Discussion

In the survey of parents’ perception of science areas, genders were represented unequally, i.e.

there were 78 females and 22 males. This factor has to be considered when evaluating the results of the questionnaire, because male and female respondents could have made different choices and had different preferences in science education determined by their gender. For example, 73% of respondents chose biology when attending upper secondary schools, and it makes biology the primary choice. In comparison, about 60% of respondents selected chemistry, 30% - physics, and 16% - Earth science. Biology could have been a number one choice for the survey’s participants because of their gender. However, even if this presumption is correct, it means that biology has been selected by a major ratio of Japanese

100

students, and therefore it is one of prioritized areas in regard to students’ choice in upper secondary schools of Japan.

In contrast to physics, chemistry and biology, Earth science has been selected by a minority of students in upper secondary schools of Japan. Moreover, many of them have been unable to select it even if would prefer to do so. It is important, as Earth science is often associated with environmental studies. A special position of Earth science in the system of school education in Japan was highlighted by other results of this research. The number of respondents who wanted to select physics, chemistry and biology is smaller in comparison to those who actually chose them while being students of upper secondary schools. Only in the case of Earth science more respondents expressed a positive attitude toward selecting this area of science than actually did so.

This study also outlines two other issues concerning science and in particular biology education. The first is a general ‘unwillingness’ to study science. The second is that biology could have been chosen not because respondents had a positive attitude toward it, but because they could have a more negative perception of other areas of science comparing to biology, in particular, of physics and chemistry. While survey’s participants were not required to reason their choice of science disciplines, biology could have been chosen as an ‘easier’ option in comparison to two other subjects.

Concerning the deficiency of knowledge in areas of science, in chemistry and agricultural sciences it is slightly higher than in other areas. These two areas are followed by medicine, Earth science and physics. The environmental science and biology are the areas in which respondents evaluate their lack of knowledge to be lower in comparison to other two. It may indicate that biology is considered to be an easier discipline. The level of knowledge in biology is evaluated as the most sufficient among all areas, while in agricultural sciences it is considered to be the least sufficient. Obviously, biology, agricultural science and environmental science are perceived as rather unrelated categories.

Respondents’ attitudes (interest) toward areas of science seem to remain almost unchanged when transferring from lower (grades 7-9) to upper (grades 10-12) secondary schools. The highest level of interest is expressed toward biology, while it does not reach the

‘moderate’ mark. A slightly less positive attitude is expressed toward chemistry and Earth science, and the most negative (‘indifference’) toward physics.Therefore, biology is possibly prioritized in terms of attitudes toward it, while the trend of respondents’ attitudes could have been influenced by their gender.

Respondents’ assessment of emphasized areas of science in the time when they were students is similar between lower and upper secondary schools. There were more respondents who noted a difference in emphasis between areas of science than those who stated that all of them were emphasized equally. Chemistry is considered to be slightly more prioritized than physics and biology, while Earth science is evaluated as the least prioritized area. Biology is

101

evaluated by parents to be less prioritized than chemistry, but ‘equal’ to physics in the time when they attended schools.

In regard to present time schools, the majority of respondents note a difference in emphasis between science areas too. According to them, physics and chemistry are prioritized over biology and Earth science. No one of respondents selected Earth science as a prioritized area in regard to lower secondary schools, and only three selected it in regard to upper secondary schools.

In respondents’ opinion, priorities in schools have shifted since they have been students.

In particular, chemistry became less emphasized than before, and biology became less emphasized than physics and chemistry. However, the situation with Earth science remained rather unchanged, i.e. it was not emphasized previously, and is not emphasized in the present schools.

When asked about desired priorities in the science education for their children, about 60% of respondents would like all areas of science to be prioritized equally in children’s education. Among respondents who would prefer areas of science to be emphasized differently, there are more those who selected chemistry and biology than physics and Earth science. Therefore, parents would like the prioritization of science areas to be more ‘balanced’

than presently. It means that respondents evaluate biology as a ‘valuable’ area of science in comparison to others, and in this regard it is possibly a ‘prioritized’ one.

There is a clear pattern in parents’ assessment of children’s preferences in science depending on gender. The majority of respondents presume that chemistry is the most favourite area of science for boys, while for girls it is supposed to be biology. In parents’

opinion, on boys’ scale of preferences chemistry is followed by physics. It is presumed that boys ‘do not like’ Earth science and biology. Girls are presumed to like biology more than other areas. The reasons for this assessment are unclear, but it may be related to the evaluation of biology as an ‘easy’ discipline.

In parents’ opinion, top performers prefer physics and chemistry over biology and Earth science. Low performing students are supposed to have a rather negative attitude toward physics and chemistry, and a positive one toward biology and Earth science. In both cases (e.g.

assessment of students depending on their gender and performance) the difference between two blocks: 1) physics, chemistry and 2) biology, Earth science is very significant. Therefore, there is a clear pattern in association of certain genders of children and their academic performance with certain areas of science. Possibly, one of the reasons is that biology and Earth science are evaluated as ‘simple’ in comparison to physics and chemistry. Other reasons are not investigated by the present survey. It is also unclear, if there is a difference in societal perception of genders’ levels of ability in areas of science.

A majority of respondents evaluate physics and chemistry to be more ‘important’ for students’ future than biology and Earth science if they continue studying in natural sciences. If

102

students choose social sciences, it is the opposite. If children choose a career in medicine, biology is considered to be the most important area. The next is chemistry. Physics is presumed to be number three, and Earth science number four. If students decide to become school science teachers, the importance of science areas is as follows: physics, chemistry, biology, Earth science.