ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS ATTITUDE TOWARDS GRAPHS Absrac. This sudy examined pre-service elemenary educaion eachers aiude owards graphs. Aiude was defined in erms of six aspecs: Effor, Value, Cogniive compeency, Affec, Difficuly and Ineres. Daa was colleced hrough a quesionnaire. Pre-service eachers fel hey had cogniive compeence for graphing, valued graphs and expressed affecion for graphs regardless of heir perceived difficulies and low ineres in graphs. Value was he only aspec ha correlaed wih all oher five aspecs, in paricular wih Affec. Surprisingly, he number of mahemaics courses aken by preservice eachers did no make any difference in heir aiude owards graphs. However, he number of science courses hey ook in high school made a difference in heir aiude owards graphs. These findings have implicaions for eacher educaion and mahemaics and science eaching and learning. Key words: aiude, eacher, graph, cogniive compeence, affec and value. Frackson Mumba, Erin Wilson, Vivien M. Chabalengula, William Mejia, & Simeon Mbewe Souhern Illinois Universiy Carbondale, USA Frackson Mumba, Erin Wilson, Vivien M. Chabalengula, William Mejia, & Simeon Mbewe Inroducion Research sudies show ha eachers have graphing difficulies and misconcepions such as saic confusion beween slope versus heigh (Rier & Coleman, 1995), failure o idenify variables (Bowen & Roh, 2005), failure o deermine lineariy of scale and posiioning he zero poin or axis (Rier & Coleman, 1995), and failure o disinguish a bar graph from hisogram (Roh, McGinn & Bowen, 1998). Alhough several sudies have examined eachers graphing difficulies and misconcepions, no sudy has examined elemenary educaion pre-service eachers aiude owards graphs. Ye, research shows ha aiudes affec eachers insrucional pracice and ha posiive aiude among eachers leads o good learning and subsequenly o beer eaching in schools (Canrell, Young & Moore, 2003). Research also shows ha aiude has a significan influence on an individual s desire o learn a paricular course or opic (Germann, 1988). Accordingly, elemenary educaion pre-service eachers willingness o learn more abou graphing may depend on heir aiude owards graphs. Young (1998) also argued ha if pre-service eachers aiude owards a course or opic are imporan hen i is essenial o know wha hose aiudes are if changes are o be made in he course. As such, he ineres owards he aiudes ha pre-service eachers bring ino our eacher educaion mahemaics and science mehods courses is increasing among our faculy, since aiude can impede learning or hinder he exen o which our pre-service eachers develop useful skills such as graphing skills and heir feelings owards graphs. We also believe ha pre-service eachers negaive aiudes can impede heir appreciaion of he value of graphs professionally, personally, and for heir sudens. In view of his, more aenion o elemenary educaion pre-service eachers aiudes owards graphs is warraned, as i may conribue o beer mahemaics and science eaching and learning in schools. 172
Therefore, his sudy examined elemenary educaion pre-service eachers aiude owards graphs. The erm aiude is a complex consruc and may be deermined by examining cogniive and affecive aspecs. The cogniive aspec is a se of knowledge while he affec aspec relaes o feelings owards somehing. Gogolin and Swarz (1992) assered ha oal aiude is made up of many facors in which he aiude may be negaive or posiive. As a resul, aiude in his sudy was defined in erms of six aspecs: Effor, Value, Affec, Cogniive compeence, Ineres and Difficuly. Effor: how hard one works o learn abou graphs; Value: appreciaion of graph usefulness and relevance of graphs in personal and professional life; Affec: posiive and negaive feelings concerning graphs; Cogniive compeence: percepion of self-compeence, knowledge and inellecual skills when applied o graphs; Ineres: how much one is araced o graphs; and Difficuly: perceived difficuly of