What goes well with physics? Measuring and altering the image of science

British Journal of Educational Psychology

Volumn 76, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 761-780

  Kessels, Ursula ^a   Rau, Melanie ^a   Hannover, Bettina ^a  

^a FREIE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; EDUCATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; PERSONALITY TEST; PHYSICS; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; SEX DIFFERENCE; STUDENT;

ADULT; ATTITUDE; FEMALE; HUMANS; LEARNING; MALE; PHYSICS; SEX FACTORS; STUDENTS; WORD ASSOCIATION TESTS;

EID: 33845532463     PISSN: 00070998     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1348/000709905X59961     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Banaji, M. R., Lemm, K. M., & Carpenter, S. J. (2001). The social unconscious. In A. Tesser & N. Schwartz (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology. Intraindividual processes (pp. 134-158). Oxford: Blackwell.
2. Blair, I. V., Ma, J. E., & Lenton, A. P. (2001). Imagining stereotypes away: The moderation of implicit stereotypes through mental imagery. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 828-841.
3. Boscolo, P., & Mason, L. (2001). Writing to learn, writing to transfer. In P. Tynjälä, L. Mason, & K. Lonka (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool. Integrating theory and practise (pp. 83-104). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
4. Breakwell, G. M., Vignoles, V. L., & Robertson, T. (2003). Stereotypes and cross-category evaluations: The case of gender and science education. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 437-455.
5. Chambliss, H. O., Finley, C. E., & Blair, S. N. (2004). Attitudes toward obese individuals among exercise science students. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 36(3), 468-474.
6. Chen, M., & Bargh, J. A. (1997). Nonconscious behavioral confirmation processes: The self-fulfilling consequences of automatic stereotype activation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 541-560.
7. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
8. Dasgupta, N., & Greenwald, A. G. (2001). On the malleability of automatic attitudes: Combating automatic prejudice with images of admired and disliked individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81, 800-814.
9. Dorn, F., & Bader, F. (1989). Dorn-Bader Physik Oberstufe [Dorn-Bader physics]. Hannover, Germany: Schroedel.
10. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's image of science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
11. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
12. Duckworth, D., & Entwisle, N. J. (1974). Attitudes to school subjects: A repertory grid technique. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 44, 76-83.
13. Eccles, J. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In J. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 75-146). San Francisco: Freeman.
14. Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1989). Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 543-558.
15. Fazio, R. H., Jackson, J. R., Dunton, B. C., & Williams, C. J. (1995). Variability in automatic activation as an unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes: A bona fide pipeline? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1013-1027.
16. Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4-27.
17. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1481.
18. Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197-216.
19. Hamilton, D. L. (1981). Stereotyping and intergroup behavior: Some thoughts on the cognitive approach. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 333-353). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Hannover, B., & Kessels, U. (2002). Challenge the science-stereotype! Der Einfluss von Technikfreizeitkursen auf das Naturwissenschaften - Stereotyp von Schülerinnen und Schülern [Challenge the science-stereotype! The influence of optional science courses on student's science stereotypes]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 43, 341-358.
21. Hannover, B., & Kessels, U. (2004). Self-to-prototype matching as a strategy for making academic choices. Why German high school students do not like math and science. Learning and Instruction, 14(1), 51-67.
22. Havighurst, R. J. (1972). Developmental tasks and education. New York: McKay.
23. Hendley, D., Parkinson, J., Tanner, H., & Stables, A. (1995). Gender differences in pupil attitudes to the national curriculum foundation subjects of English, mathematics, science and technology in key stage 3 in South Wales. Educational Studies, 21(1), 85-97.
24. Higgins, E. T., & King, G. (1981). Accessibility of social constructs: Information processing consequences of individual and contextual variability. In N. Cantor & J. F. Kihlstrom (Eds.), Personality, cognition and social interaction (pp. 69-121). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. Hoffmann, L., Häußler, P., & Peters-Haft, S. (1997). An den Interessen von Mädchen und Jungen orientierter Physikunterricht [A physics curriculum addressing the interests of boys and girls]. Kiel: IPN.
