science communication - wordpress.com · 36 science communication g reater participation of women...

http://scx.sagepub.com/Science Communication

http://scx.sagepub.com/content/29/1/35The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1075547007306508

2007 29: 35Science CommunicationYaschica Williams, Stephanie Higdon Evergreen and Sarvani Kuchibhotla

Jocelyn Steinke, Maria Knight Lapinski, Nikki Crocker, Aletta Zietsman-Thomas,(DAST)

Perceptions of Women in Science Using the Draw-A-Scientist Test Aged Children's−Assessing Media Influences on Middle School

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Science CommunicationAdditional services and information for

http://scx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://scx.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://scx.sagepub.com/content/29/1/35.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Aug 13, 2007Version of Record >>

at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on December 3, 2012scx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://scx.sagepub.com/

http://scx.sagepub.com/content/29/1/35

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://scx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://scx.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://scx.sagepub.com/content/29/1/35.refs.html

http://scx.sagepub.com/content/29/1/35.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


Science CommunicationVolume 29 Number 1

September 2007 35-64©2007 Sage Publications

10.1177/1075547007306508http://scx.sagepub.com

hosted athttp://online.sagepub.com

35

Assessing Media Influences on Middle School–Aged Children’s Perceptions of Women in Science Using the Draw-A-Scientist Test (DAST)Jocelyn SteinkeWestern Michigan University

Maria Knight LapinskiMichigan State University

Nikki CrockerWestern Michigan University

Aletta Zietsman-ThomasUniversity of Witwatersrand

Yaschica WilliamsStephanie Higdon EvergreenSarvani KuchibhotlaWestern Michigan University

Gender stereotypes in the mass media perpetuate traditional views of womenthat may influence children’s perceptions of women in science, engineering, andtechnology. This study used a randomized posttest-only control group design to determine the efficacy of media literacy training on middle school–agedchildren’s perceptions of scientists. Participants were randomly assigned to oneof three conditions: discussion, discussion plus viewing of television and filmclips that featured images of women, or a control. A total of 304 seventh-gradestudents were asked to complete the Draw-A-Scientist Test and to write downthe source of information for their drawings. Across conditions, boys were morelikely than girls to draw male scientists, and girls were more likely than boys todraw female scientists. Boys also were more likely to depict other stereotypesof scientists. Media sources were listed as the primary source of information forthe drawings.

Keywords: images of women scientists; girls and science; media literacy



36 Science Communication

Greater participation of women and other underrepresented groups inscience, engineering, and technology (SET) is needed to ensure a diverse

workforce that will provide more varied perspectives to develop new ques-tions, approaches, practices, and interpretations. Despite recent increases inthe enrollment of women in SET disciplines and increases in the number ofwomen receiving bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees in SET fields(National Science Foundation 2007), women still are outnumbered by men inthe SET workforce for most SET fields, including the computer and math sci-ences, life sciences, physical sciences, and engineering (Tsapogas 2004). Thegreatest gap in participation in the SET workforce exists in the computer andmath sciences (27 percent women) and engineering occupations (13 percentwomen; Tsapogas 2004).

The underrepresentation of women in SET careers stems from an array offactors that often originate during childhood. The messages about science andthe images of scientists that children gather throughout their childhood yearsinfluence their perceptions of scientists, attitudes toward science and scien-tists, and interest in science courses and future scientific careers (Knight andCunningham 2004). Children’s perceptions of scientists and engineers arelikely to be influenced by a number of social and cultural factors, includingthose found at home and conveyed by parents (Barton et al. 2001; Schnabel et al. 2002; Scott and Mallinckrodt 2005; Tenenbaum and Leaper 2003), thosefound in schools and conveyed by teachers and peers (Lee 2002; Papadimitriou2004; Parrott et al. 2000), and those found in popular culture and conveyed bya variety of media sources (Long, Boiarsky, and Thayer 2001; Steinke 2005;Steinke, Lapinski, Zietsman-Thomas, Crocker, et al. 2006; Steinke and Long1996). Some studies suggest that children’s perceptions of scientists are devel-oped during the early years of childhood and are influenced primarily by fac-tors outside of the classroom (Baker and Leary 1995; Jones, Howe, and Rua2000; Knight and Cunningham 2004).

While most children do not typically come in contact with actual scientists,many grow up seeing images of scientists in popular culture as depicted by

Authors’ Note: The authors gratefully acknowledge support provided by the National ScienceFoundation (HRD 04-29005). Any opinions and recommendations expressed are those of theauthors and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Science Foundation. The authors alsothank the school administrators, principals, staff, teachers, students, parents, and project consultantsfor their assistance with this study. An earlier version of this article was printed in the 2006 WEPAN(Women in Engineering Programs & Advocates Network) Conference Proceedings (Steinke et al.2006). Please address correspondence to Jocelyn Steinke, Professor, School of Communication,218 Sprau Tower, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI 49008; phone: 269-387-3913; fax: 269-387-3990; e-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://homepages.wmich.edu/~steinke.



characters and images in books, movies, television programs, magazines,comics, video games, clip art, Web sites, and a variety of other media sources.These images of scientists may be considerable sources of influence that shapechildren’s views of the appearance, characteristics, traits, and lifestyles of sci-entists. The images of scientists that children encounter during their childhoodyears are important to examine because of the potential role of these imagesin shaping individual perceptions of scientists, and ultimately, influencingchildren’s interest in pursuing SET courses and occupations in the future.

Examining the prevalence of gender stereotypes in media images ofwomen scientists is of particular interest because research indicates that ado-lescents are likely to have gender-stereotyped views of occupational roles andhave been found to show “strong endorsement of both stereotypically mascu-line and feminine values” (Weisgram and Bigler 2006, 345). Moreover, SEToccupations have typically been viewed by children as masculine pursuits(Kelly 1985; Lightbody and Durndell 1996). Studies have pointed to the roleof factors such as gender role stereotypes and cultural stereotypes in shapingchildren’s occupational aspirations and choices (Eccles et al. 1983; Hammrich1997). For adolescent girls, in particular, these factors may influence theirinterest in future SET careers. As adolescent girls envision possible futureoccupational roles, many are not likely to see SET occupations as compatiblewith feminine values or as appropriate for women because of the existing mas-culine gender stereotype of SET occupations. Recent studies have reportedthat girls have a relatively low interest in science (Miller, Slawinski Blessing,and Schwartz 2006; Weisgram and Bigler 2006). Findings from one of thesestudies revealed that girls, as well as boys, “see scientists as loners who havelittle time for their families or friends because they work long hours in a lab-oratory on problems that have little obvious relevance to people or social prob-lems” (Miller, Slawinski Blessing, and Schwartz 2006, 377).

The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of media literacy train-ing designed to teach critical thinking about images of women, includingwomen in SET professions, in changing middle school students’ perceptionsof women scientists. Two different media literacy training conditions wereexamined relative to a control. The first condition focused on discussions ofstereotypes and counterstereotypes of women in television programs andfilms. The second condition included viewing video clips of stereotypical andcounterstereotypical images of women in television programs and films aswell as discussions of stereotypes and counterstereotypes of women in thevideo clips. Both of these conditions included discussions on stereotypes andcounterstereotypes of women professionals in SET.

