Title: Assessing Your Students’ Understanding of Science as a Human Endeavor

DECONSTRUCTING THE DAST: DEVELOPMENT OF A VALID = AND RELIABLE TOOL FOR ASSESSING STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCIENTISTS<= /o:p>

Donna Farland= , The Ohio State University

William F. Mc= Comas, University of Arkansas

Abstract

E-DAST (Enhanced Draw-A-Scientist-Test) is a new version of a classic instrument that can be used to evaluate and encourage students’ knowledge of science as a hu= man endeavor. E-DAST requires that students make multiple drawings and adds a rubric by which the user of the instrument can extract additional informati= on about the appearance, location and activity of the illustrated scientist. Both innovations greatly increase = the utility and validity of the instrument.

Introduction

All science teachers recognize that they must teach appropriate and interesting science content. However, it = might surprise many to find that are also asked to help students understand the t= rue nature of who does science. Unfortunately, many students view scientists as quite different from= the rest of us and often hold highly stereotypical views of scientists and the = work they do. The lone nerd with extraordinary intelligence and odd work habits and even stranger friends has become a view held by many children. In studies spanning five decades we find that students typically por= tray scientists as males confined to a laboratory surrounded by dangerous chemic= als conducting dubious experiments (Barman, 1997; Chambers, 1983; Finson, 2002; Fort & Varney, 1989; Mead & Metraux, 1957; Schibeci & Sorenson, 1983). These inauthentic perc= eptions of science and scientists are held widely from elementary to secondary scho= ol (Chambers, 1983). =

The reasons for these views are many, but are most likely due to the images presented in the popular media. Each generation has had its version of the Nutty Professor and Dr. Frankenstein to help frame the views of members of the public.

The narrow and erroneous impres= sion of science held by students has, in part, inspired science reformers to cre= ate The National Science Education Standar= ds (NSES) (National Research Council [NRC], 1996) which contains science content, science processes and the human side of the scientific enterprise. The Standards advocate that Science as a Human Endeavor should= be taught as early as the elementary grades, “in order to provide a foundation for the development of sophisticated ideas related to the history and nature of science that will be developed in later years” (NRC, 19= 96, p. 141).

The Standards focus on the following four human dimensions of scien= ce:

1. = Science and technology have been practiced by people for a long time.

2. = Men and women have made a varie= ty of contributions throughout the history of science and technology.

3. = Science will never be finished. Although men and women using scientific inquiry have learned much about the objects, events and phenomena in nature, much more remains to be understood. =

4. = Many people choose science as a career and devote their entire lives to studying it. Many people derive gre= at pleasure from doing science. (NRC, 1996, p.141).

Issues such as these must take their place with tradition= al science content in the classroom and be systematically and deliberately tau= ght to young children (Roach & Wandersee, 1993).

The Importance of Students’ Perceptions of Scientists

Several reports (National Science Board, 1986; National Science Foundation, 2000, National Academy of Science, 2006) have projected= a shortage of scientific personnel. Part of the solution to this problem is to increase the number of minority members and women entering scientific fields. A deterrent to this goal may rest = with the stereotypical images of scientists held by many. Chambers (1983) revealed that older elementary students included more indicators of stereotypical images in the= ir illustrations than did five- to seven-year-olds, suggesting that by fourth = and fifth grades students already have formed their views of who a scientist is. Unfortunately, there is evidence that students’ job preferences and career aspirations are strongly linked to their images of particular occupations (Gottfredson, 198= 1) and students often categorize occupations based on gender (Gettys and Cann, 1981). Clearly, career stereotyping may limit individuals’ careers considerations.

Measuring Students’ Ideas about Scientists

With any science concept, teachers must be able to assess students’ knowle= dge of that concept; the same is true with knowledge of the human side of science. For many years, vers= ions of the Draw-A-Scientist Test (DAST) have been recommended for assessing stu= dents’ attitudes about scientists (Barman, 1996, 1997, 1999; Chambers, 1983; Finso= n et al (1995) and Mason et al (1991). In its most basic form, students are asked simply to draw a scientis= t.

Teachers and researchers alike have relied on these single drawings to make inferenc= es about what students think about scientists and their work. There are two problems with the traditional DAST; students are asked to draw only one image and that may no= t be reflective of the range of views they possess and the standard interpretive rubric fails to provide as much rich information as might be forthcoming fr= om a more intense examination of the student drawings.

