What do scientists do? Increasing Awareness of social and networking aspects in everyday activities of scientists

Katrin Hochberg, Jochen Kuhn

Abstract


Background: Unfortunately, despite many efforts, women are still underrepresented in most STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) areas, particularly in physics. Changing the image of science and especially physics to be less masculine, less difficult and more social may be a promising way to attract more pupils and especially girls. One auspicious possibility to change the image of science is to clarify the actual wide range of activities of scientists in their everyday work life (the “nature of scientists”, NoSt), including social and communicative aspects.

 

Purpose: In the current study, we aim to show if changes in pupils’ views about NoSt can be increased by explicitly giving input about scientists’ everyday activities before conducting experiments and if this changed image of physics will lead to higher career aspirations, especially for girls.

 

Sample/Setting: The sample consists of 48 pupils of the fifth grade (10-11 years old) of the German “Gymnasium” in Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany (24 pupils in treatment group (TG, 13 boys, 8 girls) and control group (CG, 12 boys, 11 girls). All pupils visited a school lab with a 10-15 minute-long introduction followed by 135 minutes of experiments. During the introduction, the intervention (conversation about NoSt) took place for about 5 minutes. Pre-tests were conducted a day before, post-tests directly after the visit at the school lab.

 

Design Methods: In a quasi-experimental pre / post design, a questionnaire on NoSt was used (Cronbach’s  = 0.75) in addition to a question concerning future science career aspirations. As our sample was small, we used Mann-Whitney-U-tests for comparisons between and Wilcoxon-signed-rank-tests for comparisons within groups, and Cohen’s d as effect size.

 

Results: Within groups, perception of social and networking aspects of NoSt increased for all subgroups except for girls in the CG (pmale,TG = 0.013, dmale,TG = 1.90; pfemale,TG = 0.011, dfemale,TG = 4.00; pmale,CG = 0.022, dmale,CG = 1.76). For career aspirations, the only significant effect is for boys of the TG (pmale,TG = 0.038, dmale,TG = 1.40). The girls of the TG show the highest increase, but also a growing standard error.

 

Conclusions/Implications for classroom practice and future research: The current study provides first evidence that just a conversation in class about scientists’ everyday work can on one hand raise the awareness of social and networking aspects of NoSt, especially for girls, and on the other hand increase pupils’ science career aspirations. There is enough evidence to recommend to school labs as well as to teachers doing lab work in class to include at least short conversations about scientists’ everyday acitivites to provide pupils with a less stereotyped image of the nature of scientists.


Keywords


Gender, Nature of Science, School Labs

Full Text:

PDF

References


Institute of Physics (2018). Why not Physics? Retrieved from https://www.iop.org/publications /iop/2018/file_71495.pdf

Higher Education Statistics Agency (2018). What are HE students' progression rates and qualifications? Retrieved from https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/students/outcomes

Statistisches Landesamt Rheinland Pfalz (2017). Statistische Berichte. Retrieved from https://www.statistik.rlp.de/de/publikationen/statistische-berichte/

Düchs, G. and Ingold G. (2016). Gut geparkt ist noch nicht studiert. Physik Journal 15, 28.

Østergaard C., Timmermans B. and Kristinsson K. (2011). Does a different view create something new? Research Policy 40, 500.

Kessels U. and Hannover B. (2004). Empfundene "Selbstnähe" als Mediator zwischen Fähigkeits-selbstkonzept und Leistungskurswahlintentionen. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie 36, 130.

Kessels U. (2005). Fitting into the stereotype: How gender-stereotyped perceptions of prototypic peers relate to liking for school subjects. European Journal of Psychology of Education 20, 309.

Hannover B. and Kessels U. (2004) Why German school students don‘t like math and sciences. Learning and Instruction 14, 51.

Wang M. and Degol J. (2013). Motivational Pathways to STEM Career Choices. Developmental Review 33, 304.

Kessels U., Rau, M. and Hannover B. (2006). What goes well with physics? British Journal of Educational Psychology 76, 761.

Archer L, DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B. and Wong, B. (2013). ‘Not girly, not sexy, not glamorous’: primary school girls’ and parents’ constructions of science aspirations. Pedagogy, Culture & Socitey 21, 171.,

Steele J. (2003). Children's Gender Stereotypes About Math: The Role of Stereotype Stratification. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 33, 2587.

Hughes G. (2001). Exploring the Availability of Student Scientist Identities within Curriculum Discourse. Gender and Education 13, 275.

Wentorf W., Höffler, T. and Parchmann I. (2009). Schülerkonzepte über das Tätigkeitsspek-trum von Naturwissenschaftlerinnen und Naturwissenschaftlern. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften 21, 207.

Holland J. (1963). Explorations of a theory of vocational choice and achievement. Psychological Reports 12, 547.

Osborne J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R. and Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas‐about‐science” should be taught in school science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching 40, 692.

Dierks P., Höffler T. and Parchmann I. (2014) Profiling interest of students in science: Learning in school and beyond. Research in Science & Technological Education 32, 97.

Itzek-Greulich, H., Flunger, B., Vollmer, C., Nagengast, B., Rehm, M., Trautwein, U. (2015). Effects of a science center outreach lab on school students' achievement. Learning and Instruction 38, 43.

Bergner N., Holz J. and Schroeder U. (2012). InfoSphere: an extracurricular learning environment for computer science. Proceedings of the 7th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, 22.

Birkholz J. and Elster D. (2016). Impact of reflective reviews on students' conceptions of Nature of Science Science. Education Research: Engaging Learners for a Sustainable Future (Proceedings of ESERA 2015), 855

Schlichting H. and Ucke C. (2004). Der einfachste Elektromotor der Welt: Spielwiese. Physik in unserer Zeit 35, 272.

Andersson Å., Karlsson C. and Hampus L. (2017) The Gaussian cannon. Emergent Scientist 1, 6.

Stamer I., Schwarzer S. and Parchmann I. (2017). Authentisches Lernen im Schülerlabor. Implementation fachdidaktischer Innovation im Spiegel von Forschung und Praxis. Gesellschaft für Didaktik der Chemie und Physik, Jahrestagung in Zürich 2016, 528.

Moosbrugger, H., & Kelava, A. (2008). Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

Brotman J. and Moore M. (2008). Girls and science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 45, 971.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.25321/prise.2019.849

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.

Article tools

About The Authors

Katrin Hochberg
Physics Education Group, Department of Physics, Technische Universität Kaiserslautern
Germany

Jochen Kuhn
Physics Education Group, Department of Physics, Technische Universität Kaiserslautern
Germany

Language