Steinke et al. / Assessing Media Influences 37



Literature Review

Draw-A-Scientist Test (DAST)

Early research on children’s perceptions of scientists found that mostchildren have gender-stereotyped perceptions of scientists or hold a “mascu-line image of science” (Kelly 1985, 134). Mead and Metraux (1957) noted thatwhen asked to write essays about scientists, both male and female highschool students mostly described male scientists. This study also found thatstudents described scientists as neglectful toward their wives, children, andfriends (Mead and Metraux 1957). Research on children’s perceptions of sci-entists from the 1980s and 1990s focused on studies that used the DAST toassess children’s stereotypes of scientists (Chambers 1983). Some of thesestudies used a modified version of the DAST, called the DAST-C, which pro-vided a checklist for coding specific features found in drawings of scientists(Finson, Beaver, and Cramond 1995). Both the DAST and DAST-C askchildren to draw a picture of a scientist. Drawings with a greater number ofstereotypical features indicate more stereotypical views of scientists. One ofseveral features assessed by the DAST is gender, which was the primaryfocus of the use of the DAST for this study.

Most of the DAST studies of children of various age groups in the UnitedStates have found that children have the stereotypical perception of scientistsas being male. In a study of over 4,000 children in kindergarten to grade five,only 28 girls drew women scientists (Chambers 1983). A survey of studentsfrom across the United States found that only 14 percent of the drawings bygirls and 8 percent of the drawings by boys depicted female scientists, andonly 20 of the 1,600 drawings by both girls and boys depicted scientists ofcolor (Fort and Varney 1989). A study of undergraduate biology and liberalstudies majors showed that students in both groups drew more male scientiststhan female scientists, and only female students from both groups drew femalescientists (Rosenthal 1993). Another study found that children in kindergartenthrough twelfth grade primarily drew pictures of male scientists (Barman1999), and older students were less likely to draw female scientists than wereyounger students (Barman 1997). In addition, 74 percent of the students’drawings in this study depicted Caucasian scientists (Barman 1997). A studyof students in grades six through eight who were administered the Draw anEngineer Test (DAET), a variation of the DAST, found that the gender of mostof the drawings of engineers was not discernible, and that 25 of the 64 draw-ings depicted a female engineer in the drawings where gender was able to be




determined (Knight and Cunningham 2004). These studies revealed that it ismost likely girls who will have the counter gender-stereotyped perception ofscientists as female.

A few studies have noted specific interventions that have been effective inchanging children’s stereotypical perceptions of scientists as being male orhave documented when certain samples are less likely to view scientists aspredominantly male. For example, one study found that after meeting afemale engineer, some fourth- and fifth-grade girls drew female scientistswhen they had previously drawn male scientists for the pretest (Bodzin andGehringer 2001). A study that used a modified version of the DAST, calledthe Draw an Environmental Scientist Test (DAEST), noted that when genderwas coded using a gender-neutral option, students were just as likely or morelikely to indicate scientists could be male or female as they were to indicatescientists could be male (Thomas and Hairston 2003). A study of Navajochildren in grades four through six found less gender-stereotyping in thestudents’ drawings of scientists, with half of the children (47 out of 94)depicting female scientists in their drawings and the other half of the childrendepicting male scientists in their drawings. This study noted that almost allthe girls depicted scientists as females, while almost all the boys depicted sci-entists as males, and the researcher suggested that more girls may have drawnfemale scientists partly because of the traditional matriarchal Navajo society(Monhardt 2003).

Findings from DAST studies conducted with children in other countries aresimilar to those found for children in the United States. A study of students at aprimary school in Ireland found that not a single male student (n = 76) drew apicture of a female scientist, and only twenty-three out of forty-five femalestudents drew pictures of female scientists (Maoldomhnaigh and Hunt 1988).The researchers noted, however, that female students who received instructionabout stereotypical representations of scientists were more likely to drawa picture of a female scientist when instructed to make a second drawing(Maoldomhnaigh and Hunt 1988). A study of secondary school and undergrad-uate school students in England also observed that gender-stereotyping of sci-entists was less evident when students were asked to draw pictures of twoscientists (Matthews 1996). This study found that 44 percent of the studentsdrew two male scientists, 44 percent drew a female and a male scientist, and 13percent drew two female scientists (Matthews 1996). A study of children inEngland, ages four to eleven years old, indicated both boys and girls drew morepictures of male scientists than female scientists and reported that by age ten allthe boys and over 80 percent of the girls drew pictures of male scientists




(Newton and Newton 1998). A study of drawings and descriptions of scientistsby 1,137 Korean students ages eleven, thirteen, and fifteen found that 74 percentdescribed a male scientist and 16 percent described a female scientist (Song andKim 1999). A study of children in Turkey ages five to eight found that none ofthe twenty-four boys drew female scientists and five of the thirteen girls drewfemale scientists (Buldu 2006).

A few of these studies noted the potential influence of media portrayalsof scientists on children’s images of scientists. Both male and femalestudents in one study reported that the main source of their perceptionscame not from teachers or parents, but from films, animated cartoons,children’s science journals, scientists’ biographies, and cartoons (Song andKim 1999). Another study noted that children who wanted to be like the sci-entists in their drawings indicated that the scientists were people they knewor characters they had seen on television (Buldu 2006).

Gender Schema Theory, Media Images, and Gender Stereotype Development

Images of scientists on television may influence or reinforce children’s per-ceptions of the gender of scientists. Children first develop extensive networksof gender knowledge during early childhood (Campbell, Shirley, and Candy2004). These extensive networks are called gender schemas (Bem 1981) or the“cognitive structures stored in memory that organize gender-related knowl-edge, beliefs, attitudes, and preferences” (Liben and Signorella 1993, 141).Gender schemas, just like other schemas children create and store in memory,are the mental scripts that help children understand experiences in their livesand make decisions about how to behave (Schank and Abelson 1977). Just aschildren develop schemas for information about everyday routines and experi-ences, they develop schemas for information about gender and gender roles.Once children have developed gender schemas, they start to apply them to thesituations and experiences they encounter in their everyday lives (Bem 1993).Gender schemas store gender-related information in memory, and children callon gender schemas whenever they encounter new information related to gender(Bem 1993). Research shows that children begin labeling based on genderaround the age of two or three years and show an increase in gender knowledgeand sex-typed behavior between the ages of two and three years (Campbell,Shirley, and Candy 2004).

Gender schemas are important for the development of children’s genderidentity; however, children also often learn gender stereotypes from gender




schemas (Levy and Carter 1989; Nihlen and Bailey 1988). Research showsthat gender stereotypes influence children’s perceptions, beliefs, and behavior(Bem 1993). Children begin to show signs of gender-stereotyped knowledgeof items like toys around the age of three (Campbell, Shirley, and Candy 2004)and develop gender-stereotyped knowledge of occupations later on (Campbell,Shirley, and Candy 2004). Girls between the ages of four and five years “beginto regard the gender stereotyping of masculine occupations as excluding them,while boys see themselves as capable of most of the activities shown but nevertheless have a preference for the traditionally sex appropriate ones”(Durkin and Nugent 1998, 397). As children encounter new information aboutgender and gender roles, changes in gender-stereotype knowledge may occur(Bigler and Liben 1990), although children with more rigid gender schemastend to alter or forget information that is inconsistent with existing genderschemas (Hughes and Seta 2003; Ruble and Stangor 1986). The mass mediaare sources of gender stereotypes that may influence or prime individuals’knowledge of gender in subtle ways (Schneider 2004).

