the class subjected to the earlier seventh grade survey; rather it was the junior class. With this in mind, the desire to repeat the survey with the next graduating class and to compare results presents a future challenge. Perhaps the comparison of student attitudes before and after the school district was presented with asset information will provide valuable discussion material.
Focus groups were conducted to extract further information from students in a relaxed format that would allow them peer discussions plus contribute to the reliability of data through personal testimonials. Questions were once again designed to identify specific potential links between assets and curriculum. Questions # 3,4,5,8,9 and 11 were examined for parallels between school and assets of caring school climate, achievement motivation, school engagement and personal power. For example, question three asks students to describe their best experience in science. This coupled with the survey question about what would make science more interesting would enable the teacher to draw parallels between students talking about experiments that were the most memorable and students reporting experiments would enhance the science classroom. For this practitioner, a somewhat simple assumption would be to build experiments into the course design. Three focus groups consisting of 6-8 students each, all currently enrolled in a high school science course were planned with each group representing a different academic genre. One group consisted of all advanced placement students and a second group consisted of all college preparatory students. A third group of general science students was solicited but never met because of a lack of student interest. Groups were 62% females and 38% males enrolled in advanced placement and college preparatory science courses. Sessions were conducted during the school day in a classroom setting. The focus groups were each facilitated by the researcher. Questions were presented verbally allowing students to elaborate as the facilitator recorded comments. Students were given open-ended response time and the opportunity to discuss issues amongst themselves. Supplemental data and observations originated through informal contact with students and other practitioners.
Findings
Survey findings indicated a nearly perfect split in the sample in regards to science class past history with 51% of all students commenting that at some point science had been their least favorite class. This rate was higher amongst males with 55% reporting that science had been their least favorite subject, while only 48% of the females reported the same. Reasons for disliking science included: poor teacher quality, course lacked challenge, teacher failed to help or to answer questions, the student was unprepared for higher level course(s), and a personal lack of interest in science. Of those students reporting science having been a favorite class only 43% were males while 52% were females. An additional 5% did not respond to the question.
Science classes are highest amongst underclassmen. Of those surveyed, 94% enrolled in a science class a freshman and 96% as sophomores. Only 80% were enrolled in a science class as juniors and a mere 48% as seniors. With that decline, 63% were enrolled in AP/CP level courses as juniors, whereas only 17% were enrolled in general level science courses. Females accounted for 48% of AP/CP junior enrollment, while males accounted for 52%. General level courses consisted of 67% females and only 33% males. The steepest decline in enrollment in the sciences occurred during the senior year as alluded to above, with only 36% of students enrolled in AP/CP courses and 5.7% of students enrolled in general level courses. Of the students enrolled in AP/CP courses as seniors, 50% of each gender constituted the enrollment while 67% of general course enrollment consisted of females and only 33% of males.
When questioned about the types of things that would make science more interesting, an overwhelming 92% of students reported the ability to perform experiments. Over half of the students also highlighted two other concepts: teacher enthusiasm and real life applications for the content being learned. Barely 13% commented that lecture and notes made science interesting, and hardly 3% cited reading science texts. Another low scoring technique was video viewing, with only 15% appreciating the ability of videos to make science interesting to them. Only 22% of all students surveyed view science as an opportunity to be creative.
Motivational levels of students also tended to vary. Only 21% of students reported a deeper sense of motivation in science, while 27% reported being less motivated and 41% claimed about the same level of personal motivation to do well in science as in other classes. Of the 21% reporting a deeper sense of motivation in science, only 36% were males while 64% were females. The 27% of students less motivated to do well in science was claimed by 54% males and 46% females. More males than females maintained the same motivational level in science as in other subjects (Figure 2).
The opinions of motivational levels of friends varied between males and females. Overall, 59% of the students surveyed felt their friends were motivated to do well in school, while 26% expressed the opinion their close friends were not motivated to do well in school. A 20% difference emerged between male and female perceptions of comrade motivation, with 69% of females regarding their close friends as motivated and only 49% of males expressing the same opinions. When asked to comment on lack of motivation, 13% of females reported low motivation levels amongst friends while 38% of males cited friends having limited motivation for academic achievement.
Students had varying opinions on the level of care that they sensed from teachers as well. While 48% of all students expressed the belief their teachers did care, 21% were adamant that teachers didn’t care. More males than females expressed this belief with 25% of males sensing a lack of caring teachers and only 17% percent of the females feeling the same. This question received a number of borderline responses with 21% of all students clarifying that “some” teachers care while 10% failed to respond to the question.
Of the sample, 71% of all students expressed a sense of personal control over what happens to them at school. Male and female students shared a 71% expression of this control, while only 18% students blatantly admitted to having no sense of personal control or accountability. More males than females expressed this lack of control by a margin of 6%. Just over 7% of the students failed to respond to this question, with females leading the way at a 10% non-response rate and males at a 6% non-response rate. Not nearly as many students shared the same notion of control in reference to the overall student body population. The combined opinion of 58% of the males and females was that other students feel responsible or in control of what happens to them in school yet 31% still reported a sense that classmates felt irresponsible or out of control.
