High School Biology and Attitudes toward Treatment of Animals

Abstract

In secondary schools biology curricula usually include two principal affective aims, the development of scientific objectivity and the enhancement of respect for living things (3). laboratory's function in science education has been assumed to involve the development of scientific thinking, intellecrual growth, practical skills, and favorable attimdes toward science (2); however, routine reliance upon laboratory techniques in biology and may increase distance of students from living animals and be counterproductive to the realization of goals relating to respect for life (4). aim of the present study was to examine some possible attitudes toward animals in a laboratoryoriented study of biology. Subjects were 78 first-year college students enrolled in a training program for elementary teachers. Forty-seven students (43 women. 4 men) reported having studied laboratory-based biology in senior high school; 31 (28 women, 3 men) indicated that they had not taken biology in high school. Their mean age was 20.14 yr. (SD = 5.36 yr.). Subjects completed the Scale of Attitudes Toward the Treatment of Animals which includes 30 Likert-type items yielding scores from 0 through 120, higher scores indicating a more positive attitude. scale's reliabiliry is satisfactory for research (coefficient alpha = .go), and group differences support construct validity (1). Examples of items are Painful scientific research using animals which has no practical results should be abolished. Although some scientific experiments on animals may seem trivial or repetitive they should nevertheless be permitted. The use of fur from wild animals for decorative purposes such as fur coats should not be permitted, The educational and entertainment value of zoos far outweighs any cruelty that may be involved in holding animals captive. mean total score for students who studied high school biology was 71.61 (SD = 12.66); for students having no biology courses che mean was 78.45 (SD = 15.18). difference was significant (r = 2.79, p < .01). These data indicate fairly positive attitudes coward animals for both groups, but those who had not studied biology were somewhat more favorable though more variable. Carefully controlled smdy of affective consequences of experience with and study of animals is appropriate.