1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

CCC 0036-8326/99/010055-21
Intentions of Young Students to
Enroll in Science Courses in the
Future: An Examination of Gender
Differences
STEPHEN J. FARENGA, BEVERLY A. JOYCE
School of Education Dowling College, Idle Hour Boulevard, Oakdale, NY 11769-1999
Received 23 July 1996; revised 30 June 1998; accepted 8 August 1998
ABSTRACT: This study examined young students perceptions of gender-appropriate
science courses. The sample consisted of 427 students in grades 4, 5, and 6, between the
ages of 9 and 13. Students completed the Course Selection Sheet (CSS) to choose courses
for themselves and members of the opposite gender. A psychosocial framework was of-
fered to explain the differential course selection patterns between young boys and girls.
The study reveals a strong gender effect pointing toward stereotypical perceptions of se-
lected science courses for oneself (p 0.01). When students selected science courses for
the opposite gender, the evidence of gender-role stereotypes was even greater (p 0.000).
Course selection proles imply that a reciprocal relationship exists in the number and kind
of courses selected by girls and boys. A detailed analysis suggests that both boys and girls
perceive physical science and technology-related courses as appropriate subjects for boys
to study and life sciences as appropriate subjects for girls to study. Surprisingly, students
future science course selections resemble current enrollment data of masters and doctoral
candidates. The students perceptions of science are seen years prior to the actual encounter
with the science courses listed on the course selection menu. These ndings question the
auspiciousness of programs designed to ameliorate gender differences in science during
junior or senior high school years. Suggestions for school curriculum development and
the importance of informal science experiences were examined. 1999 John Wiley &
Sons, Inc. Sci Ed 83:5575, 1999.
SCIENCE COURSES: YOUNG STUDENTS FUTURE PICKS
The literature is replete with accounts of the underachievement of various groups in
mainstream education. In the examination of research reported in international studies or
government reports (e.g., A Nation at Risk, National Commission on Excellence in Edu-
cation, 1983; First Lessons, Bennett, 1986; Educating Americans for the 21st Century: A
Report to the American People and the National Science Board, National Science Board
Commission on Pre-college Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology, 1983)
one might infer that the mainstream in the U.S. culture itself is an underachieving class
Correspondence to: S. J. Farengas; e-mail: farengas@dowling.edu
56 FARENGA AND JOYCE
when compared with the mainstream of other countries (National Center for Education
Statistics [NCES], 1997a, 1997b). With the constant bombardment of reports of educa-
tional decline, it is urgent that science educators be aware of the early evidence of stere-
otypic attitudes regarding courses of study.
Most studies of science enrollment patterns generally begin in high school (Czujko &
Bernstein, 1989; Mullins & Jenkins, 1988; NCES, 1997a, 1997b; Nelson, Weiss, & Cap-
per, 1990). The proles reveal that biology is favored by girls and physics is favored by
boys, and these patterns appear to persist through college and graduate school. National
statistics indicate that more male college-bound seniors intend to major in physical sciences
and computer sciences, whereas females favor biology (College-Bound Seniors, 1997). At
the graduate level, male masters and doctoral candidates are much more likely to pursue
degrees in the physical sciences than are female candidates (NCES, 1997b).
In terms of science achievement, no notable gender difference appears until age 11
(NCES, 1997a). Recent research indicates that the gender gap appears much earlier in
science than in mathematics (Hanson, 1996). Lower science scores for girls are evident in
grade 7, whereas gender discrepancies in mathematics are not seen until grade 10.
However, in the past, little research has focused on young students perceptions of
gender-appropriate science courses (Baker, 1990; Farenga, 1995). Research of early in-
terest in science (Brandwein, 1951; Roe, 1952; Walberg, 1991; Zim, 1941), perception of
science courses (Baker, 1990; Chambers, 1983; Ormerod, 1975; Walberg, 1967), and
gender-role stereotyping (Eccles, 1985; Eccles, Adler, & Kaczala, 1982; Reis & Callahan,
1989; Sadker & Sadker, 1985) have all been cited as inuential factors of gender differ-
ences in science.
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN PSYCHOSOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Socialization Process
The early experiences of children have been documented as extremely important to their
later development. An example of the importance of early intervention strategies is evi-
denced by the concept of the Headstart (Soar & Soar, 1972). Headstart was designed to
increase achievement of socially disadvantaged children by providing an enriched envi-
ronment.
The importance of gender-role formation and its inuence on educational and vocational
choices have been investigated by Bem (1981), Eccles (1985), Fox and Cohn (1980),
Hollinger (1991), and Nash (1979). Each of these investigators paid special attention to
the way gender-role socialization may affect girls educational and occupational choices.