graphing as a opic. Three research quesions guided his sudy: (a) Wha are he levels of aiude owards graphs among pre-service eachers wih respec o he six aspecs of aiude as saed above? (b) Wha are he relaionships among he six aspecs of aiude owards graphs? (c) How do pre-service eachers aiude owards graphs differ wih regard o concenraion areas (Mahemaics, Science, English, Social Science, Special Educaion and Ohers) and he number of mahemaics and science courses aken? This sudy has significan implicaions for eacher educaion and he eaching and learning of science and mahemaics. For example, he findings presened here are imporan o hose who are involved in mahemaics and science eacher educaion programs as hey srive o improve graphing skills among eachers. I is also assumed ha aenion direced owards idenifying pre-service eachers aiude owards graphs and subsequen improvemen on heir aiude owards graphs will have a profound effec on heir applicaion of eaching graphs in schools. This sudy also conribues o exising lieraure on graphing wih regard o eachers. Mehodology of Research A sample comprised 128 elemenary educaion pre-service eachers a a research Universiy in he Midwes of he USA. There were 111 females and 17 males. Pre-service eachers were in six concenraion areas of elemenary educaion degree program (Mahemaics=17, Science=18, English=26, Social sciences=39, Special Educaion=12 and Ohers =16). The Ohers caegory comprised Music, Foreign Language, Ar, and Physical Educaion concenraion areas. The age of he pre-service eachers ranged from 20 o 30 years. A he ime of daa collecion pre-service eachers were enrolled in six secions of wo science mehods courses. Daa was colleced hrough a 40-iem Liker-scale quesionnaire. The iems were adoped from Survey of Aiudes Towards Saisics (STATS) (Dauphinee, Schau & Sevens, 1997). The firs secion of he quesionnaire had iems on demographic informaion such as gender, degree concenraion areas, and mah and science courses aken a high school and college levels. The second secion had saemens on he six aiude aspecs: Effor, Value, Cogniive compeence, Affec, Difficuly, and Ineres. Each saemen was valued in Liker-scale forma, ranging from 1 o 5, where 1 indicaes Srongly Disagree and 5 indicaes Srongly Agree. Daa was analyzed by compuing descripive saisics, correlaions among he six aspecs of aiude, and reliabiliy values for he insrumen and individual aiude aspecs. One Way ANOVA and -ess were performed o invesigae differences among sub-groups on each of he six aspecs of aiude. Resuls of Research Reliabiliy values The reliabiliy value for he quesionnaire was 0.91. The reliabiliy values for he six aiude aspecs ranged from low o high: Difficuly (0.26), Effor (0.37), Cogniive Compeence (0.75), Ineres (0.76), Value (0.78), and Affec (0.83). Alhough reliabiliy values for Effor and Difficuly aspecs of aiude were low, mos reliabiliy values were high enough o indicae some inernal consisency in each aiude aspec secion and he quesionnaire. 173
Levels of aiude owards graphs Effor: Table 1 below shows ha pre-service elemenary eachers said hey srive o complee graph assignmens (Mean = 4.63; SD =0.52), work hard on quesions ha involve graphing in heir courses (Mean=4.25; SD = 0.66), and would like o help oher sudens learn abou graphs (M = 4.05; SD =0.77). However, hey were indifferen on he proposiion ha learning graphs requires a grea deal of discipline by a learner (M = 2.99; SD = 0.88). In addiion, mos pre-service eachers seemed o disagree ha hey sudy hard o undersand graphs (M = 2.41; SD = 0.97). Table 1. Means on effor aspec of aiude. Iems Mean SD E1. I complee all my graph assignmens. 4.63 0.52 E2. I work hard on quesions ha involve making or reading graphs in my courses. 4.25 0.66 E14. I sudy very hard o undersand graphs. 2.41 0.97 E24. Learning graphs requires a grea deal of discipline by a suden. 2.99 0.88 E27. I aend all lessons including hose ha involve graphs. 