Developing a physics laboratory anxiety scale

Since the mid-nineteenth century, the importance accorded to laboratory methods in the physical sciences has been increasing, and it is now accepted that the laboratory has become an inseparable part of science education (Çepni, Akdeniz & Ayas, 1995; Kılıç, Emsen & Soran, 2011; Wheatley, 1975). Thus, many studies emphasising the contribution of laboratory applications to science education have been conducted (Bryant & Marek, 1987; Freedman, 1997; Hofstein & Lunetta, 1982; Hofstein & Mamlok-Naaman, 2007; Kang & Wallace, 2005; Osborne & Wittrock, 1983; Serin, 2001; Shymansky & Kyle, 1988; Tamir, 1977; Tsai, 1999; White, 1996). Many studies question the necessity of laboratory use in teaching physics, which is one of the physical sciences (Arons, 1993; Hake, 1992; Krieger & Stith, 1990; Roth, 1994; Thornton & Sokoloff 1998). The likelihood of encountering the principles of physics in everyday life has made it necessary to provide the expected behavioural changes of students in physics teaching through the applications in the laboratory environment (Akdeniz & Karamustafaoğlu, 2003). Student laboratories have been an essential element of the physics curriculum for more than a century. Unfortunately, there is still no consensus on educational goals or the best method to assess those goals in physics laboratories (Trumper, 2003).

The laboratory method, which is recognised as necessary, is not applied appropriately in Turkey at present and there are various obstacles to achieving expected targets in this context. It has been determined that these difficulties are generally caused by factors relating to teaching such as the curriculum, environment, teachers and students (Yolaş Kolçak, 2010). Negative situations which decrease the performance of physics laboratories have been identified as inadequate lesson length, inefficient equipment, inadequate in-service training of teachers, the anxiety of students about preparation for university entrance exams, crowded classroom environments and an intensive curriculum (Bozdoğan and Yalçın 2004, 2004; Çepni, Akdeniz & Ayas, 1995; Çepni, Kaya & Küçük, 2005; Şahin, 2001). The variables associated with students have effects on the performance of laboratory applications as well as the laboratory environment (Uluçınar, Cansaran and Karaca 2004). Affective dimensions of learning such as anxiety, attitudes and self-efficacy are perceived as important predictors of student performance in laboratory situations (Bowen, 1999).

Whereas the level of cognitive behaviours is continually controlled in school environments, affective behaviours cannot be both acquired and measured in a planned manner. In fact, affective input features have the capacity to explain the changes in learning products at the level of 25%. Therefore, achievement can be raised by making the affective input features positive (Senemoğlu 2005). Being equipped only with cognitive features will cause individuals to labour under the burden of knowledge. Thus, they need to be equipped with both cognitive and affective aspects and there must be more effort made concerning the affective dimension of education, which determines pupils' futures. It is fair to say that the functionality of education activities, which are cognitive and target-orientated, can be enhanced by placing more emphasis on the affective dimension (Gömleksiz & Kan, 2012).

Science anxiety attracts attention as one of the factors influencing success because high anxiety results in poor performance (Czemiak & Chiarelott, 1984). Science anxiety, according to Mallow (2006), can be described as feeling anxiety and stress in terms of understanding and solving science problems in daily and academic life.

The reasons for science anxiety vary; family, school and/or environment are possible causes. It is expected that students whose parents are good at science will be more successful than other students. Female students are expected to be less successful than male students and this situation causes anxiety which puts pressure on the student (Mallow & Greenburg, 1983). Interviews conducted with students with negative attitudes towards science show that they have received negative messages related to science from their educational background. Many science teachers believe that science skills are possessed by only a small number of select people. Another reason for science anxiety is the absence of role models. According to the data provided by the American Institute of Physics, the number of female undergraduates in physics departments was 6% in 1994 and only 10% in 2002. The percentage of female physics teachers in 2000-01 was only 29% (Mallow, 2006).

When science anxiety is mentioned, science exams spring to mind (Mallow, 2010). Actually, anxiety related to science does not only consist of test anxiety: students have also shown anxiety about laboratory lessons, which are a prerequisite for science education. Some studies have measured anxiety, especially in chemistry laboratories (Anılan, Görgülü and Balbağ 2009; Azizioğlu and Uzuntiryaki 2006; Bowen 1999; Clement and Khan, 1999; Jegede 2007; Kurbanoğlu and Akın 2010; McCarthy and Widanski 2009) but few have examined anxiety related to the physics laboratory, although many have evaluated attitudes towards physics lessons (Adams et al., 2006; Gardner, 1976; Kurnaz and Yiğit 2010; O'Brien & Porter, 1994; Skryabina, 2000; Tekbıyık & Akdeniz, 2010). It has been confirmed repeatedly that students find physics lessons difficult, boring and full of unnecessary information. What is the situation with regard to the laboratory environment? In which situations do students feel anxious when they are in the physics laboratory? This study aims at developing a scale which can be used for measuring the anxiety of students towards the physics laboratory in order to find answers to these questions and meet the deficiency in this context.