We would like to suggest several modifications to DAST that greatly enhance the information that can be derived from the instrument without making it more difficult to administer. These modifications have resulted in the development of a new version of this cla= ssic instrument, the E-DAST or Enhanced Draw-A-Scientist-Test.

E-DAST: Making Multiple Drawings

With E-DAST we have incorporated a multiple drawing task to gain a wider vide of what students really know about scientists. The traditional DAST is limited be= cause students are given only one opportunity to represent their image. Most of us, if asked to draw only = one image of a scientist, are like= ly to draw a stereotypical image to get the point across even thought we fully understand the limitations of that drawing. With E-DAST, if a student draws scientists of differing ethnicities, of both genders doing work in a variet= y of settings it is reasonable to assume that they have a sufficiently robust vi= ew of the work of science and the true nature of who can be a scientist. On the other hand, if a student dr= aws the same image three times, there is good reason to believe that it is the = only view they possess.

E-DAST: Administration

Teachers can apply and evaluate E-DAST in their classroom to gather the clearest picture of how students may be thinking ab= out the human endeavor of science.

1. Give students a piece of legal sized white paper and ask them to fold it into th= ree equal parts.

2. Instruct students to place the paper with only one box showing

3. Read the following directions to students: Imagine that tomorrow you are goin= g on a trip (anywhere) to visit a scientist in a place where the scientist is working right now. Draw the scientist busy with the work this scientist doe= s. Add a caption which tells what this scientist might be saying to you about = the work you are watching the scientist do. Instruct them to draw a picture= of a scientist in the one box in front of them.

4. Monitor the class to ensure students draw in only one box and are working independe= ntly

5. When the students are finished, instruct them to unfold the paper and draw two m= ore scientists using the directions previously described. It is important that students do n= ot know in advance that they will be asked to make multiple drawings.

Research Goals=

There were two overarch= ing goals for this study:

1)&n= bsp; How valid is the established version of DAST in which students’ views are represented by a single drawing? In other words, how often is the F= IRST drawing of a scientist a reliable indicator of future drawings made by the = same student?

2)&n= bsp; What kind of additional information about students’ perceptions of scientists can be extracted from that typica= lly shown with DAST with the application of a rubric targeting students’ views of the activity, location and appearance of the scientist? &= nbsp;

To address the first go= al, we asked a random sample of third grade students (57 males and 49 females) = to complete the E-DAST. Individu= al students made three drawings of scientists (but did not know that they woul= d be asked to draw more than one). Twenty-five out of 106 drawings were consiste= nt across all three categories. This data demonstrates that if we were to make assumptions ab= out what students’ think of scientists from a single drawing, we would be correct only 24% of the time. In 76% of cases, the students’ first drawing is not their only perception of a scientist. This suggests that the traditional DAST protocol produces a reliable result only 24% of the time, = an unacceptably low value.

To address the second goal, students’ drawin= gs were scored by the DAST Rubric. Farland (2003) proposed that more informati= on could be extracted even from the traditional DAST if students’ drawin= gs were evaluated with respect to what they wore (APPEARANCE), where they work= ed (LOCATION), and what they were doing (ACTIVITY) of the scientist illustrate= d. The DAST Rubric applied to evaluat= e the three domains is provided in Table 1.

The following pictures demonstrate the range of perceptions students may hold about scientists and is included for evidence that the first picture a child draws may not contain all their feelings and= /or perceptions of scientists.

= Figure 1a &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Figure 1b &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Figure 1c

Figures 1a-1c: One st= udent drawing of three scientists (Female, age 11)

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:200%'>The images in Figure 1 were all= drawn by the same student and may be used to illustrate several advantages of E-DAST. The male scientist in= 1a is the first attempt at drawing a scientist by this student. This is a good example of how making multiple drawings enables us to see that this individ= ual does see that females (1c) can do science.= If we only had a single drawing we would have reached the typical fa= lse conclusion that most students believe that only males can engage in scienti= fic activities.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:200%'> &n= bsp; Figure 1 also demonstrates how to evaluate issues of APPEARANCE, LOCATION and ACTI= VITY by using the rubric. In APPEA= RANCE, Figure 1a scores a 2 for traditional, it scores a 2 because of the LOCATION= in a lab setting, and a 2 for the naïve ACTIVITY. However, look at the lightening bo= lts in the second picture that score a 1 on the rubric for a sensationalized LOCAT= ION. If we only looked at the first picture we would not know that this student still harbored some sort of sensationalized association about the LOCATION = of scientists.

