what do students think scientists look like?

What Do Students Think Scientists Look Like?

Richard A. HuberThe University of North Carolina at Wilmington

Grace M. BurtonThe University of North Carolina at Wilmington

The purpose of this study was to determine if there was a gender difference in the way nine to 12’year-old students drew scientists before and after their teachers implemented intervention strategies. Rubricswere used to analyze for stereotypic characteristics such as sex of the scientist and the presence of eyeglasses, a lab coat, funny hair, a weird smile, wild eyes, facial hair, robotic features, andfacial scars.Results indicated that boys held more stereotypic views on pretest drawings than did girls and alsodemonstrated the most improvement to less stereotypic views as a result of intervention.

"Draw a picture ofa scientist" is the complete textofthe Draw-A-ScientistTest (DAST), an open-endedprojecdve test designed to provide information on theattitudes of children and others toward scientists. Al-though similar assignments had been informally givenby various science teachers, the test is generally attrib-uted to Chambers (1983) who began his work in themid-sixties. He, in turn, based the test on the work ofanthropologist MargaretMead and medical researcherR. Metraux (Mead & Metraux 1957), who had given35.000high school students the task ofwriting an essaydepicting their image of a scientist.

The DAST has been given to various populationsincluding primary school aged children (Chambers,1983; Schibeci & Sorenson. 1983). students in themiddle grades (Symington & Spurling, 1990), highschool students (Mason, Kahle & Gardner, 1991) andinservice teachers (UNC/MSEN. 1992). Like theGoodenough (1926:1975) Draw-A-ManTest, a popu-lar non-verbal intelligence test for young children, theDAST requires only the drawing of a picture as aresponse. It is therefore an excellent quick measure ofa student’s global perception of a scientist(O’Maoldomhnaigh&Hunt, 1988).

TheDASThas oftenbeenused to elicit the percep-tions of various populations toward scientists. Ofinterest to the authors of the present study are thestudies which focused on gender differences portrayedin the drawings. This difference was noted in Cham-bers’ pioneering research, where only 28 out of the4,807 drawings done by children in grades K-5 were offemales. All ofthem were drawnby girls. In one ofthelargest studies, Fort and Vamey (1989) found thatamong the 1.600 responses from students in grades 2through 12 a vast majority of both male and femalestudents depicted male scientists. Although 60% oftherespondents were female, only 135 pictures showedfemale scientists and only 6 of these were drawn bymales. Rick (1990) reports that his sample of47 fifthgraders also drew more male than female figures be-

fore visits from female scientists, then after. The 549students in high school biology surveyed by Mason,Kahle and Gardner (1991) also tended to draw malescientists, although the students of teachers who hadbeen in a class which focused on the importance offemale role models, career information, equitable ma-terials and innovative practices drew a significantlyhigherpercentage offemale scientists. The preponder-ance of drawings of male scientists found in thesestudies is mirrored in the trade books designed forupper elementary and middle school students (Evans,1992) and in other countries (Hill & Wheeler. 1991).

Other stereotypic responses have been noted instudies which have used the DAST. Scientists areusually shown working alone (often in basements)surroundedbybubblingmixtures and curiously-shapedglassware. They wearlabcoats and glasses, oftenhaveunruly hairdos and the men are frequently bearded.

Figure 1. Typical drawing of a scientist at work.

While these images may seem amusing, they alsoprovide a reflection of the image that students, espe-cially females have about what scientists look like �

and these images have a powerful impact on presentfunctioning and future plans (Gould. 1991). Womenmake up about 51% of the undergraduate college

Volume 95(7), November 1995

Students’ Drawings of Scientists-at-work

population but in 1952 only about 25% ofthose gradu-ating with life science degrees and 12.5% of thosegraduating with physical science degrees.

Since the early 1970s a number of social changeshave taken place, including a concerted effort to pic-ture women in science textbooks in active roles, toprovide role models offemale scientists and to engagestudents more in "doing" than "reading about" sciencein school courses (Kahle,1992). Correspondingly, thepercent of those receiving bachelor’s degrees in lifescience who are female increased to 42% in 1980 andto 50% in 1989. A similar increase, from 23.7% in1980 to almost 30% in 1989, has been documented forthe physical sciences (US Department of Education,1991). Despite these increases in the numbers ofwomen majoring in life sciences and physical scienceduring the 1980s, the proportion of women in someareas peaked by 1984 and has begun to decline. "Fur-thermore." states Kahle in a paper commissioned bythe National Science Teachers Association as part ofthe foundation for a massive curriculum change effort,"a higherproportion ofboth undergraduate and gradu-ate women, compared to men who elect a scientificcourse of study, chose to leave it before receiving adegree" (Kahle, 1992. p. 116). With the increasedmarketforscientific andtechnologically-trained work-ers, and the decreasing market for those not so trained.this hemorrhage in the discipline pipeline must notcontinue (Tobias. 1990).