The gender knowledge and gender stereotypes that pervade media imagesand messages about scientists may influence not only children’s perceptionsof others but also their perceptions of themselves in regards to their ability tosucceed in SET careers. Research on stereotype threat (see Smith, Sansone,and White 2007, 99) shows that an awareness of negative gender stereotypescan lead to changes in women’s perceptions of their ability and competence inmath and science and can lead to poorer performance even when they arehighly capable of succeeding in these areas (Smith, Sansone, and White 2007).Reaction to the priming of stereotypes or labels associated with group mem-bership has been documented in other domains in the literature on stereotypethreat (Davies, Spencer, and Steele 2005; Steele and Aronson 1995) andstereotype contrast. The literature on stereotype threat indicates that whenmembers of stigmatized groups perceive they are stereotyped, they run the riskof confirming that stereotype, and this can negatively influence performanceon tasks related to the stereotype (e.g., intellectual test performance; see Steeleand Aronson 1995) and reduce aspirations and goals related to the stereotype(Davies, Spencer, and Steele 2005). Stereotype threat is important to considerin examining girls’ interest in SET careers because research shows thatchildren have gender-stereotyped beliefs about occupations (Liben, Bigler,and Krogh 2002), assign more status to occupations that have traditionallybeen considered masculine (Liben, Bigler, and Krogh 2001), and rate men asmore competent than women at masculine occupations (Levy, Sadovsky,and Troseth 2000).




Images of women on television that reinforce traditional gender roles andgender-stereotyped views of professional roles threaten to limit the careerchoices of image-conscious adolescent girls who often have been taught tovalue feminine roles. As children enter adolescence and begin to assert theirindependence from their parents and begin to think about future roles, themass media become increasingly important sources of information (Faber,Brown, and McLeod 1979; Signorielli 1997). In fact, research shows that ado-lescent girls who watch more television are more likely to agree with gender-stereotyped views of women that claim women are happiest working in the home and caring for children and are not interested in important jobs out-side the home (Morgan 1982). Although images of women on television vary,many of these images reinforce traditional gender stereotypes. Years ofresearch on media content have documented stereotypical images of womenfound in a variety of media ( Baker-Sperry and Grauerholz 2003; Barner 1999;Coltrane and Messineo 2000; Dietz 1998; Elasmar, Hasegawa, and Brain1999; Hoerrner 1996; Lauzen and Dozier 1999; Massoni 2004; Pierce 1993;Signorielli 1997; Turner-Bowker 1996; White and Kinnick 2000). Researchfocused specifically on images of women in the media that adolescent girlsactually use found these images typically focused on female characters whowere more concerned about appearance and romance than academics orcareers (Signorielli 1997).

Media images of women in general and women scientists in particularand the stereotypes girls develop from these media images may influencegirls’ science self-concept. Several studies have examined girls’ scienceself-concept, a construct derived from the idea of self-efficacy (Bandura et al. 2001) that represents one’s confidence in one’s ability to perform andsucceed in particular behaviors. These studies have found a positive scienceself-concept is related to girls’ professional aspirations for a career in SET(Lee 1998; Mau 2003; Nauta and Epperson 2003). One study found thatgirls are more likely to have gendered self-concepts and gendered percep-tions of science that keep them from science careers (Lee 1998). Anotherstudy showed that “the stereotyped view of male dominance in science”(Handley and Morse 1984, 606) affected girls’ attitudes toward science asthey progressed from seventh to eighth grade (Handley and Morse 1984).

Media Literacy Interventions

Research suggests that consumers of media content can be taught to criti-cally evaluate media content and that this critical evaluation can change theways in which the content is processed and internalized (Irving and Berel 2001;




Potter 1998). Media literacy programs focused on teaching a critical evaluationof media content have been found to be successful in changing children’s per-ceptions, attitudes, and behaviors. One program was successful in strengthen-ing college women’s resistance to media images that focus on the thin ideal ofbeauty (Irving and Berel 2001). Another program reported success in affectingchildren’s understanding of persuasive content and changing their perceptionsof alcohol advertisements and their behaviors toward alcohol (Austin andJohnson 1997). Another program was effective in changing high school–agedstudents’ tobacco-related knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors (Gonzales et al.2004). One study reported findings from a program that was able to reduceeighth-graders’ concerns about weight (Wade, Davidson, and O’Dea 2003).Another program was effective in increasing seventh- and eighth-graders’knowledge about advertising practices and increasing their skepticism towardadvertisers (Austin, Chen, and Grube 2006). One program changed elementaryand middle school–aged children’s responses to a violent television program(Nathanson 2004). Another program was successful in changing adolescentgirls’perceptions of nontraditional occupations (Griffin, Sen, and Plotkin 1994;Johnston and Ettema 1982). Another recent program was effective in promot-ing less favorable evaluations of a stereotyped program and encouraging accep-tance of nontraditional gender roles in students in kindergarten through sixthgrade (Nathanson et al. 2002).

Although this research provides some evidence that critical processingof media content can be learned, more research is needed to understand the types of media literacy interventions that work best and the impact ofthese interventions on specific attitudes and behaviors, such as changingchildren’s perceptions of scientists and engineers. The purpose of this studywas to assess the efficacy of media literacy training in changing children’sperceptions of scientists as being males. This research is an important firststep in exploring connections among girls’ perceptions of women as scien-tists, their gender stereotypes of scientists as being males, and their futureinterest in SET occupations.

Hypotheses and Research Questions

The potential influence of media sources in contributing to the notedgender differences in interest and participation in SET occupations led tothe hypotheses and research questions posed for this study. The goals of thisstudy were (1) to assess the efficacy of media literacy training designed toteach critical thinking about images of women, including women in SET




professions, in changing middle school students’ perceptions of women sci-entists in SET as measured by the DAST and (2) to examine the role of media images as a source of the gender stereotype of scientists. TheDAST outcomes tested here are part of a larger study that tested additionaloutcomes (see Steinke, Lapinski, Zietsman-Thomas, Nwulu, et al. 2006).Based on the literature cited above, the following hypotheses and researchquestions were posed:

Hypothesis 1: Girls will be more likely than boys to draw female scientists.Research Question 1: What are the most common stereotypes of scientists as measured

by DAST and other research (Steinke 2004, 2005) (lab coat, eyeglasses, facial hair,middle-aged or elderly, working in lab or field, site/location of work, facial expres-sion, hair, research symbols, symbols of knowledge, technology present, scientificcaptions or captions of discovery, mythic stereotypes, indications of danger, and indi-cations of secrecy) drawn by middle school–aged children?

Hypothesis 2: Middle school–aged children who participate in media literacy trainingthat provides instruction on gender stereotypes in the media in addition to viewingvideos of gender stereotyped and counterstereotyped media portrayals of women(discussion plus video) will be more likely to draw images of scientists depictingfemale scientists than students who participate in media literacy training that pro-vides instruction only on gender stereotyped and counterstereotyped media portray-als of women (discussion only) and than students in a control condition.

Research Question 2: Do middle school–aged children report media sources as theprimary source of information for their perceptions of scientists?

Research Question 3: Do middle school–aged children’s primary sources of infor-mation for their perceptions of scientists vary by participant’s biological sex orexperimental condition?