= Figure 2a &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Figure 2b &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Figure 2c

Figures 2a-2c: A stud= ent drawing of three scientists. Female, Age 10.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:200%'> &n= bsp; Figure 2a shows a non-stereotypical female in a traditional lab setting. The next drawing (2b) shows a sensationalized man who has tied down a dog and a cat = to two tables and is checking their brains. In figure 2c the student illustrat= es a woman working outdoors with a rocket, very non-stereotypical.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:200%'> &n= bsp; Using the rubric in Table 1, the APPEARANCE rates a 3, 1, 3; LOCATION a 2, 1, 3 a= nd ACTIVITY a 2, 1, 2 for each o= f the three drawing respectively. T= his student clearly does not make the same drawing each time thus helping to validate the strategy of having students make multiple illustrations before concluding just how much a given individual knows about the nature of scientists.

Conclusions and Implications

Science instruction must be exp= anded to include the human dimensions of science. One of the most important of these dimensions relates to the nature of the scientist as an individual. Use of the E-DAST will enable teac= hers to evaluate students’ perceptions both in depth (by having them draw multiple scientists) and in complexity (by using the rubric to examine the = appearance of the scientist, location of the scientists’= work and nature of the activity of<= span style=3D'mso-bidi-font-weight:bold'> the scientist illustrated. E-DAST will enable teachers to exa= mine students’ stereotypical views far more completely than has been possi= ble previously. This knowledge wi= ll assist educators in sampling examining preconceptions, for use in pre-instruction and post-instruction measures of teaching effectiveness and= , of course, in inspiring evidence-based conversations with students about their conceptions and how valid those perceptions are.

References

Barman, C. R. (1997). Students’ views of scientists and science: Results from a national st= udy. Science and Children, 35(1), 18= -23.

Bodzin, A. & Gehringer,= M. (2001). Breaking science stereotypes. Science and Children, 38(4), 36-41.

Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw-a-scientist test. Science Education, 67(2), 255-265.=

Farland, D. (2003). Modified draw-a-scientist test. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Massa= chusetts, Lowell.

<= o:p>

Finson, K.D. (2002). Drawin= g a scientist: What we do and do not know after fifty years of drawings. School Science and Mathematics, 102(7), 335-346.

Finson, K. D., Beaver, J. B= ., & Cramond, B. L. (1995). Development and field test of a checklist for = the draw-a-scientist test. School Scien= ce and Mathematics, 95(4), 195-205.

F= ort, D.C. & Varney, H. L. (1989). How students see scientists: Mostly male, mostly white, mostly benevolent. Sc= ience and Children, 26, 8-13.

<= o:p>

G= ettys, L. & Cann, A. (1981). Children’s perceptions of occupational sex stereotypes. Sex Roles, 7, 301-308.

<= o:p>

G= ottfredson , L.S. (1981). Circumscription & Compromise: A Developmental Theory of Occupational Aspirations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28 (6), 545-579.
<= o:p>

Mason, C. L., Kahle, J. B. = & Gardner, A. L. (1991). Draw-a-scientist test: Future implications. School Science and Mathematics, 91= (5), 193-198.

Mead, M. & Metraux, R. (1957). Image of the scientist among high school students. Science, 126, 384-390.

Moseley, C. & Norris, D. (1999). Preservice teachers’ views of scientists. Science and Children, 37(1), 50-53.

= National Academy of Science, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medici= ne: Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21^st century (2006). Rising Above the Gathering = Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. Washington, = DC: National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National = Academy Press. <= /p>

National Science Board (198= 6). Task committee on undergraduate scienc= e and engineering education:Undergraduate science, mathematics and engineering education. Washington, D.C.

National Science Foundation (2000). Representation in science and engineering: In women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Washington, DC.

Roach, L.E. & Wandersee= , J.H. (1993). Short story science: Using historical vignettes as a teaching tool.= Science Teacher, 60 (6) 18-21.

