Journal of Biological Education

ISSN: 0021-9266 (Print) 2157-6009 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjbe20

Linking the experiential, affective and cognitive

domains in biology education: a case study –
microscopy

Barend Vlaardingerbroek, Neil Taylor, Colin Bale & John Kennedy

To cite this article: Barend Vlaardingerbroek, Neil Taylor, Colin Bale & John Kennedy (2017)
Linking the experiential, affective and cognitive domains in biology education: a case study –
microscopy, Journal of Biological Education, 51:2, 144-150, DOI: 10.1080/00219266.2016.1177574

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2016.1177574

Published online: 17 May 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 218

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjbe20
Journal of Biological Education, 2017
VOL. 51, NO. 2, 144–150
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2016.1177574

Linking the experiential, affective and cognitive domains in

biology education: a case study – microscopy
Barend Vlaardingerbroeka, Neil Taylorb  , Colin Baleb and John Kennedyb 
a
Department of Education, American University of Beirut, Ras Beirut, Lebanon; bSchool of Education, University of
New England, Armidale NSW, Australia.

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
A greater emphasis in school curricula on the technology of science would Technology (of science);
encourage teachers to engage their students more in practical work. This in secondary school science;
turn might be expected to improve students’ attitudes towards science and microscopy; attitudes (to
science)
enhance cognitive outcomes. The paper presents findings from a study on
first-year university students’ school experience of, attitudes towards, and
knowledge of, microscopy. The findings reinforce the general expectations
alluded to above. They also draw attention to the importance of the
lower secondary science experience – often a suboptimal one owing to a
poor resource base – to the formation of student attitudes and cognitive
development with respect to science.

Introduction
It is widely regarded as axiomatic in science education that positive classroom learning experiences
are conducive to positive attitudes towards, and cognitive gains in, science (Simpson and Oliver 1990;
Woolnough 1994; Osborne, Simon, and Collins 2003). The empirical evidence connecting these is,
however, not quite as clear-cut. Despite the emphasis over the past couple of decades on inquiry-based
approaches to science teaching and learning, conclusive evidence to the effect that such approaches
achieve better academic outcomes remains elusive, and studies that indicate a link between this
approach and achievement suggest that their findings be treated with caution (Kirschner, Sweller,
and Clark 2006; Geier et al. 2008; Wolf and Fraser 2008). The relationship between attitudes and
achievement in science is even more obscure (Papanastasiou and Zembylas 2002).
The relationship between the learning experience (experiential domain), attitudes (affective domain)
and achievement (cognitive domain) should be easier to elucidate when dealing with the technology
of science (largely in the psychomotor domain) rather than with abstract theory (higher cognitive
domain). A focus in modern science education curricula is how science works. This invokes both
epistemological and technological aspects of the scientific method. The first of these has received
a great deal of attention in the literature, principally with reference to scientific thinking (see e.g.
Schwartz, Lederman, and Crawford 2004). The technological aspect has received rather less. The profile
of technology varies between the sciences. The teaching of high school physics necessarily involves
exposing students to a range of technologies both crude (e.g. the ticker-timer) and sophisticated (e.g.

CONTACT  Neil Taylor  [email protected]

© 2016 Royal Society of Biology
 Journal of Biological Education   145

dataloggers and motion sensors). High school biology presents fewer opportunities for the inclusion
of technology; however, units on cells and micro-organisms lend themselves to a technology-intensive
approach through their association with microscopy, both the optical and electron versions.
This study targeted university students’ general knowledge about microscopy in relation to their
secondary school experience and their attitudes towards microscopy. Our working hypothesis was
that a positive interrelationship is expected between the quality of the school microscopy experience,
attitudes towards microscopy, and knowledge of microscopy as a technology of biological science.
A subsidiary hypothesis was that the study of biology at the upper secondary level (senior biology)
ought to be conducive to higher evaluations in all three areas. The enhancing effect of senior biology
on beginning university students’ understanding of scale in diagrammatic representations of cells has
already been demonstrated by Vlaardingerbroek, Taylor, and Bale (2014).

Methods
The sample
The cohort enrolled in first-year foundation science at an Australian university was selected for
the study on the basis of availability. Typically these students come from a wide range of secondary
schools based in small towns across northern NSW and to a lesser extent southern Queensland.
Only students who had not engaged in the formal study of biology between high school and their
current enrolment were eligible to participate. It should be noted that Biology is the most popular
senior science subject with Australian secondary school students (Kennedy, Lyons, and Quinn
2014) and is less often studied alongside any other science. The Stage 6 NSW Biology Curriculum
contains a considerable amount of material on cell structure and the technology associated with
the study of cells, including light and electron microscopy (Board of Studies New South Wales
2013). For example, ‘Students perform a first-hand investigation to gather first-hand information
using a light microscope to observe cells in plants and animals and identify nucleus, cytoplasm,
cell wall, chloroplast and vacuoles’ (26).