Researchhas consistentlyshownthatyoungwomentend to choose and pursue scientific careers when theyreceive positivemessages from parents, teachers, coun-selors and peers, when they are exposed to role modelsand when they expect to succeed in the enterprise(Casserly, 1975;Burton, 1979). The techniques whichteachers can use to encourage female students partici-pation in science have also been known for decades.They can minimize public attention to grading, usesex-fair materials, assign tasks on a sex-fair basis,provide attention equally to all students, engage stu-dents in active exploration, and model excitementabout science (Rossi, 1965; Stage. 1976).

Background And Design Of The Study

The purpose of this study was to determine whatchanges, if any, might be found during the first half ofthe school year in the drawings of students whoseteachers had attended a graduate course which con-tained elements of an intervention program developedby Mason. Kahle and Gardner (1991). The elementsincluded in the one week summer school course, with

academic yearintroduction and follow-up, were the (a)distribution ofcareer information, (b) the presentationof role models, (c) the examination of sex-equitablematerials and, most importantly, (d) participation ininnovative practices, specifically hands-on science in-vestigations. As the in-service training was a part ofanEisenhower grant, there was no cost to participants,and membership in the class was based on nominationby Central Office personnel. All 14 participants taughtone or more of grades 4-8 in one of three counties insoutheastern North Carolina.

Rubrics used in earlier studies focused on onlythree personal characteristics (lab coat, eyeglasses andfacial hair). To gather additional data for the study, anew coding sheet was deemed necessary. Therefore, apilot study was undertaken during the spring of 1992with students who would not be used in the final study.On the basis ofthis pilot and a review ofthe literature,a coding instrument was developed. A slight change ininstructions from "Draw a picture of a scientist." to"Draw a picture of a scientist at work," was also made.A second pilot test confirmed the wisdom of thechanges as most children in the latter pilot study drewpictures with more detail. This resulted in a clearerimage of what "scientist" meant to the students.

Originally, the design called for each teacher toadminister the test to his or her own class. Becausesome teachers in the pilot study suggested that studentsdraw non-stereotypic pictures and others removedsome drawings from the classroom sets, the authorssought to improve reliability by having trained gradu-ate students administer all the tests.

The first week ofSeptember 1992 and again in thefirst week of December 1992. one of two graduateassistants administered the revised Draw-A-ScientistTest to one randomly chosen class ofeach teacher. Allclasses in a given county were tested on the same day.

In each classroom, students were given a blanksheet of paper and told to write their name, sex andclass on the paper. Then the administrator said, *Tumyour paper over and draw a scientist at work." Thiswording change ofthe standard directions was made toelicit pictures in which environmental features such asthe presence oftest tubes, animals or computers couldbe seen. The task took only about 15 minutes of classtime.

Graduate assistants who had been trained usingtwo sets ofpictures from the pilot studies recorded theresponses on the coding sheet. Foreverypaper, codingwas done independently by each of the two graduateassistants and then they were compared. Discrepancieswere found in less than 1% ofthe drawings. Discussion

School Science and Mathematics

Students’ Drawings of Scientist-at-work

betweenthetwo coders and one ofthe authors resolvedallbutthreeofthesediscrepancies. These drawings, allby girls, were not included in the study.

Results

Only drawings from students who participated inboth administrations of the test were included in thestudy. This led to sample size of 105 boys and 118girls. The pictures generated by the students rangedfrom very realistic (see Figure 2) to complex (seeFigure 3) to bizarre (see Figure4). Whilemostdepicted

males, female scientists were drawnby 13 maleand 59female students in the pretest, and 7 male and 69female students in the post test (see Figure 5).

The students’ pretest drawings were analyzed fornine personal traits reported to be stereotypic views ofscientists. The traits included the sex of the scientistand the presence of eyeglasses, a lab coat, funny hair,weird smile, wild eyes, facial hair, robotic features andscars. The results shown in Appendix 1 indicate that innine out of nine traits, the boys’ pretest drawingsincluded more stereotypic features than did the girls’drawings. Chi square analysis indicated a significant

Figure 2. Realistic drawing of a scientist at work.

ASuenUA+ GDorkFigure 4, Drawing of a wild - eyed scientist.

