Scientist in Residence Program Improving Children's Image of Science and Scientists

204

Scientist in Residence ProgramImproving Children^ Image of Scienceand ScientistsLarry FlickTeacher EducationUniversity of OregonEugene, Oregon 97403

Introduction

Children are seen as inquisitive and full of the same enthusiasm whichdrives the work of adult scientists (Driver, 1983). Yet, this view of science asexploration and curiosity is lost in the translation to school science. Part ofthe problem is that the public image of the scientific enterprise and thescientists who engage in it inhibits a more creative approach (Brush, 1979).

Children are directly affected by the prevailing perceptions of science andscientists. Mead and Metraux (1957) pointed out significant features of theseoften negative stereotypes held by high school students. Few changes haveoccurred in these features in the past 30 to 40 years. "The archetype ... isexceedingly clever, very occasionally wise, but remote, disinclined to mundanepursuits. He is the slightly sinister man in the white coat, performing chemicalwonders as incomprehensible as magic" (Ward, 1977). Schibeci’s (1986) reviewof the literature shows a small positive shift from the evil, obsessive, andsocially maladjusted turn-of-the-century scientist. The modern TV scientist isstill obsessive, amoral (rather than immoral), and although well-meaning, isinsensitive.

Generating desirable attitudes toward the people of science has been shownto be critical for promoting participation in college science courses (Brush,1979). Hobbies, along with encouragement to pursue science, affect theselection of science classes in high school (Thomas, 1986). These factors areparticularly important for the participation of women and minorities inscience (Malcolm, Hall, & Brown, 1976; Young & Young, 1974). Developingthese attitudes should be a goal of early experiences in science education.Programs from the Children’s Television Workshop have positively

influenced children’s views of the scientific enterprise (Thomson, 1980). Yet,children are bombarded in a variety of media with scientists who, if notoutright evil, work outside the rules of normal people (Maugh, 1978; Rae,1982). Although there is evidence that the popular image is changing for thebetter, science education would benefit from targeting three specific aspects ofthe public image.

School Science and MathematicsVolume 90 (3) March 1990

Scientist in Residence Program 205

1. Confusion remains over the distinction between science and technology(Pion & Lipsey, 1981).

2. The intellectual activity of science is seen as lacking pleasure. It is seriousto the point of drudgery (Basalla, 1976; Mead & Metraux, 1957).

3. There is a conflict between presenting scientific views and representingthe scientific enterprise. Scientific views are commonly perceived as "proved"by scientists who are engaged in incomprehensible practices. This promotes theerroneous view that science rests on personal authority (Duschi, 1988).

Improving this image will take the cooperative efforts of teachers, scienceeducators, and scientists.

Scientist in Residence Program

Edison Elementary School in Eugene, Oregon, invited university scientistsinto the classroom to inspire children with their personal enthusiasm forscience. The Scientist in Residence (SiR) Program was coordinated with theUniversity of Oregon through the speakers bureau of the CommunityRelations Department. A meeting among interested scientists, a scienceeducator (the author), the school principal, a community relations coordinatorfrom the school, a representative of the speakers bureau, and the fifth-gradeteachers showed that there was ample support for the program. The schoolstaff decided that it would be easier for the scientists, unfamiliar withelementary classrooms, to begin work with the older, fifth-grade children.During this first year, four scientists and one doctoral student participated

in either the planning of the program or classroom visits. The two fifth-gradeclasses at Edison School invited one of the scientists to their room for onehour a w^eek for three consecutive weeks. After the first series of visits, eachclass invited a different scientist for a second set of visits. The children wereexposed to scientists for about seven hours plus a field trip to their labs. InRoom 1, both scientists were female, and in Room 2, one was female and onewas male.