The research indicates that certain childhood experiences may have an inuence on the
formation of future personality traits. In turn, these early experiences foster the develop-
ment of attributes that are theorized to be better suited to the pursuit of interest and achieve-
ment in science.
It has been suggested that, through the interaction of the socialization processes and
environmental inuences, gender differences in course taking occur in science and math-
ematics (Eccles, 1985, 1989). This may be the direct result of the gender-role socialization
process. Research indicates that differences in the socialization process of young children
appear to favor young boys achievement, interest, and attitude toward science (Kahle,
1990). Johnston (1984) observed:
Boys and girls enter school science classrooms with different past experiences, interest,
different attitudes, and different expectations. This indicates the teachers cannot dismiss
INTENTIONS OF YOUNG STUDENTS 57
the problems of girls under-achieving in science by treating boys and girls identically
. . . . The science classroom and curriculum are designed to build on the foundation of
interest, experiences, and attitudes that is present for one sex but not present for the other.
Treating boys and girls identically in school can only accentuate rather than diminish the
existing differences. (p. 22)
Interaction and Socialization
The importance of examining different patterns of socialization, interaction, and inter-
personal experiences has been cited in numerous studies (Archer & Lloyd, 1982; Bem,
1981; Block, 1983; Culp, Crook, & Housley, 1983; Markus & Oyserman, 1989; Smith &
Lloyd, 1978). All of these studies identify how parents of young children handle and treat
children differently based on the gender of the child. Interestingly, mothers reacted dif-
ferently to the same baby depending upon whether it was presented as a boy or a girl.
Culp et al. (1983) noted that these mothers were not conscious that they handled babies
in the laboratory in a different manner then they reported handling their own babies.
The nding that mothers in the studies are unaware of their actions highlights the im-
portance of the process of unconscious socialization (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). These early
experiences of boys and girls aid in the construction of the concept of self and result in
different types of thought processes or schemata that are different in content and form for
women and men (Bem, 1981; Markus & Oyserman, 1989; Neisser, 1976). Hollinger (1991)
states, of all the existing barriers, sex-role socializations impact on the childs developing
self-belief system is the most pervasive and limiting (p. 136).
Bakker (1990) has shown that certain behaviors stimulate specic areas of the brain,
causing increased acquisition of knowledge. A question that arises is whether certain be-
haviors shape cognitive style and to what degree it is mutable. Is the brain a dependent
variable, whereby long-term exposure to a variety of early experiences develops the brain
to be more receptive and to create a positive perception of certain types of learning?
Theories of Gender-Role Identication
Gender-Role Identication. Psychologists and sociologists have proposed various the-
ories to account for how a child learns appropriate gender-roles. These theories stress
differences in the importance of people and objects in the childs environment. It is evident
that the theorists disagree on the mechanics of the socialization process. However, it is
documented that children associate with their appropriate gender label by age 3 (Hudson,
1983; Kagan, 1969). By preschool, students associate themselves with their appropriate
gender and are aware of the appropriate behavior patterns, play preferences, and psycho-
logical characteristics expected of them (Guttentag & Bray, 1976; Kohlberg, 1966, 1978).
Even though a specic cause has not been determined in the literature, it is clear that, by
age 6 or 7, children can identify specic gender-role denitions. It is also apparent
that the interest and attitudes of young girls and boys begin to diverge dramatically at
this time.
Models of Gender-Role Learning. There are basically three types of models that explain
gender-role learning. The rst are psychoanalytical in nature. Freudian-based, they suggest
that a child develops an emotional attachment to, and a desire to be like the same-gender
parent (Chodorow, 1978; Dinnerstein, 1977; Erikson, 1963; Freud, 1925; Winnicott,
1965). The second are those of the social learning theorists. According to social learning
58 FARENGA AND JOYCE
theory, the child learns the appropriate gender role through a system of reinforcements.
Signicant people in the childs life reward gender-appropriate behavior and punish for
gender-inappropriate behavior (Mischel, 1966). The third are those of the cognitive de-
velopment theorists. They stress that the child conceptualizes the gender-role category and
then tries to mold his or her social behavior to match it (Kohlberg, 1969; Piaget, 1950,
1970).
Object Relations Account of Personal Development. The theory of object relations
and its account of personal development is psychoanalytic in nature. Object relations theory
takes the position of emphasizing the importance of society and culture in personality and
development. Object relations theorists explain development as a procession of stages that
allow the child to experience and satisfy erotogenic zones as a result of social interactions.