3.93 0.87 *E38. I would no like help oher sudens learn o make graphs. 4.05 0.77 N= 128; *Negaively worded iems & scored in reverse; E sands for Effor; Value: Table 2 below shows ha pre-service eachers expressed neural o posiive views on he value of graphs. In paricular, hey viewed graphs as valuable in undersanding oday s world (M = 4.32; SD = 0.74), useful in heir fuure eaching career (M = 4.25; SD = 0.75), and somehow relevan and applicable in heir lives (M = 3.96; SD = 0.81), hough hey fel conclusions from graphs are rarely presened in everyday life (M = 3.67; SD = 0.86). They also seemed o have moderae bu relaively posiive view on he proposiion ha graphing skills will make hem more effecive eachers (M = 3.85; SD = 0.86). However, hey were less enhusiasic abou graphing being a required par of elemenary eacher educaion program (M = 3.7; SD = 0.99). Table 2. Means on value aspec of aiude. 174 Iems Mean SD *V7. Graphs are worhless in undersanding oday s World 4.32 0.74 V9. Graphing should be a required par of Elemenary eacher educaion program. 3.70 0.99 V10. Graphing skills will make me a more effecive eacher in school. 3.85 0.86 *V13. Graphs are no useful in my fuure job/career. 4.12 0.85 *V16. Graphs are no applicable in my life ouside my eacher educaion raining program. 3.89 0.77 V17. I use graph skills in my everyday life. 2.90 1.02 V21. Conclusions from graphs are rarely presened in everyday life. 3.67 0.86 *V25. I will have no use for graph skills in my eaching job. 4.25 0.75 *V33. Graphs are irrelevan in my life. 3.96 0.81 N= 128; *Negaively worded iems & scored in reverse; V sands for Value Cogniive compeence: In general, mos iems on his aspec of aiude received posiive views from pre-service eachers as shown in Table 3 below. For example, pre-service eachers repored hey had ideas abou graphs (M = 4.56; SD = 0.73), knew how o make (M = 4.02; SD = 0.69) and read graphs (M = 4.05; SD = 0.61), did no make a lo of errors when working on graphs (M = 4.06; SD = 0.68) and hey had no rouble undersanding graphs (M = 4.19; SD = 0.77). However, hey disagreed wih he proposiion ha mos individuals have o learn a new way of hinking in order o make or read graphs
(M = 2.85; SD = 0.82). Table 3. Means on cogniive compeence aspec of aiude. Iems Mean SD *C5. I have rouble undersanding graphs 4.19 0.77 *C11. I have no idea abou graphs. 4.56 0.73 *C26. I make a lo of errors when I work on graphs. 4.06 0.68 C31. I easily learn how o read graphs. 3.98 0.72 C32. I know he rules for making graphs. 4.05 0.61 C36. Mos sudens have o learn a new way of hinking in order o make or read graphs. 2.85 0.82 C39. I know how o read graphs very well. 4.02 0.69 N= 128; *Negaively worded iems & scored in reverse; C sands for Cogniive compeence Affec: In general, pre-service eachers expressed high affecion owards graphs. For example, Table 4 shows ha pre-service eachers were no scared of graphs (M = 4.54; SD = 0.61) and did no indicae ha graphs made hem nervous (M = 4.14; SD = 0.85), sressed or frusraed (M = 4.12 SD = 0.81). They also liked anyhing abou graphs (M =3.99; SD = 0.83). However, pre-service eachers expressed very low enjoymen for aking courses ha have a lo of graphs (M = 2.78; SD = 0.86). Table 4. Means on affec aspec of aiude. Iems Mean SD A3. I like graphs. 3.75 0.89 *A4. I become nervous when I have o do graphs 4.14 0.85 *A15. I ge frusraed when we go over graphs in class 3.96 0.99 *A18. I feel sressed working wih graphs in my courses. 4.12 0.81 A19. I enjoy aking courses ha have a lo of graphs. 2.78 0.86 *A28. I am scared of graphs 4.54 0.61 *A37. I don like anyhing abou graphs. 3.99 0.83 N= 128; *Negaively worded iems & scored in reverse; A sands for Affec Difficuly: Table 5 below shows ha pre-service eachers did no view graphs as very difficul o undersand (M = 4.15; SD = 0.68). In addiion, hey viewed graphing as easy for hem (M = 3.91; SD = 0.79) and no as a complicaed process (M = 3.63; SD = 0.90). They also srongly viewed graphing as a highly echnical process (M = 2.64; SD = 0.87) and difficul for individuals o gain graphing skills quickly (M = 2.75; SD = 0.84). Table 5. Means on difficuly aspec of aiude. Iems Mean SD D6. Graphs are very easy for me. 3.91 0.79 *D8. Graphing is a complicaed process. 3.63 0.90 D22. Graphing skills are quickly learned by mos sudens. 2.75 0.84 *D34. Graphing is a highly echnical process. 2.64 0.87 *D35. I find i difficul o undersand graphs. 4.15 0.68 N= 128; *Negaively worded iems & scored in reverse; D sands for Difficul 175
