The Relationship Between Scientific Knowledge, Scientific Attitudes, and Teaching Experience among Malaysian Science Teachers

Strengthening scientific literacy among teachers is a critical lever for improving science education quality and achieving national STEM aspirations. In Malaysia, ongoing curriculum reforms and assessment demands heighten the need to understand not only teachers’ factual scientific knowledge but also their scientific attitudes and how these dimensions vary across career stages. This study examines scientific literacy among primary science teachers by focusing on (a) factual scientific knowledge, (b) scientific attitudes, (c) differences in attitudes by teaching experience, and (d) the association between knowledge and attitudes. A structured questionnaire was administered to 59 teachers in Kuala Lumpur, and data were analysed using SPSS (v27). Overall factual knowledge was high, with item-level correct response rates predominantly exceeding 80%. Scientific attitudes were likewise high (M = 4.63, SD = 0.40). A one-way ANOVA indicated significant differences in attitudes across teaching-experience categories, with teachers in the 6–10-year band reporting the lowest mean score (M = 4.40) relative to other groups (M = 4.64–4.80), F (3,55) = 3.30, p = .03. Pearson’s correlation revealed a modest but statistically significant negative relationship between knowledge and attitudes (r = –.319, p = .014). The findings underscore the importance of career stage–responsive professional development, pedagogical approaches that integrate attitudinal objectives with content mastery, and the systematic incorporation of scientific literacy competencies into in-service training.

scientific literacy, teacher knowledge, scientific attitudes

1. Abell, S. K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1105–1149). Lawrence Erlbaum. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258–267. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07306523 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bybee, R. W. (2014). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. NSTA Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77(3), 211–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070407700302 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Danielson, C. (2013). The Framework for Teaching evaluation instrument (2013 ed.). The Danielson Group. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2007). Variations in the conditions for teachers’ professional learning and change: A study of a sample of higher performing schools in England. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(3), 274–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487107077670 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Hattie, J., & Clarke, S. (2019). Visible learning: Feedback. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543067001088 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Huberman, M. (1989). The professional life cycle of teachers. Teachers College Record, 91(1), 31–57. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Kang, N., & Wallace, C. (2005). Secondary science teachers’ use of laboratory activities: Linking epistemological beliefs, goals, and practices. Science Education, 89(1), 140–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20013 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2016). Dokumen Standard Kurikulum dan Pentaksiran (DSKP) Sains sekolah rendah. Putrajaya: KPM. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Kind, V. (2014). A degree is not enough: A content knowledge perspective on pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 36(7), 1317–1340. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.870329 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 741–756. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019237 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Klassen, R. M., & Tze, V. M. C. (2014). Teachers’ self-efficacy, personality, and teaching effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 12, 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.06.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Korthagen, F. A. J. (2017). Inconvenient truths about teacher learning: Towards professional development 3.0. Teachers and Teaching, 23(4), 387–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1211523 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 600–620). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Lewis, C. (2002). Lesson study: A handbook of teacher-led instructional change. Research for Better Schools. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2012). Supporting grade 5–8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence, and reasoning framework for talk and writing. Pearson. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume I): What students know and can do. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. OECD. (2020). TALIS 2018 results (Volume II): Teachers and school leaders as valued professionals. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/19cf08df-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge. School Science Review, 95(353), 93–100. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000032199 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10019 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20065 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Shavelson, R. J., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Wiley, E. W. (2005). On the structure of cognitive demands of science performance assessments: The Stanford experience (CAESAR). Science Education, 89(3), 344–355. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20055 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Smith, L. K., & Southerland, S. A. (2007). Reforming practice in science teaching and learning: A case study of a secondary science teacher. Science Education, 91(5), 922–953. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20218 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on professional learning communities: What do we know? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013189X11411620 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941–967. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20259 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study