Infants are sexual but do not naturally seek the release of tension fromphysiological drives.
Rather, the infant is presumed to manipulate and transform the drive in the course of
attaining and retaining relationships with objects in the environment. Thus, satisfaction is
achieved through a process of transference and transformation to an object in the environ-
ment.
The theory of object relations is used to provide a possible explanation that ones attitude
toward science is the result of the socialization process and its interaction with the envi-
ronment. Science in our society is predominantly a male-oriented endeavor. The manner
in which science is presented is more congruent with the gender-role socialization process
of boys. Boys, more so than girls, have an inclination toward science-like activities that
involve the manipulation of external objects in the environment.
Klein (1932) suggested the importance of the childs relationship with objects in the
immediate environment as a basis for personality development. Klein explained that ob-
jects are representations, created by the individual, which are usually of people, institutions,
or things. Klein believed that the personality is formed by the manner in which the indi-
vidual relates with the objects. Key to the concept of object relations is the process of
transference and countertransference, where the individuals transform drives in the process
of relating to their internal and external environments.
Science is a construct in the world that is constantly presented to the child. The child
is a natural scientist asking questions to seek answers to his or her natural world. The
childs attitude toward science may be affected by the manner in which science is converted
to an object and the reality that is created by the child to interpret that object. The child
must convert science into an object that he or she then manipulates to gain insight. The
nature of the object and the relationship to it will depend on the interaction of the nurturing
process and on the forms in which science-related experiences are presented to the child.
The research of Winnicott (1965) and Chodorow (1974) refers to earlier work by
Klein (1932), but both emerge with a different end goal for the process of personality
formation.
Winnicotts Theory. Winnicott (1965) reviewed the work of Klein, but added that it is
the goal of the infant to separate out of total dependence on its primary caretaker to become
an autonomous adult able to relate to the world. The task of the caretaker is to provide the
necessary nourishment, to present the world, and to help the child avoid stress. The last
two tasks require a delicate balance that enables separation, but offers adaptive care until
the child is able, progressively, to take over functions for himself or herself. The impor-
tance of how girls and boys are connected with the world in different ways has been
INTENTIONS OF YOUNG STUDENTS 59
discussed by Chodorow (1976, 1989), Erikson (1968), and Gilligan (1982). The concept
of connectedness that is formed during the socialization process is used to explain why
girls perceive science in a different manner than boys do. Harding (1986) applied Cho-
dorows explanation for connectedness to explain possible differences in science achieve-
ment between genders.
Chodorows Theory. Chodorows (1978) theory of the Reproduction of Mothering
has been cited in numerous studies to explain gender differences in personality develop-
ment as a plausible cause of female avoidance of science (e.g., Gilligan, 1982; Harding,
1986). Chodorow suggested that the manner in which child rearing is practiced in the West
affects the attributes of both genders. Like Winnicott (1965), Chodorow theorized that it
is the primary task of the child to develop autonomy, and that process and its inherent
problems are different for males and females.
Key to Chodorows theory is the process of identication with the same-gender parent.
Although both males and females identify with their mothers as the primary caretaker,
males have an easier transition to autonomy. She stressed the differing aspects of devel-
opment that result from differing patterns of parenting between genders. Men and women
foster differing relational capacities and intrapsychic structures caused by their asymmet-
rical orientations to parenting.
The childs early experiences from parenting must be internalized and transformed by
the child through unconscious processes that come to inuence the psychic structures.
Internalization does not translate to a direct transmission of what the child is actually
experiencing in his or her social world. Social experiences evolve into a variety of psy-
chological meanings depending on the childs sense of ease helplessness, dependence,
overwhelming love, conict, and fear (Chodorow, 1978, p. 50).
Chodorow (1978, 1989) suggested that the concepts of connectedness for girls and
separateness for males are developed from the identication process. A girls view of
connectedness is formed by way of gender similarity to her mother. Boys, being dissimilar
to their mothers, sever the close link and begin the task of learning separateness. Differ-
ential parenting causes the creation of two worlds one domestic and the other public
each unequal in value and each dominated by a different gender. Chodorow (1978) ex-
plained that the cause is due to the process of mothering:
Womens mothering is also a crucial link between the contemporary organization of
gender and the organization of production. It produces men with personality characteristics
and psychic structures appropriate to participation in the capitalist work world . . .
Assumptions that the social organization of parenting is natural and proper (that womens
child care is indistinguishable from childbearing, that women are for biological reasons
better parents than men, moral arguments that women ought to mother) have continued to
serve as grounds for arguments against most changes in the social organizations of gender.
