Student Perceptions of Science Ability, Experiences, Expectations, and Career Choices

Isabelle D. Cherney1 & Michael G. Cherney2

1Department of Psychology and 2Department of Physics Creighton University, Omaha, NE

ABSTRACT

The decision to study physics or astronomy is affected by many factors, including preferences, motivations, and expectations for success. Differing cognitive profiles contribute to the learning of science through a complex process in which intrinsic capacities are tuned both by everyday experience and by instruction.

In an attempt to identify the developmental pathways and intrinsic factors that most strongly influence the choice to study science, we administered an extensive survey to a sample of 649 students (47 General Physics and 90 Astronomy students). The survey questions were based on Eccles et al.’s model of achievement-related choices and findings showing that previous play experiences, spatial experiences, task beliefs, as well as perceived mathematics ability, motivational and personality characteristics affect mathematics achievement and science career choices. The perceptions of students planning a science career are compared with those planning a career in other areas. Gender differences are also discussed.

INTRODUCTIONIn recent years, several reports have been issued by business, education,

and government identifying the under-representation of women in quantitatively-based occupations as an urgent issue in education and the workforce (Campbell, Jolly, Hoey, & Perman, 2002). In 2003, 17.9% of doctorates in physics were awarded to women, and 17.0% in engineering (NSF, 2004). Although these numbers represent increases of 6.6% in physics and 6.1% in engineering in the past nine years, they demonstrate the urgency of the problem. Although females graduate from high school with skills and knowledge comparable to males, few of them choose a career in quantitative fields.

From early toy choices (Etaugh, 1983), to outdoor play (Bjorklund & Brown, 1998), to frequent sports and video/computer game activities (Cherney & London, 2006), significant correlations between the amount of individuals’ spatial playtime and performance on several measures of spatial abilities has been found (Brown & Bjorklund, 1998). Because females have been shown to have fewer out-of-school spatial experiences than males (Baenninger & Newcombe, 1995), many females may never tap their potential to think spatially unless spatial thinking is specifically taught within the school curriculum. This is important because, successful problem solving often involves using visual-spatial strategies. For example, when solving calculus and advanced geometry problems, a visual-spatial strategy is more likely to yield mathematical insight than a verbal rule-based strategy.

Self-efficacy beliefs are context-specific evaluations of the capability to successfully complete a task and are formed through mastery experiences (past performance), vicarious experience, social/verbal persuasion, and interpretations of physiological and emotional states (Bandura, 1995). In general, females perceive spatial tasks as masculine and are more intimidated by them than are males (Meyer & Koehler, 1990). Males tend to have a more positive assessment of their own math abilities than do females (Caplan & Caplan, 2005). High SAT-M scorers tend to have high confidence in their math abilities and are persistent when unable to solve math problems immediately (Gallagher & DeLisi, 1994). This highlights the relevance of self-efficacy as a variable mediating sex differences in math test performance.

The connection between self-efficacy and ability is important. Students are more likely to enroll in optional math and science courses when they perceive themselves to possess high ability or feel confident in the subject matter. Thus, females might omit to choose optional math classes that in turn might lead them to have less experience with visual-spatial skills and lower self-efficacy.

METHODSPARTICIPANTS470 College students

47 General Physics students (mean age = 20.30, SD = 1.02)61.7% women (n = 29)

90 Astronomy students (mean age = 19.87, SD = 2.12)56% women (n = 51)

179 High School students

MATERIALS & PROCEDUREThe survey included questions on previous spatial and mathematics

experiences, educational background, questions regarding career choices and definitions of science, and several personality (Big 5 Personality Inventory; Personal Efficacy (locus of control), Self-esteem) and motivational (Achievement Motives; Work Preference Inventory; Tolerance for Ambiguity) inventories. Undergraduate and high school students completed the survey either on paper (N = 338) or via the web (N = 311). It took participants about one hour to complete the survey.