The instrument
A data collection instrument was devised by the authors, and was administered in pen-and-paper
form in the first week of classes of the 2015 academic year. Students were asked to indicate what year
they had completed their high schooling and whether they had studied senior biology for purposes of
attaining their HSC (Higher School Certificate). They were then presented with two questions about
their high school experience of microscopy. In the first, they were asked to rate their high school
experience on a scale between 0 (‘You never saw a microscope at high school’) to 3 (‘You did some
practical work either by yourself or in a group which involved the use of a microscope which you
personally got to handle’) while in the second they were asked to rate the quality of the experience on
a scale again between 0 (‘Never looked at cells and/or micro-organisms through a microscope while
at school’) to 3 (‘Got a nice clear view of cells and/or micro-organisms under the microscope’). These
were followed by two questions targeting their attitudes towards microscopy. The first asked them to
evaluate their school microscopy experience in terms of learning about cells and/or micro-organisms
on a scale between 0 (‘No benefit at all’) to 3 (‘Very beneficial’) while the second asked them to indicate
their personal level of interest in microscopy as technology on a scale from 0 (‘Not really interested’)
to 3 (‘Very much interested’).
The second part was made up of 13 multiple-choice items targeting students’ knowledge about
microscopy. Items ranged from simple technical issues such as calculating total magnification for an
optical microscope to more esoteric topics such as the microtome. The themes covered by the test are
given in the ‘Results’ section below. Students were also invited to make free response comments about
their high school microscopy experience in spaces provided.
146    B. Vlaardingerbroek et al.

Analysis
A ‘school experience’ score between 0 and 6 was derived from the first two items while an ‘attitudes
towards microscopy’ score also between 0 and 6 was arrived at by adding together the second pair of
items. Distributions for each of these scores were compared between students who had studied senior
biology and those who had not using the χ2 test which was also used to test for association between
the two scores.
A test score out of 13 was arrived at for each student. These were compared between students who
had studied senior biology and those who had not using the t-test. Test score distributions were tested
for association with school experience and attitudes towards microscopy scores using the t-test or
F-test as appropriate. Responses to the test items were analysed by response option for students who
had studied senior biology.

Results
A total of 234 duly completed forms were collected. The overwhelming majority of students had
attained the Higher School Certificate in 2013 or 2014. One hundred and fifty-five had taken senior
biology and 79 had not.
The school experience score was generally high with 135 students (58%) awarding it 6/6 and 51
(22%) awarding it 5/6. Numbers for the lower five scores (0–4) were so low that they were amalgamated.
As Table 1 shows, the senior biology experience was associated with a significant increase in this score.
Scores for attitudes to microscopy were more spread out and the 0–3 and 4–6 score ranges were
combined to avoid low cell counts. As Table 2 indicates, the senior biology experience was again
associated with higher scores.
There was a significant positive association between distributions for the two scales using these
amalgamated score ranges, 36% of the sample occupying the cell representing the intersection of a
school experience score of 6 and an attitudes towards microscopy score in the range of 4–6 (χ2 = 25.29,
p < 0.001).
The mean for the 13 test items was 6.20 (47.7%) with a standard deviation of 1.95 (15.0%). As shown
by Table 3, students who had been enrolled in senior biology scored slightly higher than students who
had not; recourse to the 1-tailed test is reasonable given that the senior biology experience does not
annul the middle-years biology (as part of ‘general science’) experience but is an additional ‘treatment’.

Table 1. School experience ratings and senior biology enrolment at high school.

School experience score No senior biology Senior biology χ2

0–4 33 (42%) 15 (10%)
5 17 (22%) 34 (22%)
6 29 (37%) 106 (68%) 35.39, p < 0.001

Table 2. Attitudes to microscopy ratings and senior biology enrolment at high school.

Attitudes to microscopy score No senior biology Senior biology χ2

0–3 51 (65%) 67 (43%)
4–6 28 (35%) 88 (57%) 9.52, p < 0.01

Table 3. Test scores and senior biology enrolment at high school.

No senior biology Senior biology t

n 79 155
Mean 5.85 6.37
SD 2.27 1.74 1.81, p < 0.05
(1-tailed)
 Journal of Biological Education   147

Table 4. Test scores against school experience ratings.