Feedback and Evaluation

The Draw-A-Scientist Test (DAST) was chosen as a method for observingthe effect of the visits on the children along with written feedback. The DASTwas developed by Chambers (1983) based on Mead and Metraux’s (1957)study of 35,000 high school students’ images of science and scientists. Schibeciand Sorenson (1983) found the DAST to be a reliable method for assessingglobal images of science and scientists.The drawings were examined for elements which express the stereotypic

image. The following list of drawing elements was adapted from theChambers (1983) and Mead and Metraux (1957) studies:Lab coatEyeglassesFacial feature (e.g., beards, mustaches, balding, odd expressions)


206Scientist in Residence Program

Scientific instruments (e.g., test tubes, beakers, scales)Symbols of knowledge (e.g., books, papers, file cabinets)Technology (e.g., computers, "black box" machines)Captions (e.g., formulae, "top secret," "danger")Location (e.g., indoor lab, underground, outdoors)Gender (male or female)The literature suggests that the stereotypic scientist would be a male,

wearing a lab coat and glasses, with facial features showing age and strangeexpressions. This man would be working indoors, perhaps underground, withchemical instruments and technology. There may be books or files indicating alarge quantity of work and captions which suggest danger or secrecy (seeFigure 1).

Figure 1. Drawing of "a scientist at work" by Mike, a fifth-grade boy, beforethe Scientist in Residence Program.

In the week before the first visit, the children in Room 2 were asked to"draw a person engaged in some activity." After a two-day interval, theywere asked to "draw a scientist at work." The students in Room 2(Pre/Post-SiR) completed the DAST both before and after the program. The



students in Room 1 (Post only-SiR) completed the DAST only at theconclusion of the program to check for any pretest effects. Two classes ofsixth-grade students in another school which was not in the universityenvironment were asked to complete the DAST during the same week. Thiswas a control for the effect that the university environment might have on theimage of a scientist. Table 1 shows how the observations were collected.

Table 1

Data CoI let ion

Group Observation Treatment Observation

Post only-SiR SiR written feedback + DASTPre/Post-SiR DAST SiR written feedback + DASTControl DAST

Several weeks following the last visit of the scientists the students wereasked to write about what they remembered from the visit and if theirperception of science and scientists had changed. After another interval ofabout two days, they drew a scientist again. The written response was placedbefore the DAST to maximize the impact of the program on the drawings.

This study specifically addressed the following questions:1. Would the visit of the scientists change the nature of the drawings made

by the children of scientists at wwk?2. Would there be more female scientists drawn after the visit of female

scientists?3. Would the children recall the emphasis on the scientific process as well as

the content of the activities?4. Would they make positive references to their experience with science?5. Were the drawings of the posttest-only group similar to the posttest

drawings of the pretested group?

Results

Draw-A-Scientist Test

The profile of the scientist before the program matched the expected profileclosely. Nearly all the students in both the Control class and Pre/Post-SiR

drew a single male scientist, indoors, working with chemical instruments, mostnotably smoking/bubbling test tubes. After the program, several specificchanges occurred. While the scientists were still seen as working inside, alone,the number of instruments decreased (Table 2). Plants and animals replacedsmoking test tubes in many of the drawings. This can be seen as a direct resultof the visit by biologists.The number of disheveled and distorted faces decreased (see Table 2) along


208Scientist in Residence Program

Table 2

Profile of "A Scientist" Before and After the SiR Program as Compared to"A Person19 in Percent of Drawings

Drawing

Draw a Person(^=22)Pretest DAST(/?=22)Posttest DAST(^=47)

Alone

73

95

77

Inside

9

91

87

Male

23

64

36

E1

Female

36

27

34

ements

Face

36

19

Lab Coat

27

17

Instrument

96

60

with a shift in the types of captions. Instead of doors labeled "Dangerous"and smoke labeled "Boom!," drawings included captions such as "Electronmicroscope" and "Science is the future." There was also a qualitative shift inthe types of things the children had the scientists saying. Before the program itwas common to see a scientist saying: "I’ve got it!" or "I’ve found thecure." After the visits, scientists were shown saying: "I wonder ... "orexclaiming "WOW!" while looking through a microscope (Figure 2).Male scientists did not dominate the posttest drawings. The percentage of

gender-identifiable figures was equal for males and females (Table 2). Girlswere more affected by the gender of the visiting scientists than the boys. Table3 shows that the girls drew more male scientists than female in the pretest.They reversed that trend in the posttest. The boys increased the number offemale scientists from one in the pretest to nine in the posttest.