Ineres: Table 6 shows ha pre-service eachers ineres in graphs ranged from low o moderae. Alhough hey had moderae ineres in undersanding informaion presened in graphs (M = 3.39; SD = 0.78) hey expressed very low ineres in alking abou graphs o oher people (M = 2.48; SD = 0.98) and using graphs in heir everyday lives (M =2.67; SD = 0.88). Furhermore, hey had indifferen view on learning abou graphs (M = 3.29; SD = 0.87). Table 6. Means on ineres aspec of aiude. Iems Mean SD *I12. I am no ineresed in alking abou graphs o oher people 2.48 0.98 I20. I am very ineresed in using graphs in my everyday life. 2.67 0.88 I23. I am ineresed in undersanding informaion presened in graphs 3.39 0.78 *I29. I am no ineresed in learning abou graphs. 3.29 0.87 N= 128; *Negaively worded iems & scored in reverse; I sands for Ineres Comparisons among concenraion areas In general, Cogniive compeence aspec of aiude received he highes mean score (3.96) followed by Affec (3.90), Value (3.85) and Effor (3.71) as shown in Table 7 below. On he oher hand Difficuly (3.42) and Ineres (2.96) received moderae mean scores among pre-service eachers. This implies ha pre-service eachers recognized he value of graphs regardless of any perceived difficulies and moderaely low ineres in graphs. Table 7 also shows similar rends of mean scores for six aspecs of aiude among he sub-groups. However, English and Social sciences sub-groups expressed he lowes ineres in graphs han he oher sub-groups. Surprisingly, he pre-service eachers in science concenraion area (M= 3.34; SD = 0.5) were slighly more ineresed in graphs han hose in mahemaics concenraion area (M= 2.99; SD = 0.3). Table 7. Comparisons among concenraion areas. Concenraion areas for Elemenary Educaion Degree (Sub-groups) Sample (N=128) Science N= 18 Mah N= 17 English N= 26 Social Science N= 39 Special Educaion N= 12 Ohers N= 16 Aspec F (5,122) Sig Effor 3.71(0.8) 3.72(1.1) 3.86(0.8) 3.60(0.9) 3.67(0.8) 3.77(0.8) 3.77(0.7) 1.166 0.330 Value 3.85(0.4) 3.98(0.4) 4.02(0.4) 3.74(0.4) 3.69(0.4) 3.92(0.4) 3.93(0.5) 1.671 0.147 Cog. C 3.96(0.5) 4.27(0.6) 4.06(0.5) 3.75(0.5) 3.87(0.5) 4.02(0.7) 3.84(0.5) 3.930 0.002* Affec 3.90(0.5) 4.33(0.4) 3.96(0.5) 3.55(0.6) 3.77(0.6) 4.00(0.6) 3.74(0.5) 4.423 0.001* Difficuly 3.42(07) 3.69(0.7) 3.35(0.8) 3.20(0.4) 3.37(0.6) 3.63(0.7) 3.24(0.7) 4.986 0.000* Ineres 2.96(0.5) 3.34(0.5) 2.99(0.3) 2.65(0.5) 2.81(0.5) 3.12(0.4) 2.97(0.5) 2.028 0.079 *Significan a P<0.05 As shown in Table 7 above, One Way ANOVA revealed significan differences among sub-groups on hree aspecs of aiude owards graphs: Cogniive compeence [ F( 5,122)= 3.930, p<.05]; Affec [F(5,122)= 4.423, p<.05] and Difficuly [ F(5,122)= 4.986, p<.05]. On he oher hand, here were no significan differences among sub-groups on he oher hree aspecs of aiude: Effor [F (5,122) = 1.166, p>.05]; Value [F (5,122) = 1.671, P>.05], Ineres [F (5, 122) = 2.028, p>.05]. Poshoc Tukey comparison ess showed ha he significan differences on Cogniive compeence and Affec aspecs of aiude was among Mahemaics, English and Social Sciences sub-groups while he significan difference on 176