RESULTSInventories Males Females

M (SE) M (SE)Achievement MotivationWork (desire to work hard) 26.25 (.24) 27.04 (.15)Competitiveness (desire to win) 19.17 (.27) 16.77 (.22)

Big 5 PersonalityAgreeableness 34.52 (.37) 35.34 (.27)Conscientiousness 32.37 (.40) 33.83 (.27)Emotional Stability 30.35 (.44) 27.18 (.29)

Personal efficacy 52.52 (.48) 51.59 (.31)

Self-esteem 33.54 (.36) 32.14 (.31)

Work Preference InventoryExtrinsic Motivation 41.67 (.39) 40.66 (.25)Challenging Tasks 19.88 (.19) 19.21 (.14)Orientation toward recognition 26.22 (.30) 24.99 (.19)

Sources of IntoleranceNovelty 16.38 (.27) 15.74 (.18)

Task Beliefs 53.27 (.40) 52.04 (.27)

Spatial Index 77.38 (1.42) 62.05 (.79)

DISCUSSION•Astronomy students and General Physics students are likely self-selecting (or at the very least advisor-selecting) groups. The samples also came from a rather homogeneous group of students, with a very high percentage of students wishing to pursue a career in the health sciences. However, the groups differed in a series of motivational and personality variables. In general, General Physics students presented themselves as more self-confident than Astronomy students. General Physics students possessed a higher degree of self-motivation as well as a greater desire for external sources of recognition. They perceived that they have greater intellectual ability, in particular, in areas of quantitative reasoning. The two groups did not display perceived differences in other ability areas. In terms of personality traits, Astronomy students were somewhat more rigid in their thought patterns, but differences in personality traits were more significant when compared to high school students.•Gender differences showed the same types of variation (sources of motivation, self-confidence) although General Physics and Astronomy samples had a similar gender balance. As previous research showed, men perceived they have superior spatial abilities, a skill that has been found to mediate mathematics performance (Casey, Nuttall, & Pezaris, 1997). They also exhibited a higher degree of rigidity in their thoughts and they presented responses which indicated a more competitive orientation than their female counterparts, while women indicated a greater willingness to invest effort to succeed. These results were consistent with previous findings using different samples (e.g., Caplan & Caplan, 2005; Gallagher & DeLisi, 1994). Similarly, personal efficacy and self-esteem levels were lower for women. •Implications for the classroom include a greater need for encouragement of students in the Introductory Astronomy course. Instructors may also consider a greater emphasis on collaborative activities if they wish to make the science classroom a more comfortable environment for their women students.

Inventories General Physics Astronomy Others(Higher numbers mean more:) M (SE) M (SE) M (SE)

Achievement MotivationMastery (preference for difficult tasks) 28.38 (.53) 26.80 (.37) 26.51(.20)

Big 5 PersonalityOpenness (intellectually curious) 69.23 (1.46) 66.19 (.87) 65.44(.41)

Personal efficacy 54.25 (.94) 50.70 (.74) 51.85(.28)(internal locus of control – higher grades, more responsibility for their achievement)

Work Preference InventoryIntrinsic Motivation 43.77 (.74) 41.54 (.49) 41.98(.21)Challenging Tasks 20.49 (.34) 19.63 (.28) 19.29(.13)Enjoyment of one’s work 26.42 (.45) 25.44 (.28) 25.83(.14)Orientation toward recognition 23.96 (.67) 25.96 (.41) 25.38 (.18)Concern with compensation 16.04 (.27) 14.69 (.32) 15.71(.13)

Sources of IntoleranceNovelty (feel threatened by novelty) 14.76 (.58) 15.95 (.37) 16.02(.17)Insolubility (don’t like unsolvable problems) 10.06 (.38) 11.17 (.30) 10.81(.13)Tolerance of Ambiguity 52.60 (1.47) 56.54 (.85) 56.64 (.39)

Task Beliefs (self-concept about own ability) 55.16 (.82) 51.54 (.64) 52.32(.25)

General Physics Astronomy OtherMath is important 97.9% 60.4% 74.4%Math is important to parents 70.2% 49.5% 64.5%Math is necessary for future 98.0% 48.4% 46.1%Science is necessary for success 83.0% 57.1% 72.0%Encouragement from teacher 93.6% 56.0% 72.0%# of male teachers 6.7 4.5 3.7

Career ChoicesHealth sciences 80.9% 30.8% 42.7%Natural sciences 10.6% 00 6.2%No science 6.4% 68.1% 41.1%

Ratings (1-9 Likert scale)Ratings of map drawing 6.02 5.37 5.29Ratings of map reading ability 6.77 6.10 6.43Math ability 7.51 6.03 6.54College math ability 6.17 4.90 5.29

Scientist’s Salary Estimate $121,800 $84,400 $95,500