Table 3

Gender of People in Drawings as a Percent of Drawings by Gender of Student

Gender ofStudent

BoyGirl

Draw a P

Pre/Post

(boys=(girls =

male female

507

erson

SiR8)14)

057

Two ControlClasses

(boys =24)(girls =19)

male

2150

female

170

Draw a

PrePre/P(

(boy;(girls

male

6364

Scientist

test)St-SiR

i=8)=14)

female

1329

PostteTwo Ck(boys=(girls =

male female

4232

;st

isses

19)28)

2143

It is important to note that the DAST is a qualitative instrument with anopen-ended response format. It was not possible to determine the presence in



Figure 2. Drawing of "a scientist at work" by Mike, a fifth-grade boy,several weeks after the Scientist in Residence Program.

each drawing of each element. The gender of the scientists in many of thedrawings was not identifiable. There was often the question of whether a facewas odd and distorted or simply contained awkwardly drawn facial details.Consequently, the classification is incomplete. The summary tables showpercentages of drawings which do not add to 100.The statements which elicited the drawings were of the same, singular

form: "Draw a (person/scientist) engaged (in some activity/at work)."However, children spontaneously drew "a person" actively involved withother people in 6 out of 22 instances (27%). In contrast, all but one of thescientists were drawn working alone (Table 2). While the visits were by singlescientists, the children did see laboratories with several people working inthem.The drawings of the Control group of sixth-grade students in a school

outside the immediate university environment showed about the same averagenumber of drawing elements (4.4) as did the pretest drawings of thePre/Post-SiR group (3.9). The average number of posttest drawing elementsfor Pre/Post-SiR (2.3) was lower than that of Post only-SiR (3.9) suggestingsome influence from the pretest. Statistical tests were deemed inappropriatedue to uncontrolled differences in the timing and administering of the DAST.


210 Scientist in Residence Program

Written Responses

The children’s written responses showed a positive influence of the visits.The scientists were seen as individuals who represented a broader group ofpeople than the children had considered before. Only five students commentedthat their perceptions had not changed (Table 4). One of these five added acomment that she "always thought scientists made guesses and checked themand that is what Judy did." It was gratifying that the visit confirmed such anotion.

Table 4

Classification by Gender of Statements in Written Responses as a Percent ofStudents in the Scientist in Residence Program

Boys Girls(/j=19) (/?==28)Percent3 Percent3

Remembered from the visitScience contentScience processPerceptions of scientistsBroadened perspective

(Gender related)PositiveNo changeNegativePerceptions of sciencePositiveNegativeNo changeBroadened perspective

310 25011 11

74 82(11) (11)40 1816 70 0

68 685 70 00 0

Percentages reflect that each paper typically contained more than one statementabout content.

The children perceived scientists more as regular people. One girl wrote: "Iused to think they were just people with white coats who were saying thingsyou would never figure out." Three children expressed the discovery thatscientists are mothers and fathers and have a sense of humor.They gained a broader perspective of w^at scientists do. A girl

wrote: "Whenever I picture a scientist I picture a man with a bunch of glassbottles in front of him and he has glasses on. But now I see a woman lookinginto a microscope and she’s taking notes. I liked Judy."While the children remembered many words (e.g. "microtubals") and



activities from the visits, they rarely commented on the process of scientificinquiry. The scientists always prefaced their activities with discussion thatmotivated questions for investigation. They emphasized that scientists engagein their work to figure things out. All scientists used participatory activities togenerate information related to the inquiry questions. Children usedmicroscopes, built mazes, and created mnemonic devices. However, thedevelopment of these activities rarely followed what the scientist had planned.

It was clear from the children’s comments (Table 4) that the activities wereengaging in their own right and whatever they found out was interesting.Inquiry-oriented behavior may seem so natural to children that they saw nopoint in mentioning it in the written feedback. Scientists found this resulttroublesome.