Methods

Participants

Middle school–aged children were selected as the population for thisstudy because research indicates most girls report a loss of interest in SETaround the age of twelve (American Association of University Women2000, 1998) and many girls show a heightened awareness of gender rolesat this age (Erkut et al. 1999; Orenstein 1994). The sample included 319participants from seventh-grade science classes at three middle schools inthe Midwest. Participants were all seventh-graders with an average age of12.65 (SD = .57); slightly more girls (53 percent) than boys (47 percent)took part in the study. The study included students who reported themselves




as Caucasian/white (58 percent), African American/black (14 percent),mixed race (primarily African American/black and Caucasian/white; 14 per-cent), Hispanic/Latino/Latina (5 percent), Asian or Pacific Islander (2 percent),or other (8 percent). Participants received written consent from a parent orguardian and gave their own written assent. Participation took place at theschools during regularly scheduled science classes over a seven-day periodscheduled over two consecutive weeks between January and June 2005.

Approximately equal numbers of participants were randomly assigned to thediscussion only (n = 107), discussion and video (n = 104), and control (n = 108)conditions. Across conditions, fifteen students failed to fully complete the DASTor the intervention, resulting in a final sample size of 304. The relatively largesample size allowed for examination of differences between boys and girls.

Pilot Study

The media literacy conditions, discussion and discussion plus video,were piloted with thirty-six students from a local middle school that did nottake part in the final study. The pilot participants also completed the studyquestionnaire after the intervention sessions. The purpose of the pilot wasto give the facilitator familiarity with the intervention content, to review theintervention content, and to assess the amount of time needed to completethe questionnaire. Modifications were made to the content of the interven-tion and to the questionnaire.

Procedure

Participants were randomly assigned to conditions in order to maximize thelikelihood of initially equivalent groups and negate the need for a pretest(Babbie 1992). This design was chosen because it maximizes the internal valid-ity of the research in several ways. First, random assignment to experimentalconditions creates initial equivalence of groups and negates the need forpretests, which are likely to sensitize participants. Second, the three experi-mental conditions allow for tests of the effectiveness of a discussion-only medialiteracy training and discussion-plus-video media literacy training as comparedto a control. This research design assesses changes resulting from the interven-tion by comparing the two condition groups (discussion only, discussion andvideo) with a control group.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) discussiononly, (2) discussion and video, and (3) control. Participants in group 1




(discussion only) participated in a media literacy training that included discus-sions of stereotypes and counterstereotypes of women in television programsand films. Participants in group 2 (discussion and video) participated in medialiteracy training that included watching video clips of stereotypical and coun-terstereotypical images of women in television programs and films as well asdiscussions of the stereotypes and counterstereotypes of women in the videoclips. All of the intervention sessions for these two groups were moderated bythe same facilitator, a female science instructor from a local university. Detailson the specific content of the media literacy training have been published pre-viously (see Steinke, Lapinski, Zietsman-Thomas, Nwulu, et al. 2006). Eachintervention lasted for approximately three forty-minute class sessions, andtook place every other school day. Participants in the control group did notreceive any treatment, but watched videos that conformed to the normal sciencecurriculum and did not show male or female scientists in the content of thevideos.

DAST

A questionnaire was administered to students in all three groups follow-ing the intervention. The DAST was administered in a group format as onesection of the questionnaire that measured outcomes of the larger study.Students were prompted to “draw a picture of a scientist.” At the bottom ofthe page, the instructions stated: “Take another look at the picture you justdrew. Where did your ideas on how to draw this person come from? Howdid you know what to draw?”

The drawings were evaluated by two members of the research team using acoding sheet adapted from Barman (1999). Additional variables were added toBarman’s (1999) scheme based on studies of media images of women scien-tists (Steinke 2004, 2005). The following seventeen categories were used toassess stereotypes of scientists: male gender, lab coat, eyeglasses, facial hair,middle-aged or elderly, working in lab or field, site/location of work, facialexpression, hair, research symbols, symbols of knowledge, technology present,scientific captions or captions of discovery, mythic stereotypes, indications ofdanger, and indications of secrecy. One of the categories on Barman’s (1999)coding scheme, Caucasian(s) only, was dropped from the coding schemebecause the coders were unable to discern the race of the scientists from thestudents’ drawings. The coding definitions provided by Barman (1999) wereused for all the categories except hair and facial expression, which were derived




from the first author’s research. Hair was coded as either messy or unkempt orneat, and facial expression was coded as either smiling or not smiling. Codersalso classified students’ responses to the source of ideas for their drawings. The following ten categories were used to assess the sources of ideas for thedrawings of scientists: TV/films, magazines/books/comics, science textbook,museum/field trip, personal experience/relative, science teacher, imagined/inmy mind, normal person, other, or blank. The coders used the first response tocode the primary source of information for the drawings when students listedmore than one source.

The lead author trained a research assistant in use of the coding schemeby examining drawings that were not included in the portion of the sampleused to calculate the intercoder reliability. The lead author and researchassistant discussed discrepancies in coding and revised coding definitionsto address these discrepancies. The data collection yielded a sample of 304drawings. A randomly selected subset of drawings representing 9 percent ofthe sample was then coded independently by the two coders. The intercoderreliability was calculated using Cohen’s kappa (Cohen 1960). The reliabil-ity scores for the items on the coding scheme ranged from κ = 0.67 to κ =1.00, with estimates for only two variables below κ = 0.75. Intercoder reli-ability could not be established for two items (mythic stereotypes and sci-entific captions), and these items were dropped from the analysis. Theresearch assistant coded the rest of the sample for the remaining variables.

Results

Biological Sex of Scientist

The first hypothesis predicted girls would be more likely than boys to drawfemale scientists (see Figure 1). Analysis of the drawings indicated that 50 per-cent of girls drew a female scientist and 12.5 percent of boys drew a female scientist, χ2(6) = 55.49, p = .001.

Six girls and two boys drew two pictures—one of a male scientist andone of a female scientist (see Figures 2 and 3). The biological sex of the sci-entist could not be determined by coders in eleven pictures drawn by girlsand thirteen pictures drawn by boys. Thus, the data were consistent withHypothesis 1.




Stereotypes of Scientists

Across conditions, the categories of stereotypes of scientists found ineach drawing were counted, and the percentage of each type of stereotypewas calculated by comparing the number of stereotyped portrayals to thetotal number of drawings. The stereotypes with the highest percentageswere found for the following variables: lab coat (66.8 percent), glasses(57.6 percent), male gender (56.9 percent), expression/not smiling (42.4percent), crazy hair (34.5 percent), and lab work/works in lab (31.9 per-cent). DAST stereotypes scores were higher for boys than for girls on allDAST stereotypes except conducts lab work and lab coat (see Table 1).

See Figures 4 and 5 for drawings of male scientists by boys that depictedscientists with other DAST stereotypes.


Figure 1Drawing of Female Scientist by a Female Student

in the Discussion-Only Group



Gender Stereotypes of Scientists in DAST Drawings and Media Literacy Training

Experimental condition did not predict the coded biological sex of the sci-entist drawn by participants, χ2(4) = 6.75, p = .15. The interaction betweenexperimental condition and participants’ biological sex did not predict thecoded biological sex of the scientist drawn; differences were not significant forboys, χ2 (6) = 4.61, p = .59; or girls, χ2(6) = 4.21, p = .65. Thus, the findings ofthis study did not confirm Hypothesis 1. See Figure 6 for a drawing of a femalescientist from a girl in the control group.