Focus groups provided students currently taking a science course the opportunity to answer open-ended questions. Student responses seemed to dance around familiar themes regardless of the current course of enrollment. When asked about science courses in general, students tended to enjoy the opportunity to explore and to conduct experiments. Several expressed the desire to do more independent projects enabling them to study things that match personal interests. Most students remarked that there was at least one family member that showed an interest in science (several cited multiple family members) or at least the encouragement to do well in the sciences. Many showed personal interest outside of school in the form of watching science television programs to dabbling in areas like astronomy, flight, and biology. One female student said, “Science is a parallel to real life; it leads you to a deeper understanding of the world.” Several were able to recall their best experience in science, from challenging classes to educational trips, but had a difficult time recalling a truly engaging science experience, with many having to think back as far as elementary school. Most of their positive experiences revolved either around constructing something of their own or at least having the ability to investigate something hands on. In spite of the interest each expressed in science, most admitted the inability to connect science to other educational disciplines, including math and English.
More personal responses regarding science and teachers revealed that students know which teachers genuinely care and which teachers, as one student stated, “…see us as a paycheck…” Students also expressed their desire to have teachers act like human beings. Most expressed that it is easier to learn from teachers who converse and share with students than from teachers who elevate themselves in a manner that does not allow for student-teacher interaction. Other things that tended to bother students were lack of structure and organization in courses, as well as being misled by teachers as to what a course actually entailed. Some said boredom bothered them most because they took a class on the premise that it would be challenging and filled with activity. In addition, almost all students in focus groups found students who refused to work harder in science to be irritating, as failing to see the big picture of life beyond school and as lazy. Science class enrollment, according to students in focus groups, is directly impeded by apathy and is not a student academic potential issue.
Data bearing relevance to aforementioned questions includes figures tabulating gender and overall perceptions of caring school climate, figures delineating motivational trends of students and their peers and values outlining student perception of personal power. Focus groups provide a qualitative means of determining the factors students weigh as most important when retaining classroom interest. In addition, the combination of surveys and focus groups will illustrate any trends and rationale for the perception of high school science.

Discussion and Implications
The primary purpose of this study was to determine the significance of developmental assets in the classroom. This required the investigation of three integral questions: can instructors adopt an asset driven approach to instruction; does prior academic experience impact the development of assets in young people; and do practical methods or classroom tools exist that may be used to intensify asset building? This study occurs as two shifts that are occurring in educational philosophy: one being a stronger focus on teacher and instruction as keys to student achievement, and the other being asset rather than deficit role in defining thriving children. The findings of this study come at the intersection of each of these points of view. This study suggests that an instructor’s enthusiasm and knowledge coupled with the ability to create an asset-laden environment provides students an academic cocktail for success.
What are the implications of viewing a classroom through “asset lenses” (Scales and Taccogna 2001)? For educators, the implications are many. However, here the focus will be narrowed to the implications for instruction within the classroom.
An interpretation of this collection of data points to three very distinct issues: 1) There is a large proportion of students who express a dislike for science; 2) Students seem to be aware of what makes a successful classroom as well as the obstacles to their learning or academic motivation; 3) Several of these comments are within the realm of the practitioner to remedy. Questions that arise from this data include whether educators empower students to learn by caring, valuing, utilizing and encouraging service and creativity, and if this approach leads to motivation, engagement, follow-through and personal power.
Indeed instructors can adopt an asset driven approach to instruction. The key to an asset filled environment begins with a teacher empowering students to make decisions and taking the time to recognize a student’s individual significance. Students crave empowerment; therefore, the teacher who allows students a voice in the classroom understands that relationships can facilitate learning, whereas academic learning lends little to building relationships. The academic experience a child encounters also greatly impacts the degree of academic success. For this reason it becomes imperative that all teachers focus on the importance of fostering relationships with students and amongst students to keep students engaged in school. Engagement is not a physical activity in the classroom, but a state of mind that comes about when students feel safe taking risks, feel complete when working with others and feel compelled to desire academic challenge. A student that feels his or her accomplishments bear little relevance to the teacher’s aims will not strive to perform, but will instead lurk in the shadows of mediocrity. Methods and tools for asset building require no paper or pencil. The all-purpose tool for asset acquisition exists in the actions of the genuinely enthusiastic teacher.
The consideration of enthusiasm as an educational asset is one of the more unexpected but perhaps significant outcomes of this study. Significantly, the students in this study revealed a keen sensitivity to the demonstration of teacher care. This was coupled with references to a science curriculum built upon decision-making and experimentation. It is not a stretch to imagine that product and process intertwine in this connection. Engagement comes from engaging activities, but it also comes from a teacher who is engaged in both the authenticity of scientific pursuit and the sustained invitation of students to be participants.

Lisa Cunningham, Springfield North High School