Feedback from Scientists

At the end of the year, interviews were conducted with the scientists anddoctoral student who visited a fifth-grade classroom, another scientist whoparticipated in the planning sessions (and who intends to participate in thesecond year of the project), and two senior scientists who have givenclassroom presentations to children. The interviews were structured around thefollowing questions:

1. What motivated your participation in an elementary classroom?2. What objectives did you set for this visit?3. Were three visits of one hour each enough time to achieve your

objective?4. Would you do it again next year if asked?5. What was the most enjoyable part of your participation?6. What was the most difficult part?7. What would you do differently if you were to do it again?8. Would you recommend this program to a colleague?9. Can you justify participation in this program professionally?To facilitate referencing a particular scientist’s point of view, each will be

identified by a fictitious first name. The psychologist will be called Mary; thebiologist, Judy; the graduate student in biology, Jim; and the forest ecologistwho assisted in planning, Ted. The SiR program goal was to communicateenthusiasm for science through scientists who were themselves veryenthusiastic about their work. This translated into four objectives for theparticipating scientists, to (a) promote scientific thinking, (b) communicatewhat scientists do, (c) promote the importance of science in elementary school,and (d) provide role models (especially the women scientists) for girls.Each tried to present aspects of the scientific method. They were quick to

recognize that the energy and enthusiasm were at times difficult to channel inone direction. Judy remarked that "the children did not really want to discussthe scientific method, they needed to do it." Even when "doing it" Jim noted



that "the children’s interest waned when the data did not show dramatic anddefinite results."The scientists found that the children often turned the scientific process

upside down. Jim said, "It is important to choose a question forinvestigation, then choose an organism. The children wanted a particularanimal, for instance a rat, to do whatever." Judy found out that childrentended to answer their own questions. When trying to lead a discussion aboutquestions which might be investigated in the classroom, the children offeredprocedures and results almost at the same time. She said, "I would like it tobe more structured."

Generally, the scientists were interested in getting the children to do somethinking about science but found that children’s spontaneous thinking causedthem to reconsider their approach. Mary said, "This was one of the mostchallenging things I’ve done. Pacing was a problem." Structure often had tobe sacrificed in order to maintain interest in the problem. The intendedactivity, such as looking at plant cells through a microscope, often took manyunintended directions. Judy said, "The children discovered they could get animage of the light source and that was interesting in itself. It is considered aproblem in the profession. Kids also thought cells were too small to see."The effectiveness of a scientist or anyone else teaching science in the

elementary classroom depends upon many factors beyond the specific scienceknowledge at the focus of the activity. A scientist who is prepared to discusscell biology may have to deal with optics. An entire period may be spentlooking at cells under the microscope only to discover that some of thechildren don’t believe that cells are big enough to see.The final question to the scientists asked how this experience might be

justified professionally. That is, can talking to children in some way add to ascientist’s career? Responses varied from "I haven’t thought about it" to theposition that children infuse excitement into ideas that have become "oldhat." All four mentioned that communicating with the public is an importantaspect of scientific activity and that talking with children is one channel fordoing that. Talking with children is one way of honing the skills necessary forcommunicating with the public. Jim noted, "It is almost easier to talk toother scientists than to nonscientists. You cannot assume any knowledge."The scientists hoped also that the children would go home and talk to theirparents in positive terms about the "scientist" in the classroom.

A Process for Involving Scientists in Classrooms

The following points seem critical for the successful and effectiveinvolvement of scientists in the classroom. These are offered as a guide forfuture "Scientist in Residence" programs as well as a means to enhance theuse of scientists as guest speakers.

1. Preliminary Visit. The observation visit by the scientist should include atime when the teacher can discuss strategies for successful involvement of the



children. This should include plans (e.g. scientist and teacher team teaching)to maximize the physical interaction of the children as well as their verbalinteraction and input. This is a time to discuss logistical problems andscheduling.