See Figure 7 for a drawing of a male scientist by a boy in the discussiongroup.


Figure 2Drawing of Both Female and Male Scientists

by a Girl in the Control Group



Source of Ideas for DAST Drawings

The percentages for the source of ideas for the students’ drawings were cal-culated by condition and by gender. Students listed a variety of sources of infor-mation for the ideas for their drawings. The highest percentage of students (40percent) indicated that television and films were the source of ideas for theirdrawings. This item received the highest percentage of responses across all con-ditions and for boys as well as girls. A total of 47 percent of students in the dis-cussion group, 41 percent of students in the discussion-plus-video group, and31 percent of students in the control group reported television and films as thesource of ideas for their drawings. Television and films were listed as the topchoice for students in the control group. Students who noted media sources astheir primary source of information wrote the following:


Figure 3Drawing of Both Female and Male Scientists by a

Girl in the Control Group



“I got this from movies I have seen. This is what one character looked like.”(girl, video group, drew male scientist)

“It just popped into my head and I remember from the TV show I used towatch called like science guy or something.” (girl, control group, drewmale scientist)

“My idea came from the movies and TV. I drew a woman because an obvi-ous choice would have been men.” (girl, discussion group, drew femalescientist)

“A scientist can look like anything or anyone so I drew a regular person.”(girl, video group, drew female scientist)

The findings for the top choices for source of ideas are reported in Table 2.Several of the drawings of scientists made by students who mentioned

media sources (particularly television) as their primary source of informa-tion were of male scientists who resembled television characters likeDexter from Dexter’s Laboratory or Beakman from Beakman’s World, ordepicted a male scientist who looked like the mythic stereotype of a madscientist. See Figure 8 for an example of a drawing of a male scientist that


Table 1Percentage of Draw-a-Scientist Test (DAST)

Stereotypes of Scientists by Gender

DAST Stereotypes of Scientists

Girls Boys Total

# Question Count % Count % Count %

1 Male gender 63 20.7 110 36.2 173 56.92 Lab coat 114 37.5 89 29.3 203 66.83 Glasses 85 28.0 90 29.6 175 57.64 Facial hair 2 0.7 16 5.3 18 5.95 Elderly 10 3.3 25 8.2 35 11.56 Lab work 53 17.4 44 14.5 97 31.97 Work site/laboratory 44 14.5 42 13.8 86 28.38 Expression/not smiling 62 20.4 67 22.0 129 42.49 Crazy hair 45 14.8 60 19.7 105 34.5

10 Research symbols 45 14.8 41 13.5 86 28.311 Knowledge symbols 26 8.6 31 10.2 57 18.812 Technology present 2 0.7 2 0.7 4 1.313 Indications of danger 1 0.3 2 0.7 4 1.014 Signs of secrecy 1 0.3 0 0.0 1 0.3



appeared to be influenced by media images of scientists. In fact, the girlwho drew this picture noted that TV shows were the primary source ofinformation for her drawing.

Students who cited a “normal person” or someone they knew often drewless stereotypical pictures of both male and female scientists. Students whocited a normal person as the primary source of information for their draw-ings wrote the following:

“My mother, my mom is a scientist.” (boy, discussion group, drew femalescientist)

“My dad is a scientist.” (boy, discussion group, male scientist)“A guy that worked in the lab at my old school.” (boy, discussion group, male

scientist)


Figure 4Drawing of Male Scientist by a Boy in the Discussion Group



“I knew what to draw because I have seen the types of things in laboratories,and what to wear. I wanted to make my scientist to look somewhat a littlelike my science teacher.” (girl, control group, female scientist)

Discussion

The media literacy interventions, both the discussion-only condition anddiscussion-plus-video condition, did not influence children’s gender stereo-typing of scientists. No significant difference was found in middle school–aged children’s depiction of the gender of the scientist in the DAST drawingsfor children who had participated in the media literacy training as comparedwith children who were in the control group. This finding was contrary toexpectations and was not consistent with other research that has found lessstereotypical images of scientists on the DAST as a result of intervention





strategies that have featured scientist role models (Bodzin and Gehringer2001; Finson, Beaver, and Cramond 1995), visits with female scientist rolemodels (Smith and Erb 1986), and the distribution of career information(Huber and Burton 1995; Mason, Kahle, and Gardner 1991). However, thisfinding was consistent with those of a study that found elementaryschool–aged children’s gender stereotyped images of scientists as male wereunchanged after an intervention that featured visits from female scientists andthat found the children even questioned whether these women were scientists(Buck and Leslie-Pelecky 2002).

There are several possible explanations for this finding. First, the deliv-ery and length of the intervention may need to be changed. Although otherinterventions have used similar approaches and have been similar in length,


Figure 6Drawing of Female Scientist by a Girl in the Control Group



a longer intervention period may be needed in order to detect changes ingender schemas that are known to be highly resistant to change (Hughesand Seta 2003; Ruble and Stangor 1986). Researchers have noted that moredirect interventions are likely to be needed to change existing genderstereotypes (Liben, Bigler, and Krogh 2001). In the last two decades, psy-chologists interested in learning and memory began to change from cursory(a day or two in length) interventions to longitudinal studies that take accountof the learners’ community and encourage students to engage in self-reflectivelearning and critical inquiry (see Brown 1992 for a review). This studyinvolved the teaching of content that was separate from the content taught asthe usual science curriculum, expecting students to learn content out of con-text to “please” the researchers. Changing students’ perceptions of science andscientists is fundamentally important if we want to encourage traditionally





nonparticipants (e.g., women, people of color) to consider careers in scienceand engineering. Therefore, it may be important that media literacy inter-vention, or any type of intervention, be integrated into the science curricu-lum to provide a context and relevancy that will allow empirical research.Second, the media literacy training may have made middle school–agedstudents more resistant to changing attitudes toward gender roles. As thefindings for this study indicate, boys’ stereotypical attitudes toward genderroles were not changed by the media literacy training. The media literacyintervention may have activated the boys’ gender schemas, also activatingthe cognitive structures that make them resistant to changing these genderschemas (Hughes and Seta 2003; Ruble and Stangor 1986). Third, changesin perceptions may need to be assessed directly after the intervention ratherthan a day after the intervention in order to detect immediate changes thatmay have occurred in short-term memory.

The results of the DAST showed differences in boys’ and girls’ perceptionsof scientists. Girls across conditions were more likely than boys to drawfemale scientists than male scientists. Half of the girls drew a female scientist.Boys across conditions drew more male scientists than female scientists, thusshowing greater gender stereotyping of scientists than did girls. This findingwas similar to those of other DAST studies that have found only girls drewpictures of women scientists (Bodzin and Gehringer 2001; Buldu 2006;Chambers 1983; Rosenthal 1993) and DAST studies that have found that girlswere more likely than boys to draw pictures of female scientists (Barman1999, 1997; Fort and Varney 1989; Maoldomhnaigh and Hunt 1988; Matthews1996; Newton and Newton 1998; Song and Kim 1999). However, this finding


Table 2Percentages for Sources of Ideas for Draw-a-Scientist Test (DAST)

Drawings by Gender and Condition

Discussion Video Control

Boys 1. TV/films 53.6% 1. TV/films 50.0% 1. TV/films 36.7%2. Normal person 7.1% 2. Normal person 10.5% 2. Imagined 10.2%3. Books 5.4% 3. Science teacher 5.3% 3. Normal person 8.2%3. Personal

experience 5.4%Girls 1. TV/films 41.7% 1. TV/films 37.5% 1. TV/films 27.8%

2. Imagined 10.4% 2. Normal person 14.3% 2. Normal person 18.5%2. Normal person 10.4%3. Science teacher 8.3% 3. Imagined 10.7% 3. Imagined 11.1%



was different from other previous DAST research on children of various agesthat reported both girls and boys generally draw more male than female sci-entists (Barman 1999; Bodzin and Gehringer 2001; Chambers 1983; Fort and


Figure 8Drawing of Male Scientist by a Girl in the Discussion Group



Varney 1989; Parsons 1997; Rosenthal 1993) and a study that used a modifiedversion of the DAST, called the Draw an Engineer Test (DAET; Knight andCunningham 2004). Further research needs to assess why more girls in thisstudy drew pictures of female scientists than is typically noticed in most DAST studies, since this difference was not influenced by the medialiteracy training.