Figure 3. Complex drawing of a scientist at work.


374 Students’ Drawings of Scientists-at-work

Figure 5. Drawings offemale scientists at work.

^.

difference at the .05 level in six ofthe nine categories.The boys were more inclined to draw a picture of ascientist that includes a male with funny hair, weirdsmile, wild eyes, robot-like features and scars thanwere the girls. In the first four of these categories,significance exceeded the .01 level (see Appendix 1).

After coding the December drawings, we com-pared the boys’ post-treatment drawings with those ofthe girls. Despite their change to a less stereotypicvision of the scientist in seven of the nine categories,the boys still held more stereotypic views (p < .05) infourofthe nine categories: sex ofscientist, presence ofweird smile, wild eyes, and robot-like features.

Since we were interested in determining if boysand girls responded differently to a semester ofhands-on science lessons, a comparison of the boys’ percentof change from pro- to post-treatment drawings withthe percent of change in the girls* pre-and post-treat-ment drawings was made (see Appendix 2). To com-pensate for lack of cell independence, the McNemartest, a variant of the Chi-square, was used. The boys’percent ofchange exceeded that ofthe girls in six ofthenine traits examined. In only two of these categories,however, presence of eyeglasses and presence of labcoat, were these changes significant at the .05 level.

In the category of sex and the presence of facialhair, the percentage ofchange was greaterfor girls, butthe magnitude of the change was not statistically sig-nificant. In two categories, changes in the girls’drawings were towards, not away from, a stereotypicview of a scientist. These changes (presence of weird

smile and wild eyes) were small and not significant atthe .05 level. No change in either sex was shown in thepresence of robot-like features.

It is clear from these data that the boys drewpictures representing a greater movement towards aless stereotypic view ofthe scientist than did the girls.However, since the boys’ pretreatment drawings weremore stereotypic than those of the girls, they also hadthe greater room for change in this direction.

Discussion

In an effort to encourage more girls to selectscience as a career choice, it was the intention of thisproject to monitor any improvement of the ways girlsviewed scientists. The girls’ views did change, butonly slightly. There were more changes in the boys’drawings, which were more stereotypic at the onset ofthe project than those of the girls. This is not anunwelcome finding. While it is important to continueto work at enlarging the girls’ view of scientists, it isequally importantto help boys develop less stereotypicviews since the boys’ opinion of appropriate careerchoices for girls becomes increasingly important as thesocial interactions between boys and girls increase.

In reviewing the results of this project, the readeris cautioned to interpret the results carefully. There isa possibility that the difference in the drawings of theboys and girls may reflect not a difference in the wayboys and girls perceive scientists, but merely a differ-ence in the way boys and girls approached the task. It


Students’ Drawings ofScientist-at-work

may be that the girls did not draw pictures of scientistswith funny hair, weird smiles and robotic featuressimply because they approached their task more con-scientiously than the boys did.

Implications

The grant which funded this study focused onfostering equality in science education through theprovision of hands on activities in a problem solvingsetting. Other aspects of the task of teaching sciencesuch as questioning patterns, student interactions, andprescribed curriculum, werenot considered. Althoughthe implementation phase ofthe study was only a fewmonths along when the second set of drawings wascollected, some changes in the students’ perceptions ofscientists were already apparent. This suggests thatprogress towards reducing students’ stereotypic viewof scientists canbe made with a limited expenditure oftime and money, an optimistic finding indeed.

This study was based on a method of tappingstudentperceptionwhich was quickto administer, easyto code, and enjoyable forthe participants. We believescience teachers would find having students drawpictures an interesting way to elicit information fromstudents. A teacher might, as an introductory activity.ask students to draw a picture ofa geologist, botanist orastronomer at work, save the drawings, and when theunit is completed repeat the same assignment. Stu-dents could then share their drawings with the classwhile the teacher assesses the degree and type ofchange in the students’ perceptions.

Ifmoreyoungpeople are to enterscientific careers,they must, from the earliest years, see them as anacceptable choice. As Gould (1991. p.103) passion-ately puts it, "American careers in science are de-stroyed on the playgrounds ofShady Oaks ElementarySchool." For change to occur, close monitoring ofwhat is happening in Shady Oaks’ and inotherelemen-tary and middle school science classrooms is war-ranted. This is especially true for those groups whohave historically been underrepresented among scien-tists. It is not enough to maintain the status quo; wemust actively seek information about student percep-tions ofscience and scientists, and seek to changethemwhen they do not conform to reality orwhen they serveto limit the career choices of young people.