School experience score

0–4 5 6 F
n 48 51 135
Mean 5.54 5.77 6.59
SD 2.37 1.78 1.75 7.12, p < 0.01

Table 5. Test scores against attitudes towards microscopy ratings.

Attitudes towards microscopy score

0–3 4–6 t
n 118 116
Mean 5.81 6.59
SD 1.98 1.84 3.09, p < 0.01

Table 6. Responses to test items for students who had studied senior biology.

Theme % correct Comments

Definition of cover slip 79
Total magnification by eyepiece × objective lens 77
Purpose of staining techniques 76
Meaning of ‘resolution’ 73
Century first single-lens microscope made 59
Why electron microscope so called 49
Decade first functioning electron microscope 43
Microscope made using coarse adjustment while on HP (smash the slide) 43 32% opted for ‘specimen cannot
possibly be brought into focus’
Meaning of ‘compound microscope’ 39 37% thought it referred to having
both coarse and fine focus
adjustment knobs
Identification of micrometre as 10−6 m 32 28% thought it was 10−3 m
Scanning electron microscope (cf. transmission) allows us to see surface 28 38% answered ‘molecules’
of cells
Magnification capability of school microscope used at Senior Biology level 23 38% as 100X and 32% as 300X
(600×)
Recognition of microtome as cutting instrument 19 42% thought it was a graduat-
ed scale for measuring size
under the microscope and 24%
thought it was another name
for the fine adjustment knob

As summarised in Tables 4 and 5, test scores for the sample as a whole increased significantly with
both the school experience score and the attitudes towards microscopy score.
Table 6 provides details of the responses to test items by students who had studied senior biology.
The items are ranked in descending order of the number who selected the correct answer option.
Students who had undergone the senior biology experience appeared to be mostly competent with
regard to the use of the coverslip, the calculation of total magnification, the use of staining techniques
and the concept of resolution, and knew what century the first single-lens microscope was produced
in. Half of them recognised the definition of an electron microscope, and almost the same propor-
tion knew the decade when it was first used. Surprisingly, fewer than half recognised the fact that
racking by means of the coarse adjustment knob while on high power may result in the smashing of
the slide; this may reflect little prior experience with high-power magnification. Equally surprisingly,
fewer than 40% recognised the term ‘compound microscope’, while only one in three could define
the micrometre. Many of them had apparently not encountered the scanning electron microscope
148    B. Vlaardingerbroek et al.

and most were not cognisant of the microtome. The fact that fewer than one in four could correctly
identify the magnification limit of a standard school microscope is probably related to the anecdotal
observation that many teachers restrict their students to the use of medium power to avoid damage
to the high-power objective lens. This may involve removing the high-power lenses before giving
microscopes to students to use.

Discussion
If our sample is at all representative, Australian middle-years science teachers (most of whom are
biology graduates (Harris, Jensz, and Baldwin 2005)) appear to be doing a fair job in introducing lower
and middle-secondary students to the world of microscopy with an approval rating of almost 60% (as
indicated by school experience scores of 5 and 6/6) from students who had not gone on to study senior
biology. It is at this stage that students are taught about the workings of the optical microscope. The
experience, brief as it is, appears to stick in students’ minds. However, the lower secondary experience
of microscopy is not uncommonly marred by a lack of resources, as these comments from students
who had not progressed to senior biology bear witness to:
The microscopes at my high school were of a poor quality, which made it difficult to see.
Microscopes in better condition would have been a big help.
Microscopes in ratio to students was 1:8.
Smaller classes and better equipment at the senior level understandably have positive effects on
students’ school experience of microscopy, with 90% giving it a rating of 5 or 6/6. Whereas students
who had not studied senior biology tendered no positive comments about their high school experience
at all, a number of ex-senior biology students did so, typified by the following:
Very fascinating and enjoyable – fundamental.
It was very interesting seeing cells and micro-organisms under the microscope.
Was fairly sick, enjoyed looking at [micro-]organisms.
There were, nevertheless, caveats expressed, such as the following:
Would have liked to use microscope by myself, hardly got a turn.
We got to use microscopes a lot but they weren’t the most easy microscopes to use.
We didn’t know enough about what we were looking at for the experience to be beneficial.
The teachers never really showed us how to use one, thus many of us didn’t know what to look for.
Students’ attitudes towards microscopy were evenly split between the 0–3 and 4–6 score ranges
for the scale. While factors other than the quality of the school experience feed into this, the positive
association between the two scales, as well as between the attitude score and the senior biology expe-
rience, is suggestive of a high-quality ‘hands-on’ high school experience being a contributing factor
in relation to the development of positive attitudes towards microscopy.
The association between these experiential and affective measures and students’ knowledge of
microscopy extends this relationship into the cognitive domain. Interestingly, the senior biology
experience in isolation did not give students any but the most slender of edges in the test, although
this finding was consistent with the study by Vlaardingerbroek, Taylor, and Bale (2014) mentioned
earlier. Australian school students are usually introduced to the workings of the optical microscope
at lower secondary level, often in the context of Hooke’s development of the microscope giving rise
to the discovery of cells (ACARA 2010a, 2010b). Students are then expected to recall these when they
get to upper secondary school, at which level they are formally introduced to electron microscopy
(although many teachers do mention this at the earlier stage as well). Thus many upper secondary
teachers may use the microscope as a means to an end in their teaching approach rather than going
into the workings of the technology to any appreciable degree, as these comments from students who
had gone through senior biology suggest:
 Journal of Biological Education   149