Boys across conditions also showed greater overall stereotyping of scien-tists than did girls on most of the other DAST stereotype variables. These find-ings suggest that middle school–aged girls and boys hold different perceptionsof scientists, with girls showing less gender stereotyping of scientists than boysand perceiving scientists in less stereotyped ways for a variety of characteris-tics and traits. Boys’ greater stereotyping of scientists, including their genderstereotyping of scientists, underscores the need for science interventionprograms for boys and research on strategies for changing the culture ofscience, especially in light of the recently documented reports of unconsciousinstitutional bias that has led to instances of covert discrimination (Handelsmanet al. 2005) and “subtle biased acts” (Gunter and Stamach 2005). Changes inthe culture of science are needed to alter male-centered practices, policies, andenvironments that create and perpetuate barriers for women in SET careers(Miller, Slawinski Blessing, and Schwartz 2006).

Both boys and girls cited television programs and films as the primarysource of information for their drawings of scientists. This finding must beinterpreted with caution because approximately two-thirds of the participantshad completed media literacy training prior to being asked for the primarysource of information for their drawings. In fact, some of the participants didrefer to the media literacy intervention and video content when reporting themedia as the primary source of information for their drawings. However, itshould be noted that many participants in the control group who did not par-ticipate in media literacy training also listed television and films as the primarysource of information for their drawings of scientists. Some previous DASTstudies have suggested the media are an important source of influence onstudents’ perceptions of scientists (Buldu 2006; Song and Kim 1999).

The findings from this research have several implications for the design of SET intervention programs for girls. Many SET intervention programs forgirls use media resources—educational videos, computer games, interactiveCD/ROMs, radio programs, and television programs—in efforts to influencegirls’ perceptions of scientists. These programs should acknowledge the poten-tial influence of cultural images of gender, consider the use of media images ofengineers and scientists in interventions focused on stereotypes and counter-stereotypes, and assess girls’ responses to specific stereotyped and counter-stereotyped characteristics found in media images of women scientists. Media




models are an important area for future research because they may be effectivesocial models for encouraging girls’ interest in SET. Additional research on the impact of media sources on girls’ science self-concept is needed todevelop effective interventions for encouraging girls not only to see otherwomen as scientists and engineers but also to see themselves as future scientists and engineers.

References

American Association of University Women. 1998. Gender gaps: Where schools still fail ourchildren. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.

———. 2000. Tech-savvy: Educating girls in the new computer age. Washington, DC: AAUWEducation Foundation.

Austin, Erica Weintraub, Meng-Jinn Chen, and Joel W. Grube. 2006. How does alcohol adver-tising influence underage drinking? The role of desirability, identification and skepticism.Journal of Adolescent Health 38:376-84.

Austin, Erica Weintraub, and Kristine Kay Johnson. 1997. Immediate and delayed effects ofmedia literacy training on third graders’ decision making for alcohol. Health Communications9 (4): 323-49.

Babbie, E. 1992. The practice of social research. 6th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Baker, Dale, and Rosemary Leary. 1995. Letting girls speak out about science. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching 32 (1): 3-28.Baker-Sperry, Lori, and Liz Grauerholz. 2003. The pervasiveness and persistence of the fem-

inine beauty ideal in children’s fairy tales. Gender & Society 15: 711-26.Bandura, Albert, Claudio Barbaranelli, Gian Vittorio, and Concetta Pastorelli. 2001. Self-efficacy

beliefs as shapers of children’s aspirations and career trajectories. Child Development 72 (1):187-206.

Barman, Charles R. 1997. Students’ views of scientists and science: Results from a nationalstudy. Science and Children, 18-23.

———. 1999. Completing the study: High school students’ views of scientists and science.Science and Children, 16-21.

Barner, Mark R. 1999. Sex-role stereotyping in FCC-mandated children’s educational televi-sion. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 43 (4): 551-64.

Barton, Angela Calabrese, Toby J. Hindin, Isobel R. Contento, Michelle Trudeau, Kimberley Yang,Sumi Hagiwara, and Pamela D. Koch. 2001. Underprivileged urban mothers’ perspectives onscience. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38 (6): 688-711.

Bem, Sandra Lipsitz. 1981. Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing.Psychological Review 88 (4): 354-64.

———. 1993. The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual identity. New Haven,CT: Yale University Press.

Bigler, Rebecca S., and Lynn S. Liben. 1990. The role of attitudes and interventions in gender-schematic processing. Child Development 61:1440-52.

Bodzin, Alec, and Mike Gehringer. 2001. Breaking science stereotypes. Science and Children38 (4): 36-41.




Brown, Ann L. 1992. Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in cre-ating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 2(2): 141-78.

Buck, Gayle A., and Diandra Leslie-Pelecky. 2002. Bringing female scientists into the elementaryclassroom: Confronting the strength of elementary students’ stereotypical images of scientists.Journal of Elementary Science Education 14 (2): 1-10.

Buldu, Mehmet. 2006. Young children’s perceptions of scientists: A preliminary study.Educational Research 48 (1): 121-32.

Campbell, Anne, Louisa Shirley, and Julia Candy. 2004. A longitudinal study of gender-relatedcognition and behaviour. Developmental Science 7 (1): 1-9.

Chambers, David Wade. 1983. Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw-a-scientist test.Science Education 67 (2): 255-65.

Cohen, J. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement 20: 37-46.

Coltrane, S., and M. Messineo. 2000. The perpetuation of subtle prejudice: Race and genderimagery in 1990’s television advertising. Sex Roles 42 (5/6): 363-89.

Davies, P. G., S. J. Spencer, and C. M. Steele. 2005. Clearing the air: Identity safety moder-ates the effects of stereotype threat on women’s leadership aspirations. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology 88: 276-87.

Dietz, T. L. 1998. An examination of violence and gender role portrayals in video games:Implications for gender socialization and aggressive behavior. Sex Roles 38 (5/6): 425-42.

Durkin, Kevin, and Bradley Nugent. 1998. Kindergarten children’s gender-role expectationsfor television actors. Sex Roles 38 (5/6): 387-402.

Eccles, J. S., T. F. Adler, R. Futterman, S. Goff, B. Kaczala, C. M. Meece, and J. Midgley.1983. Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In Achievement and AchievementMotives, edited by J. T. Spence. San Francisco: Freeman.

Elasmar, Michael, Kazumi Hasegawa, and Mary Brain. 1999. The portrayal of women in U.S.prime time television. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 43 (1): 20-34.