Difficuly was among Mahemaics, English and Ohers sub-groups. Surprisingly, Poshoc Tukey comparison ess showed no significan differences beween Special Educaion and Mahemaics sub-groups on Difficuly, Cogniive compeence, and Affec aspecs of aiude. Comparing mah and science courses aken Table 8 below shows insignifican differences beween pre-service eachers who had aken four or less college mahemaics courses and hose ha had aken more han four college mahemaics courses. Table 8. Comparing beween college mah courses aken. 1-4 courses N=51 College Mah Courses Taken 5 or more courses N= 62 Effor 22.3 (2.2) 22.3 (2.5) 0.037 0.971 Value 34.5 (4.8) 34.8 (4.5) 0.424 0.673 Cog. C. 27.5 (3.1) 27.8 (3.4) 0.471 0.639 Affec 27.1 (3.7) 27.4 (4.5) 0.513 0.607 Difficuly 16.8 (1.9) 17.3 (2.5) 1.315 0.191 Ineres 11.6 (2.5) 11.9 (2.9) 0.542 0.589 *Significan a P<0.05; N= number of paricipans Table 9 shows ha here was a significan difference on cogniive compeence aspec of aiude beween pre-service eachers who had aken four or less college science courses and hose ha had aken five or more science courses. However, here were no significan differences beween he wo sub-groups on he oher five aspecs of aiude. Table 9. Comparing beween college science courses aken. College Science Courses Taken 1-4 courses N= 51 5 or more courses N= 59 Effor 22.0 (2.3) 22.5 (2.4) 1.170 0.245 Value 34.2 (4.5) 34.9 (4.8) 0.754 0.427 Cog. C. 26.9 (3.5) 28.4 (2.9) 2.481 0.015* Affec 26.6 (4.5) 27.8 (3.9) 1.580 0.117 Difficuly 16.8 (2.4) 17.3 (1.7) 1.379 0.171 Ineres 11.6 (2.4) 11.8 (3.0) 0.459 0.647 *Significan a P<0.05; N= number of paricipans As shown in Table 10 below, here was no significan difference beween pre-service eachers who had aken four or less high school mahemaics courses and hose ha had aken five or more mahemaics courses a high school on all he six aspecs of aiude. 177
Table 10. Comparing beween high school mah courses aken. High School Mah Courses Taken 1-4 courses N= 41 5 or more courses N= 72 Effor 22.2 (2.4) 22.3 (2.3) 0.323 0.747 Value 34.0 (5.2 35.0 (4.2) 1.181 0.240 Cog. C. 27.1 (2.9) 28.1 (3.4) 1.518 0.132 Affec 26.8 (4.3) 27.6 (4.1) 1.011 0.314 Difficuly 17.2 (1.9) 17.0 (2.2) 0.443 0.658 Ineres 11.3 (2.9) 12.0 (2.6) 1.315 0.191 *Significan a P<0.05; N= number of paricipans Table 11 shows significan differences beween pre-service eachers who had aken four or less high school science courses and hose ha had aken five or more science courses on four aspecs of aiude: Value, Cogniive compeence, Affec and Ineres. On he oher hand here were no significan differences beween he wo sub-groups on effor and difficuly aspecs of aiude. Table 11. Comparing beween high school science courses aken. High School Science Courses Taken 1-4 courses N= 46 5 or more courses N= 67 Effor 22.2 (2.2) 22.3 (2.5) 0.343 0.733 Value 33.0 (4.1) 35.8 (4.6) 3.385 0.001* Cog. C. 26.8 (2.8) 28.3 (3.4) 2.383 0.019* Affec 25.9 (4.1) 28.2 (4.0) 2.986 0.003* Difficuly 16.7 (2.0) 17.3 (2.2) 1.493 0.138 Ineres 10.9 (2.9) 12.4 (2.4) 2.991 0.003* *Significan a P<0.05; N= number of paricipans Table 12 shows a significan difference beween juniors and seniors on he cogniive aspec of aiude. On he oher hand, he differences beween he wo sub-groups on oher five aspecs of aiude were insignifican. Table 12. Comparison among juniors and seniors. College Sanding Junior N = 22 Senior N = 91 Effor 21.5 (2.4) 22.5 (2.3) 1.869 0.064 Value 33.7 (3.2) 34.9 (4.9) 1.068 0.288 178
College Sanding Junior N = 22 Senior N = 91 Cog. C. 26.3 (2.7) 28.0 (3.3) 2.172 0.032* Affec 26.8 (3.1) 27.4 (4.4) 0.590 0.556 Difficuly 16.7 (2.3) 17.1 (2.1) 0.893 0.374 Ineres 11.7 (2.3) 11.8 (2.8) 0.169 0.866 *Significan a P<0.05; N= number of paricipans Relaionships among aspecs of aiude The relaionships among he six aspecs of aiude owards graphs, namely Effor, Value, Affec, Cogniive compeence, Difficuly and Ineres were invesigaed using Pearson produc-momen correlaion coefficiens. According o Cohen (1988), he size of a correlaion is an indicaor of he pracical significance of a relaionship, wih correlaions of abou 0.3(irrespecive of sign) and higher aken o indicae moderae pracical effec. Therefore, Table 13 below shows ha significan correlaions among he six aspecs of aiude ranged