References

Burton. G. M. (1979). Regardless of sex. Math-ematics Teacher, 72,261-270.

Casserly, P.L. (1975). An assessment of factorsaffecting female participation in advanced placementprograms in mathematics, chemistry and physics.Princeton: Educational Testing Service.

Chambers. D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images ofthe scientist: The Draw-a-Scientist test Science Edu-cation, 67,255-265.

Evans. A. (1992). A look at the scientist as por-trayed in children’s literature. Science and Children,29(6). 35-37.

Hick, L. (1990). Scientist in residence programimproving children’s image of science and scientists.School Science and Mathematics, 90(3), 204-214.

Fort, D. C. & Vamey, H. L. (1989). How studentssee scientists: Mostly male, mostly white, and mostlybenevolent. Science and Children, 2(5(8), 8-13.

Goodenough. F. L. (1926/1975). Measurement ofintelligence by drawings. New York: Amo.

Gould. S. J. (1991) Bullyfor brontosaurus: Reflec-tions in natural history. New York: W. W. Norton.

Hill. D. & Wheeler, A. (1991). Towards a clearerunderstanding of students’ ideas about science andtechnology: An exploratory study. Research in Sci-ence and Technological Education, 9(2), 125-137.

Kahle. J. B. (1992). Why girls don’t know. M. K.Pearsall, (Ed.) Scope, sequence, and coordination ofsecondary school science. Volume II: Relevant re-search (pp.111-124). Washington DC: The NationalScience Teachers Association.

Mason. C.L.. Kahle. J.B.& Gardner. A. L. (1991).Draw-A-Scientist test: Future implications. SchoolScience and Mathematics, 97(5). 193-197.

Mead. M. &Metraux. R. (1957). The image ofthescientist among high school students: A pilot study.Science, 126, 384-390.

O’Maoldomhnaigh, M. & Hunt. A. (1988). Somefactors affecting the image of the scientist drawn byolder primary school pupils. Research in Science andTechnological Education, 6,159-166.

Rossi. A.S. (1965). Barriers to the career choice ofengineering, medicine or science among Americanwomen. In J. Mattfield & C. Van Aken. (Eds.) Womenandthe scientific professions (pp. 51-127). Cambridge:MIT Press.

Stage, E.K. (1976). Sex stereotyping: Findingwaysto activate the passive. The Science Teacher, 43(5), 8-11.

Schibeci, R.A. & Sorensen. I. (1983). Elementaryschool children’s perceptions ofscientists. School Sci-ence and Mathematics, 83(1\ 14-20.

Symington, D. & Spurting, H. (1990). The ’Drawa Scientist Test’: Interpreting the data. Research in


376 Students’ Drawings of Scientists-at-work

Science and Technological Education, 5(1), 75-77. U.S. Department ofEducation. (February, 1991).Tobias.S. (1990). They9 re not dumb, they9re differ- Degrees and other formal awards conferred, Wash-

ent: Stalking the second tier. Tucson, AZ: Research ington DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Corporation,

UNC Mathematics and Science Education Net- ^^.�Theauthor’scanbereachedatTheUniversityofwork. (Spring,1992). Research helps shape inservice. North Carolina at Wilmington, 601 South College Road,Networking. Chapel Hill: MSE Network. Wilmington. NC 28403-3297.

Appendix 1.

maleeye glasseslab coatfunny hairweird smilewild eyesfacial hairroboticsscars

^significant (

^significant

Appendix 2.

maleeye glasseslab coatfunny hairweird smilewild eyesfacial hairroboticsscars

* significant difference between

Comparison of boI

boys(%)92 (88)29 (28)54 (51)25 (24)28 (27)16 (15)10 (10)5 (5)6 (6)

lifference betweendifference betweer

Comparison ofpercent of change of boys’ and gii

fys’ and gi

Pretest

girls5928491461901

boys and girls at the .05n boys and

Boys

514*17*773104

boys and girls at the .05

ris’ pretest sec

i(%)(50)**(24)(42)(12)**(5)**(1)**(8)(0)*(1)*

girls at the .01 level

’)res am

boy.981537182113952

level

level

dboy&

&(%)(93)(14)(35)(17)(20)(12)(9)(5)(2)

ris1 pretest am

r’ andgiPost test

48 (41)*23 (19)49 (42)14 (12)7 (8)*3 (3)*7 (6)0 (0)*0 (0)

Girls

950012201

ris* post test scores. (n=223)

girls (%)

iposttest scores. (n = 223)


what do students think scientists look like?

Documents