Schibeci, R. A. & Soren= sen, I. (1983). Elementary school children’s perce= ptions of scientists. School Science and Mathematics, 83(1), 14-20.

Smith, W.S. & Erb, T. O. (1986). Effect of women science career role models of early adolescentsR= 17; attitudes toward scientists & women in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 667-76.

<= /o:p>

TABLE 1: The DRAW-A-SCIENTIST RUBRIC. = Award points for each category by circling appropriate boxes.

                    =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;

At= tribute

Se= nsationalized

Tr= aditional

Broader than Traditional

Can’t be categorized

Examples

APPEARANCE

Male or female who resembles a monster, or who has clearly geeky appearance (example: crazy hair, odd appearance, cape).

Standard looking wh= ite male or standard looking scientist unable to determine gender. This scientist clearly lacks any references that are bizarre (Example:=

humpback).

Female, person of d= ifferent ethnicity, or two or more scientists.

No Scientist

Historical Figure

Reflects teacher or= student

Difficult to discer= n

Score

       &nbs= p;           1

             2

       &nbs= p;      3

       &nbs= p;    0

LOCATION

Resembles a basemen= t, cave or setting of secrecy and/or horror. Often elaborate, with equipment not normally found in a laboratory (example: bubbling beakers).

Traditional lab set= ting-a table with equipment in a normal looking room (Example: beakers without bubbles).

Anywhere other than= a traditional lab setting.

Difficult to discer= n

Score

       &nbs= p;           1

       &nbs= p;     2

       &nbs= p;      3

       &nbs= p;   0

ACTIVITY

With support

from caption)<= /o:p>

The scientist’= ;s work is either magical or destructive, or embellishes the drawing with a story= line that is about spying, stealing, killing or scaring. Often science done unrealistically under hazardous conditions (example: destructive, toxic, potions, or explosives).

“The scientis= t is studying or is trying to….” But does not show how the scientist is studying or researching. Student sees the scientist invo= lved in work miraculous in nature (naïve on the part of the student), = not destructive.

“The scientist is studying&= #8230;” and the caption or drawing shows HOW the scientist is doing this. Indicat= es that the student is portraying the type of work that a scientist might actually do with the tools needed.

No answer to questi= on #4

Difficult to discer= n

Score

       &nbs= p;           1

       &nbs= p;    2

       &nbs= p;     3

       &nbs= p;    0

<= o:p>

At= tribute	Se= nsationalized	Tr= aditional	Broader than Traditional	Can’t be categorized Examples
APPEARANCE	Male or female who resembles a monster, or who has clearly geeky appearance (example: crazy hair, odd appearance, cape).	Standard looking wh= ite male or standard looking scientist unable to determine gender. This scientist clearly lacks any references that are bizarre (Example:= humpback).	Female, person of d= ifferent ethnicity, or two or more scientists.	No Scientist Historical Figure Reflects teacher or= student Difficult to discer= n
Score	&nbs= p; 1	2	&nbs= p; 3	&nbs= p; 0
LOCATION	Resembles a basemen= t, cave or setting of secrecy and/or horror. Often elaborate, with equipment not normally found in a laboratory (example: bubbling beakers).	Traditional lab set= ting-a table with equipment in a normal looking room (Example: beakers without bubbles).	Anywhere other than= a traditional lab setting.	Difficult to discer= n
Score	&nbs= p; 1	&nbs= p; 2	&nbs= p; 3	&nbs= p; 0
ACTIVITY With support from caption)<= /o:p>	The scientist’= ;s work is either magical or destructive, or embellishes the drawing with a story= line that is about spying, stealing, killing or scaring. Often science done unrealistically under hazardous conditions (example: destructive, toxic, potions, or explosives).	“The scientis= t is studying or is trying to….” But does not show how the scientist is studying or researching. Student sees the scientist invo= lved in work miraculous in nature (naïve on the part of the student), = not destructive.	“The scientist is studying&= #8230;” and the caption or drawing shows HOW the scientist is doing this. Indicat= es that the student is portraying the type of work that a scientist might actually do with the tools needed.	No answer to questi= on #4 Difficult to discer= n
Score	&nbs= p; 1	&nbs= p; 2	&nbs= p; 3	&nbs= p; 0