from weak (0.26) o srong (0.71). Value was he only aspec ha was posiively relaed o he oher five aspecs of aiude owards graphs, in paricular wih Affec. A srong posiive significan relaionship (0.71) was found beween Cogniive compeence and Enjoymen. This implies ha elemenary educaion pre-service eachers who had high affecion owards graphs fel hey had graphing knowledge and skills. Table 13. Correlaions among six aspecs of aiude. Value Cogn.Comp Affec Difficuly Ineres Effor.49*.35*.33*.11.45* Value.48*.62*.34*.57* Cogn.C.71*.62*.23 Affec.64*.58* Difficuly.26* *Correlaion is significan a p<.01(2-ailed) On he oher hand, moderae correlaions were found beween Effor and Affec (0.33), Value and Difficuly (0.34) and Cogniive compeence and Effor (0.35). There was a somehow weak relaionship beween Difficuly and Ineres (0.26). Correlaions beween Effor and Difficuly and Ineres and Cogniive compeence were no significan. A possible explanaion is ha elemenary pre-service eachers who had difficulies wih graphs had less ineres in graphs and hey were no likely o aemp o learn abou graphs. Discussion The purpose of his sudy was o examine pre-service elemenary educaion eachers aiude owards graphs. Aiude was defined in erms of six aspecs: Effor, Value, Cogniive compeency, Affec, Difficuly and Ineres. The resuls show ha pre-service eachers had neural o posiive feelings concerning graphs; percepion of self-compeence for graphs; and valued graphs regardless of heir perceived difficulies and moderae ineres in graphs. However, here were significan differences on Cogniive compeence, 179
Affec, and Difficuly beween pre-service eachers in Mahemaics concenraion areas and hose in English, Social Sciences and Ohers. A possible explanaion for his finding is ha pre-service eachers in mahemaics concenraion areas are likely o have more affecion owards graphs han hose in English and Social Sciences. Furhermore, pre-service eachers in English and Social Sciences concenraion areas are likely o view graphs as more difficul han hose in Mahemaics. However, here were insignifican differences beween pre-service eachers who had aken more mahemaics courses and hose who had aken less mahemaics courses a eiher he college or high school levels. On he oher hand, here were significan differences beween pre-service eachers who had aken more science courses and less science courses a college and high school levels. These findings sugges ha he number of mahemaics courses aken by pre-service eachers may no have made any difference in heir aiude owards graphs. In conras, he number of science courses hey ook in high school seemed o have made some difference in heir aiude owards graphs. These findings have implicaions for eacher educaion and mahemaics and science eaching and learning. For example, hough mos pre-service eachers valued graphs hey expressed an indifferen ineres in hem. Such aiude can impede eaching and learning of graphs among eachers. Such aiudes can also hinder he exen o which eachers will develop graphing inuiions and useful applicaion of graphs in heir eaching jobs, personal lives, and lives of heir sudens. Alhough pre-service eachers expressed self-compeence for graphing, hey viewed graphing as a highly echnical process ha is difficul o learn quickly. These oucomes also reinforce our view ha graphing in eacher educaion should be increased, since a eacher who feels insecure or scared of or no ineresed in a opic is unlikely o suppor is eaching. Therefore, eacher educaors should focus on helping pre-service eachers o develop graphing skills and posiive aiude owards graphs regardless of concenraion areas for heir elemenary educaion degree because graphs are used in many subjec disciplines. I would also be useful for eacher educaors o consider developing sraegies ha will foser pre-service eachers posiive aiude owards graphs, and help hem reflec on he naure of graphs. Fuure research should invesigae: he relaionship beween