26. Johnson, R., Brooker, C., Stutzman, J., Hultman, D., & Johnson, D. W. (1985). The effects of controversy, concurrence seeking and individualistic learning on achievement and attitude change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22-3, 197-205.
27. Kardash, C. M., & Scholes, R. J. (1996). Effects of preexisting beliefs and need for cognition on interpretation of controversial issues. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(2), 260-271.
28. Kessels, U. (2005). Fitting into the stereotype: How gender-stereotyped perceptions of prototypic peers relate to liking for school subjects. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20(3), 309-323.
29. Kessels, U., & Hannover, B. (2004). Empfundene Selbstnaehe als Mediator zwischen Faehigkeitsselbstkonzept und Leistungskurswahlintentionen [Self-closeness: A mediator between self-concept of ability and subject major course selection intentions]. Zeitschrift fuer Entwicklungspsychologie und Paedagogische Psychologie, 36, 130-138.
30. King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (2002). The reflective judgement model: Twenty years of research on epistemic cognition. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 37-61). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
31. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319-337.
32. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245-1260.
33. Leach, J., Millar, R., Ryder, J., Séré, M.-G., Hammelev, D., Niedderer, H., & Tselfes, V. (1998). Survey 2: Students' image of science as they relate to lab work learning (Lab Work in Science Education Working Paper No. 4). Leeds, UK: University of Leeds, Centre for Studies in Sciences and Mathematics Education.
34. Loercher, G. A., & Maier, P. H. (2000). Was erreichen Schueler und Lehrer im Fach Mathematik? Eine empirische Analyse der Realschulabschlusspruefung in Baden-Wuerttemberg [Students' and teachers' achievement in mathematics. An empirical analysis of middle school exams in Baden-Wuerttemberg]. Freiburg: Pädagogische Hochschule Freiburg, Institut für Mathematik und Informatik und ihre Didaktiken.
35. Markus, H., & Zajonc, R. B. (1985). The cognitive perspective in social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, 3rd ed., pp. 137-230). New York: Random House.
36. Marx, D. M., & Roman, J. S. (2002). Female role models: Protecting women's math test performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1183-1193.
37. Mason, L. (2001). Introducing talk and writing for conceptual change: A classroom study. Learning and Instruction, 11, 305-329.
38. Mueller, C., & Dweck, C. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children's motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 33-53.
39. Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Math = Male Me = Female, therefore Math ≠ Me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 44-59.
40. Organization for the Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2001). Knowledge and skills for life. First results from the OECD programme for international student assessment (PISA) 2000. Paris: Author.
41. Parkinson, J., Hendley, D., Tanner, H., & Stables, A. (1998). Pupils' attitudes to science in key stage 3 of the national curriculum: A study of pupils in South Wales. Research in Science and Technological Education, 16(2), 165-176.
42. Roberts, G. (2002). SET for success. The supply of people with science, technology, engineering and mathematics skills (The Report of Sir Gareth Roberts's Review). London: HM Treasury.
43. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
44. Sjoberg, S. (1988). Gender and the image of science. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 32, 49-60.
45. Steele, J. M., Walberg, H. J., & House, E. R. (1974). Subject areas and cognitive press. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(3), 363-366.
46. Stevenson, H. W. (1992, December). Learning from Asian Schools. Scientific American, 267(6), 32-38.
47. Suellwold, F. (1989). Skalierungen und Interkorrelationen lehrfachbezogener Einstellungen [Scaling and intercorrelations of attitudes about school subjects]. Zeitschrift fuer experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie, 36(1), 118-137.
48. Watson, J., Dawson, A., & McEwen, S. (1994). Sixth form A level students' perceptions of the difficulty, intellectual freedom, social benefit and interest of science and arts subjects. Research in Science and Technological Education, 12(1), 43-52.
49. Wittenbrink, B., Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (2001). Spontaneous prejudice in context: Variability in automatically activated attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholgy, 87(5), 815-827.
50. Yamamoto, K., Thomas, E. C., & Karns, E. A. (1969). School-related attitudes in middle-school age students. American Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 191-206.
51. Zwick, M. M., & Renn, O. (2000). Die Attraktivitaet von technischen und ingenieurswissenschaftlichen Faechern bei der Studien - und Berufswahl junger Frauen und Maenner [Attractiveness of technical and engineering professions for the academic and vocational choices of women and men]. Stuttgart: Akademie für Technikfolgenabschaetzung in Baden-Wuerttemberg.