Erkut, Sumru, Fern Marx, Jacqueline P. Fields, and Rachel Sing. 1999. Raising confident andcompetent girls: One size does not fit all. In Gender, culture and ethnicity: Currentresearch about women and men, edited by L. A. Peplau, S. C. DeBro, R. C. Veniegas, andP. L. Taylor. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Faber, Ronald J., Jane D. Brown, and Jack M. McLeod. 1979. Coming of age in the global vil-lage: Television and adolescence. In Children communicating: Media and development ofthought, speech, understanding, edited by E. Wartella. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Finson, Kevin D., John B. Beaver, and Bonnie L. Cramond. 1995. Development and field test of achecklist for the draw-a-scientist test. School Science and Mathematics 95 (4): 195-205.

Fort, Deborah C., and Heather L. Varney. 1989. How students see scientists: Mostly male,mostly white, and mostly benevolent. Science and Children, 8-13.

Gonzales, Rachel, Deborah Glik, Mehrnaz Davoudi, and Alfonso Ang. 2004. Media literacyand public health: Integrating theory, research, and practice for tobacco control. AmericanBehavioral Scientist 48 (2): 189-201.

Griffin, R. J., S. Sen, and R. Plotkin. 1994. Sex, schemata, and social status: TV characters identi-fication and occupational aspirations among adolescents. In Differences that make a difference:Examining the assumptions in gender research, edited by L. H. Turner and H. M. Sterk.Westport, CT: Bergin Garvey.

Gunter, Ramona, and Amy Stamach. 2005. Differences in men and women scientists’ percep-tions of workplace climate. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering11 (1): 97-116.




Hammrich, Penny L. 1997. Yes, daughter, you can: Empowering parents is the first step towardimproving females’ achievement in science. Science and Children 34 (4): 21-24.

Handelsman, Jo, Nancy Cantor, Molly Carnes, Denice Denton, Eve Fine, Barbara Grosv,Virginia Hinshaw, Cora B. Marrett, Sue V. Rosser, Donna Shalala, and Jennifer Sheridan.2005. Enhanced: More women in science. Science 309 (5738): 1190-91.

Handley, Herbert M., and Linda W. Morse. 1984. Two-year study relating adolescents’ self-concept and gender role perceptions to achievement and attitudes toward science. Journalof Research in Science Teaching 21 (6): 599-607.

Hoerrner, Keisha L. 1996. Sex roles in Disney films: Analyzing behaviors from Snow Whiteto Simba. Women’s Studies in Communication 19 (2): 213-28.

Huber, Richard A., and Grace M. Burton. 1995. What do students think scientists look like?School Science and Mathematics 95 (7): 371-76.

Hughes, Farrah M., and Catherine E. Seta. 2003. Gender stereotypes: Children’s perceptionsof future compensatory behavior following violations of gender roles. Sex Roles 49(11/12): 685-91.

Irving, Lori M., and Susan R. Berel. 2001. Comparison of media-literacy programs tostrengthen college women’s resistance to media images. Psychology of Women Quarterly25 (2): 103-11.

Johnston, J., and J. S. Ettema. 1982. Positive images: Breaking stereotypes with children’stelevision. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Jones, M. Gail, Ann Howe, and Melissa J. Rua. 2000. Gender differences in students’ experi-ences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education 84:180-92.

Kelly, Alison. 1985. The construction of masculine science. British Journal of Sociology ofEducation 6 (2): 133-54.

Knight, Meredith Thompson, and Christine M. Cunningham. 2004. Building a structure of support:An inside look at the structure of women in engineering programs. Journal of Women andMinorities in Science and Engineering 10: 1-20.

Knight, Meredith, and Christine Cunningham. 2004. Draw an engineer test (DAET): Develop-ment of a tool to investigate students’ ideas about engineers and engineering. Paper read atthe 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition,Salt Lake City, UT, June.

Lauzen, Martha M., and David M. Dozier. 1999. Making a difference in prime time: Womenon screen and behind the scenes in the 1995-96 television season. Journal of Broadcastingand Electronic Media 43 (1): 1-19.

Lee, James Daniel. 1998. Which kids can “become” scientists? Effects of gender, self-concepts,and perceptions of scientists. Social Psychology Quarterly 61 (3): 199-219.

———. 2002. More than ability: Gender and personal relationships influence science andtechnology involvement. Sociology of Education 75: 349-73.

Levy, Gary D., and D. Bruce Carter. 1989. Gender schema, gender constancy, and gender-roleknowledge: The role of cognitive factors in preschoolers’ gender-role stereotype attribu-tions. Developmental Psychology 25 (3): 444-49.

Levy, Gary D., Adrienne L. Sadovsky, and Georgene L. Troseth. 2000. Aspects of youngchildren’s perceptions of gender-typed occupations. Sex Roles 42 (11/12): 993-1006.

Liben, Lynn S., Rebecca S. Bigler, and Holleen R. Krogh. 2001. Pink and blue collar jobs:Children’s judgments of job status and job aspirations in relation to sex of worker. Journalof Experimental Child Psychology 79: 346-63.

———. 2002. Language at work: Children’s gendered interpretations of occupational titles.Child Development 73 (3): 810-28.




Liben, Lynn S., and Margaret L. Signorella. 1993. Gender-schematic processing in children:The role of initial interpretations of stimuli. Developmental Psychology 29 (1): 141-49.

Lightbody, Pauline, and Alan Durndell. 1996. The masculine image of careers in science andtechnology: Fact or fantasy? British Journal of Educational Psychology 66: 231-46.

Long, Marilee, Greg Boiarsky, and Greg Thayer. 2001. Gender and racial counter-stereotypes inscience education television: A content analysis. Public Understanding of Science 10:255-69.

Maoldomhnaigh, Micheal O., and A. Hunt. 1988. Some factors affecting the image of the scientistsdrawn by older primary school pupils. Research in Science and Technological Education 6 (2):159-66.

Mason, Cheryl L., Jane Butler Kahle, and April L. Gardner. 1991. Draw-a-scientist test: Futureimplications. School Science and Mathematics 91 (5): 193-98.

Massoni, Kelley. 2004. Modeling work: Occupational messages in Seventeen magazine.Gender & Society 18 (1): 47-65.

Matthews, Brian. 1996. Drawing scientists. Gender and Education 8 (2): 231-43.Mau, Wei-Cheng. 2003. Factors that influence persistence in science and engineering career

aspirations. The Career Development Quarterly 51 (3): 234-43.Mead, Margaret, and Rhoda Metraux. 1957. Image of the scientist among high-school

students. Science 126: 384-90.Miller, Patricia H., Jennifer Slawinski Blessing, and Stephanie Schwartz. 2006. Gender dif-

ferences in high-school students’ views about science. International Journal of ScienceEducation 28 (4): 363-81.

Monhardt, Rebecca M. 2003. The image of the scientist through the eyes of Navajo children.Journal of American Indian Education 42 (3): 25-39.

Morgan, Michael. 1982. Television and adolescents’ sex role stereotypes: A longitudinal study.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43 (5): 947-55.

Nathanson, Amy I. 2004. Factual and evaluative approaches to modifying children’s responsesto violent television. Journal of Communication 54 (2): 321-36.