pre-service eachers aiude owards graphs and achievemen on graphs; graphing preferences among pre-service eachers; and he relaionship beween graphing preference and achievemen on graphs. Conclusions On he whole, elemenary educaion pre-service eachers valued graphs, expressed affecion and self-compeence for graphing regardless of heir perceived graphing difficulies and indifferen ineres in graphs. A srong relaionship beween Cogniive compeence and Affec led us o conclude ha elemenary educaion pre-service eachers wih high affecion for graphs are likely o hink hey have graphing knowledge and skills. On he oher hand, non-significan correlaions beween Effor and Difficuly and Ineres and Cogniive compeence led us o conclude ha elemenary preservice eachers who viewed graphs as difficul were likely o express low self-compeence and less ineres in graphs. Surprisingly, his sudy found ha he number of mahemaics courses aken by pre-service eachers may no have made any difference in heir aiude owards graphs. However, he number of science courses hey ook in high school seems o have made some difference in heir aiude owards graphs. References Bowen, G. M., & Roh, W.-M. (2005). Daa and graph inerpreaion pracices among pre-service science eachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(10), 1063-1088. Canrell, P., Young, S., & Moore, A. (2003). Facors affecing science eaching efficacy of preservice elemenary eachers. Journal of Science Teacher Educaion, 14(3), 177-192. Cohen, J. (1988). Saisical power analysis for he behavioral sciences. Second Ediion. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associaes. 180
Dauphinee, T. L., Schau, C. & Sevens, J.J. (1997). Survey of aiudes owards saisics: Facor srucure invariance for women and men. Srucural Equaion Modeling, 42(2), 129-141. Germann, P. J. (1988). Developmen of he aiude oward science in school assessmen and is use o invesigae he relaionship beween science achievemen and aiude oward science in school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(8), 689-703. Gogolin, L., and Swarz, F. (1992). A quaniaive and qualiaive inquiry ino he aiudes oward science of non science college sudens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(5), 487-504. Palmer, D. H. (2001). Facors conribuing o aiude exchange amongs pre-service elemenary eachers. Science Educaion, 85(6), 122-138. Rier, D., & Coleman, S. L. (1995). Assessing he graphing skills of pre-service elemenary eachers: Idenifying srenghhs and deficiencies in educaion sudens learning processes. Journal of College Science Teaching, 24(6), 388-391. Roh, W.-M., McGinn, M. K., & Bowen, G. M. (1998). How prepared are preservice eachers o each scienific inquiry? Levels of performance in scienific represenaion pracices. Journal of Science Teacher Educaion, 9(1), 25-48. Young, T. (1998). Sudens aiudes owards science (STATS). Evaluaion and Research in Educaion, 12(2), 96-110. Received 05 Augus 2009; acceped 20 November 2009. Frackson Mumba Erin Wilson Vivien M. Chabalengula William Mejia Simeon Mbewe Dr., Assisan professor of Science Educaion, Deparmen of Curriculum and Insrucion, Souhern Illinois Universiy, Carbondale, IL USA 62901. Phone: (618) 453-6162; Fax: (618) 453-4244. E-mail: frackson@siu.edu Websie: hp://www.siuc.edu/ Graduae Suden, Science educaion, Deparmen of Curriculum and Insrucion, Souhern Illinois Universiy, Carbondale, IL USA 62901. E-mail: ewilson4@siu.edu Dr., Lecurer in Science educaion, Deparmen of Curriculum and Insrucion, Souhern Illinois Universiy, Carbondale, IL USA 62901. Phone: (618) 453-4216; Fax: (618) 453-4244. E-mail: mweene@siu.edu Websie: hp://www.siuc.edu/ PhD Suden, Insrucional Design & Technology, Deparmen of Curriculum and Insrucion, Souhern Illinois Universiy, Carbondale, IL USA 62901. E-mail: wmejia@siu.edu PhD Suden, Science Educaion, Deparmen of Curriculum and Insrucion, Souhern Illinois Universiy, Carbondale, IL USA 62901. E-mail: smbewe@siu.edu 181