We didn’t learn specific things about microscopes, we just used them.

I feel as though my teachers didn’t go into enough depth about microscopes.
I have never heard of half this stuff.
Test scores rose significantly with both school experience and attitudes towards microscopy scores.
The school experience is often enhanced by the study of biology at senior level, but this study suggests
that the quality of the lower secondary experience is of considerable importance in the formation of
attitudes and the acquisition of knowledge about microscopy. It will be noted that the practical themes
generally make an appearance at the lower secondary science level when students are introduced to
the microscope, while a traditional inclusion in school textbooks is the history of the technology.

Conclusion and recommendations

The results we have presented provide evidence for the case that positive classroom experiences in
science involving ‘hands-on’ student engagement (experiential/psychomotor domain) stimulate the
formation of positive attitudes towards science (affective domain) and lead to improved knowledge and
understanding thereof (cognitive domain) in the context of learning about the technology of science.
Whether that in turn translates into a better understanding of theoretical science is another, albeit
related, issue. However, we view a working knowledge of the technology of science as an important
and underrated objective of science education in its own right. Teachers will teach what the curric-
ulum requires them to teach – especially for examination purposes – and if the curriculum is thin
on the technology of science, classroom coverage is likely to be commensurate. We concur with the
student who opined that:
Microscopes are not covered nearly enough in the HSC Bio syllabus.
We would counsel teachers of biology to spend a little more time on the intricacies of the technol-
ogy involved in revealing the secrets of the cell, especially at the senior level where the cognitive gain
with respect to the methods of science in this context appears to be minimal, although the quality of
the learning experience and the formation of positive attitudes towards this aspect of the workings of
science appear to receive considerable boosts from the study of cell and micro-biology at that level. It
is pertinent to note that microscopy lab work is necessarily ‘guided’ in the sense of being structured
rather than of the ‘open-ended inquiry’ type, given that the former results in more effective learning
(Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark 2006).
An issue that this study highlights is the formative potential of lower secondary school science with
regard to both attitudes and subsequent cognitive gain. Middle-years science, especially in British-
derived school systems where lower and upper secondary schooling tend to occur under the same
roof, is often viewed as a chore by subject-specialist science teachers who have to spend a lot of their
time teaching ‘general science’ at the lower levels. Senior biology, senior chemistry and senior physics,
owing to their bridging functions to tertiary education, are widely regarded as having far more impact.
This study suggests, however, that in the case of at least one area of the technology of science, the
junior secondary science experience has a far more enduring impact than would perhaps be envis-
aged by many practitioners. There is a case here for paying much more attention to the technology
as opposed to the theory of science at lower secondary level. Reid and Skryabina (2002), in relation
to physics education in Scotland, came to much the same conclusion when they noted that courses
which emphasise the ‘application-based approach rather than a content-based approach [are] very
appealing to pupils’ (79).
This suggestion fits in well with the common theme in science education literature of needing
to place a greater emphasis on practical work in school science as a means of engaging students
(e.g. ACARA (Australian Curriculum and Assessment Reporting Authority) 2010a; Goodrum, Druhan,
and Abbs 2011). Australian high school students would appear to agree. In the ‘Choosing Science’
report (Lyons and Quinn 2010) the principal recommendation by Year 10 students in relation to
encouraging more students into Year 11 sciences was to do more practical work. In this context,
150    B. Vlaardingerbroek et al.

well-intentioned but time-pressed teachers struggle to cope with the demands of new technologies and
an inquiry-oriented curriculum (Gregson 2011). Unfortunately for many students, their experience of
science accordingly consists of a body of knowledge to be memorised, rather than a process by which
ideas are tested and refined through laboratory experiences (Danaia, Fitzgerald, and McKinnon 2013).
A greater focus on the technology of science could give a new direction to the general urge to engage
school students in more practical science.