2. Set Objectives. The scientist and teacher should participate equally in theprocess of setting the purpose for the visit. The SiR perspective is to use thescientist to broaden the understanding of science for both the teacher andchildren. This means that the scientist is seen as not just another "guestspeaker" but as a participant in the scientific enterprise. The scientist not onlypresents certain science content but also demonstrates to the children howscientists work. Setting objectives cooperatively should lead to a betterunderstanding by the teacher of the nature of science which ideally will havelong-term effects on school science.

3. Formative/Summative Evaluations. The scientist and teacher shouldagree on what kind of feedback will be used to check on the progress of theproject. This should include something similar to a "draw a scientist" activityin order to use this experience to broaden the children’s perspective on thenature of science and being a scientist. If possible, both the scientist and theteacher should interpret direct feedback from the children. This should beinstructive for both the scientist and the teacher with respect to scienceeducation in the elementary school.

4. Follow-Up Experiences. What are some ways for the teacher to followup the experience? This asks the teacher to come to terms with what he/she

got out of the experience so that it can be integrated into the educationalprogram. The scientist must also come to terms with how the childreninterpreted the classroom experience. This step in the process cannot beoveremphasized. While the experience for the children is important, thelong-term influence will be gained by a collaborative effort between thescientist and the teacher.

5. Feedback to the Scientist. As a partner in this educational experience, thescientist should hear how the children responded to the follow-up experiences.The disparity between the expected and actual outcomes will provide food forthought and suggestions for planning further experiences.

Summary

The Scientist in Residence Program does have a positive influence onchildren’s perception of scientists. It showed, however, that having a scientistpresent a science lesson in an elementary classroom is not a straightforwardtask. As with any elementary teacher, they must content with thecharacteristics of young learners which influence the intended objectives. Acollaborative effort between the scientist and teacher is necessary to establish along-term influence over the perceptions of science and scientists held bystudents.



References

BasaIIa, G. (1976). Pop science: The depiction of science in popular culture.In G. Holton & W. Blanpied (Eds.), Science and its public: The changingrelationship (pp. 261-278). Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.

Brush, L. R. (1979). Avoidance of science and strategies of scientists. Journal

of Research in Science Teaching, 16(3), 237-241.Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw-a-

scientist test. Science Education, 67(2), 255-265.Driver, R. (1983). The pupil as scientist. England: Open University Press.Duschi, R. L. (1988). Abandoning the scientistic legacy of science education.

Science Education, 72(1), 51-62.Malcolm, S. M., Hall, P. Q.. & Brown, J. W. (1976). The double bind: The

price of being a minority woman in science. Washington, DC: AmericanAssociation for the Advancement of Science.

Maugh, T. H., II. (1978). The media: The image of the scientist is bad.Science, 200, 4337.

Mead, M., & Metraux, R. (1957). Image of the scientist among high-schoolstudents: A pilot study. Science, 26, 384-390.

Pion, G. M., & Lipsey, M. W. (1981). Public attitudes toward science andtechnology: What have the surveys told us? Public Opinion Quarterly, 45,303-316.

Rae, I. D. (1982). Dustcoats in dustjackets. Chemistry in Australia, 49,162-165.

Schibeci, R. A. (1986). Images of science and scientists and science education.Science Education, 70(2), 139-149.

Schibeci, R. A., & Sorensen, I. (1983). Elementary school children’sperceptions of scientists. School Science and Mathematics, 83(\), 14-20.

Thomas, G. E. (1986). Cultivating the interest of women and minorities inhigh school mathematics and science. Science Education, 70(1), 31-43.

Thomas, P. (1980). A TV series starring science. American Education, 16(2),6-13.

Ward, A. (1977). Magician in a white coat. Science Activities, 14(\), 6-9.Young, H. A., & Young, B. H. (1974). Scientists in the Black perspective.

Louisville, KY: The Lincoln Foundation.


Scientist in Residence Program Improving Children's Image of Science and Scientists

Documents

Transcript of Scientist in Residence Program Improving Children's Image of Science and Scientists