Nathanson, Amy I., Barbara J. Wilson, Jocelyn McGee, and Minu Sebastian. 2002.Counteracting the effects of female stereotypes on television via active mediation. Journalof Communication 52 (4): 922-37.

National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. 2007. Women,Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2007. Arlington,VA: National Science Foundation. Available from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd.Accessed 8 May 2007.

Nauta, Margaret M., and Douglas L. Epperson. 2003. A longitudinal examination of the social-cognitive model applied to high school girls’ choices of nontraditional college majors andaspirations. Journal of Counseling Psychology 50 (4): 448-57.

Newton, Lynn D., and Douglas P. Newton. 1998. Primary children’s conceptions of scienceand the scientist: Is the impact of a national curriculum breaking down the stereotypes?International Journal of Science Education 20 (9): 1137-49.

Nihlen, Ann Sigrid, and Becky A. Bailey. 1988. Children’s display of gender schemas throughinteraction with nontraditional workers. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 19 (2):155-62.

Orenstein, P. 1994. School girls: Young women, self-esteem, and the confidence gap. NewYork: Doubleday.

Papadimitriou, M. 2004. What girls say about their science education experiences: Is anybodyreally listening? Victoria, British Columbia: Trafford.




Parrott, Laurel, Linda Spatig, Patricia S. Kusimo, Carolyn C. Carter, and Marian Keyes. 2000.Troubled waters: Where multiple streams of inequality converge in the math and scienceexperiences of nonpriviliged girls. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science andEngineering 6: 45-71.

Parsons, Eileen Carlton. 1997. Black high school females’ images of the scientist: Expressionof culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34 (7): 745-68.

Pierce, K. 1993. Socialization of teenage girls through teen-magazine fiction: The making ofa new woman or an old lady? Sex Roles 29 (1/2): 59-68.

Potter, W. James. 1998. Media literacy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Rosenthal, Dorothy B. 1993. Images of scientists: A comparison of biology and liberal stud-

ies majors. School Science and Mathematics 93 (4): 212-16.Ruble, Diane R., and Charles Stangor. 1986. Stalking the elusive schema: Insights from devel-

opmental and social-psychological analysis of gender schemas. Social Cognition 4 (2):227-61.

Schank, R. C., and R. P. Abelson. 1977. Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Schnabel, Kai U., Corinne Alfeld, Jacquelynne Eccles, Olaf Koller, and Jurgen Baumert. 2002.Parental influence on students’ educational choices in the United States and Germany:Different ramifications—same effect? Journal of Vocational Behavior 60:178-98.

Schneider, David J. 2004. The psychology of stereotyping. New York: Guilford Press.Scott, Anne B., and Brent Mallinckrodt. 2005. Parental emotional support, science self-efficacy,

and choice of science major in undergraduate women. The Career Development Quarterly53: 263-73.

Signorielli, Nancy. 1997. A content analysis: Reflections of girls in the media. Report forChildren Now and the Kaiser Family Foundation. Available from http://www.kff.org/entmedia/1260-gendr.cfm.

Smith, Jessi L., Carol Sansone, and Paul White. 2007. The stereotyped task engagementprocess: The role of interest and achievement motivation. Journal of EducationalPsychology 99 (1): 99-114.

Smith, Walter S., and Thomas Owen Erb. 1986. Effect of women science career role models onearly adolescents’ attitudes toward scientists and women in science. Journal of Research inScience Teaching 23 (8): 667-76.

Song, Jinwoong, and Kwang-Suk Kim. 1999. How Korean students see scientists: The imagesof the scientist. International Journal of Science Education 21 (9): 957-77.

Steele, C. M., and J. Aronson. 1995. Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance ofAfrican Americans. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 69: 797-811.

Steinke, Jocelyn. 2004. Science in cyberspace: Science and engineering World Wide Web sitesfor girls. Public Understanding of Science 13 (1): 7-30.

———. 2005. Cultural representations of gender and science: Portrayals of female scientistsand engineers in popular films. Science Communication 27: 27-63.

Steinke, Jocelyn, Maria Lapinski, Nikki Crocker, Aletta Zietsman-Thomas, Yaschica Williams,Stephanie Higdon, and Sarvani Kuchibhotla. 2006. Assessing media influences on middleschool-aged children’s perceptions of women in science and engineering using the Draw-A-Scientist Test (DAST). In Proceedings of 2006 WEPAN Conference, edited by B. Bogue andR. Marra. Available at http://www.x-cd.com/wepan06/index.html.

Steinke, Jocelyn, Maria Lapinski, Aletta Zietsman-Thomas, Nikki Crocker, Yaschica Williams,Stephanie Higdon, and Sarvani Kuchibhotla. 2006. Media influences and girls’ perceptions of




science and engineering. Paper read at the annual meeting of the American Association for theAdvancement of Science, St. Louis, MO, February.

Steinke, Jocelyn, Maria Lapinski, Aletta Zietsman-Thomas, Paul Nwulu, Nikki Crocker,Yaschica Williams, Stephanie Higdon, and Sarvani Kuchibhotla. 2006. Middle school-aged children’s attitudes toward women in science, engineering, and technology and theeffects of media literacy training. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science andEngineering 12: 295-323.

Steinke, Jocelyn, and Marilee Long. 1996. A lab of her own? Portrayals of female characterson children’s educational science programs. Science Communication 18 (2): 91-115.

Tenenbaum, Harriet R., and Campbell Leaper. 2003. Parent-child conversations about science:The socialization of gender inequities. Developmental Psychology 39 (1): 34-47.

Thomas, Jeff A., and Rosalina V. Hairston. 2003. Adolescent students’ images of an environmentalscientist: An opportunity for constructivist teaching. Electronic Journal of Science Education 7(4): 1-25.

Tsapogas, John. 2004. More than one-fifth of all individuals employed in science and engineeringoccupations have less than a bachelor’s degree education. InfoBrief: Science ResourcesStatistics. Accessed 8 May 2007 from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf04333/.

Turner-Bowker, Diane M. 1996. Gender stereotyped descriptors in children’s picture books:Does “Curious Jane” exist in the literature? Sex Roles 35 (7/8): 461-88.

Wade, Tracey D., Susan Davidson, and Jennifer A. O’Dea. 2003. A preliminary controlledevaluation of a school-based media literacy program and self-esteem program for reduc-ing eating disorder risk factors. International Journal of Eating Disorders 33 (4): 371-83.

Weisgram, Erica S., and Rebecca S. Bigler. 2006. Girls and science careers: The role of altruisticvalues and attitudes about scientific tasks. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology27:326-48.

White, K., and K. N. Kinnick. 2000. One click forward and two clicks back: Portrayals ofwomen using computers in television commercials. Women’s Studies in Communication 23(3): 392-412.

Jocelyn Steinke is a professor in the School of Communication and holds a joint appointmentwith the Program in Gender and Women’s Studies at Western Michigan University.

Maria Knight Lapinski has a joint appointment as an associate professor in the Departmentof Communication and the National Food Safety and Toxicology Center at Michigan StateUniversity.

Aletta Zietsman-Thomas is a director of academic development at the University ofWitwaterstrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.

Nikki Crocker, Yaschica Williams, Stephanie Higdon Evergreen, and Sarvani Kuchibhotlawere all graduate students at Western Michigan University when this research was conducted.Williams is now an assistant professor at the University of Memphis.




science communication - wordpress.com · 36 science communication g reater participation of women...

Documents