ORCID
Neil Taylor   http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8438-319X
John Kennedy   http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8126-7086

References
ACARA (Australian Curriculum and Assessment Reporting Authority). 2010a. Foundation to Year 10 Curriculum:
Science. http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/science.
ACARA (Australian Curriculum and Assessment Reporting Authority). 2010b. Foundation to Year 10 Curriculum:
Science (ACSHE119). http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/science/curriculum/f-10?layout=1#cdcode=ACSH
E119&level=7.
Board of Studies New South Wales. 2013. Biology Stage 6 Syllabus. Sydney: State of New South Wales.
Danaia, L., M. Fitzgerald, and D. McKinnon. 2013. “Students’ Perceptions of High School Science: What Has Changed
over the Last Decade?” Research in Science Education 43 (4): 1501–1515.
Geier, R., P. C. Blumenfeld, R. W. Marx, J. S. Krajcik, B. Fishman, E. Soloway, and J. Clay-Chambers. 2008. “Standardized
Test Outcomes for Students Engaged in Inquiry-based Science Curricula in the Context of Urban Reform.” Journal
of Research in Science Teaching 45 (8): 922–939.
Goodrum, D., A. Druhan, and J. Abbs. 2011. The Status and Quality of Year 11 and 12 Science in Australian Schools.
Canberra: Australian Academy of Science.
Gregson, R. 2011. “Bring Back the Wow: A Model for Engaging Students with Real Scientists Doing Real Science.”
International Journal of Learning 17: 12.
Harris, K-L., F. Jensz, and G. Baldwin. 2005. Who’s Teaching Science: Meeting the Demand for Qualified Science Teachers
in Australian Secondary Schools. Report prepared for Australian Council of Deans of Science. https://cshe.unimelb.
edu.au/research/disciplines/docs/Who’sTeachingScience.pdf.
Kennedy, J., T. Lyons, and F. Quinn. 2014. “The Continuing Decline of Science and Mathematics Enrolments in Australian
High Schools.” Teaching Science (Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association) 60 (2): 34–46.
Kirschner, P. A., J. Sweller, and R. E. Clark. 2006. “Why Minimal Guidance during Instruction Does Not Work: An
Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching.”
Educational Psychologist 41 (2): 75–86.
Lyons, T., and F.Quinn. 2010. Choosing Science: Understanding the Declines in Senior High School Science Enrolments.
National Centre of Science, ICT and Mathematics Education for Rural and Regional Australia (SiMERR Australia),
Armidale: University of New England.
Osborne, J., S. Simon, and S. Collins. 2003. “Attitudes towards Science: A Review of the Literature and Its Implications.”
International Journal of Science Education 25 (9): 1049–1079. http://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000032199
Papanastasiou, E. C., and M. Zembylas. 2002. “The Effect of Attitudes on Science Achievement: A Study Conducted among
High School Pupils in Cyprus.” International Review of Education/Internationale Zeitschrift Fr Erziehungswissenschaft/
Revue Inter 48 (6): 469–484.
Reid, N., and E. A. Skryabina. 2002. “Attitudes towards Physics.” Research in Science & Technological Education 20 (1):
67–81.
Schwartz, R. S., N. G. Lederman, and B. A. Crawford. 2004. “Developing Views of Nature of Science in an Authentic
Context: An Explicit Approach to Bridging the Gap between Nature of Science and Scientific Inquiry.” Science
Education 88 (4): 610–645.
Simpson, R. D., and J. S. Oliver. 1990. “A Summary of Major Influences on Attitude toward and Achievement in Science
among Adolescent Students.” Science Education 74 (1): 1–18.
Vlaardingerbroek, B., N. Taylor, and C. Bale. 2014. “The Problem of Scale in the Interpretation of Pictorial Representations
of Cell Structure.” Journal of Biological Education 48 (3): 154–162.
Wolf, S. J., and B. J. Fraser. 2008. “Learning Environment, Attitudes and Achievement among Middle-School Science
Students Using Inquiry-Based Laboratory Activities.” Research in Science Education 38 (3): 321–341.
Woolnough, B. E. 1994. Effective Science Teaching. Developing Science and Technology Education. ERIC. http://eric.
ed.gov/?id=ED404122.