(p. 219)
Connectiveness and Socialization. For the young female, the socialization processes
that occur because of gender similarity to their mothers creates a greater sense of con-
nectedness and relationship to the world. Contrarily, it is at this juncture that boys learn
autonomy and separation (Keller, 1986). It has been theorized that autonomy and sepa-
ration that occur as a result of the socialization process develop the necessary qualities of
object reasoning and objectivity (Birke, 1986; Chodorow, 1978; Keller, 1986). However,
60 FARENGA AND JOYCE
unjustied, our society has an image of a scientist separated from the world, unengaged
in order to make impartial evaluations. Birke (1986) stated:
. . . that these ideas are important because they locate the origins of womens exclusion
from science in early development, in cultural patterns by which gender identity is learnt
within family. The problems related to women in relation to science, then, are not relatively
trivial ones such as discrimination, but lie deep in the sexual divisions of society itself.
As long as women are responsible for child rearing, girls will grow up with a greater sense
of embeddedness than boys, and will thus be more likely to be alienated from the ab-
stractness of science. (pp. 189190)
Personality Traits of Scientists
Support for the implications that are suggested in the theoretical tenets of Chodorows
personality theory are maintained by the studies of Chambers (1983), Harding (1986),
MacCurdy (1954), McCurdy (1960), Roe (1952), Stein (1956), and Yoder (1894). Each
of these studies established personality traits that identied scientists preferences for sol-
itary activities, independence of thought, self-acceptance, strong achievement motivation,
curiosity about causality in relationship to natural phenomena, and the desire to be partic-
ipators in activities. Results of past studies (McCurdy, 1960; Roe, 1952; Yoder, 1894)
suggested that differences in adult personality traits may be related to early childhood
experiences. Harding (1986) reported that:
. . . personality studies of a variety of levels of scientist suggest that a science object
which is reliable and immutable which enables control (both tangibly and intellectually)
and which may be pursued in a detached, emotionless way is created and used by indi-
viduals for whom nurturing has been decient in emotional supportand these form a
majority of the scientist. (p. 165)
Early Interest in Science
Early studies by Zim (1941), Brandwein (1951), and Roe (1952) examined the impor-
tance of the relationship between early arousal of interest in science and the selection and
training of future scientists. Thompson and McCurdys (1957) study of science fair par-
ticipants revealed that 69% of the winners had an interest in science prior to their 13th
birthday. Moore (1962) and Perrodin (1966) identied various ages related to science
interest. Reported critical ages of interest were 10, 12, 13, and 14, all centered around
adolescence. In support of these ndings, a recent survey of 1400 scientists indicated that
61% became interested in science before the age of 10 (Bayer/NSF, 1997).
An early study by Mau (1912) suggested different interests exist between genders toward
science, beginning in childhood. Girls report participating in more biological science ac-
tivities, whereas males denitely prefer to partake in more physical science activities.
Biological activities included collecting owers and bird watching. Physical science ac-
tivities included experimenting with a chemistry set, working out inventions, using electric
kits to build train and race car sets, Lego, and basic tinkering activities. A study by Rich-
ardson (1971) indicated a strong presence of gender-differentiated interests. The study
suggests that scientic curiosity and interest in mechanical synthesis and analysis are
greater in males than females during adolescence.
It is evident that boys and girls out-of-school science-related experiences are quite
INTENTIONS OF YOUNG STUDENTS 61
different by the time that they reach school and while in school (Farenga & Joyce, 1997a,
1997b; Kahle & Lakes, 1983). The research indicates that young boys and girls are so-
cialized in ways that foster interest in different science-related activities (Koelsche &
Newberry, 1971; Rallinson, 1943). These studies suggest that interest in the physical sci-
ences appears earlier than it does in the other sciences and that it involves activities such
as tinkering with objects or investigating physical phenomena.
Perception of Science Courses
Studies of students perceptions of science suggest that males and females have distinct
differences in the type of science they choose to experience (Baker, 1990; Farenga, 1995;
Shroyer, Powell, & Backe, 1991; Walberg, 1967). Studies of subject preferences of males
and females found that certain subjects are perceived as masculine or feminine by ele-
mentary school students even as early as kindergarten (Baker, 1990; Farenga, 1995; Or-
merod, 1975; Shroyer, Powell, & Backe, 1991). Subjects such as mathematics, physics,
and chemistry are considered masculine, whereas subjects such as biology, language, and
art are perceived as feminine. A similar nding was identied by Weinreich-Haste (1981),
except that boys perceived biology as masculine and girls perceived it as neutral.
Steinkamp and Maehr (1983) found that girls prefer life science and boys prefer physical
science. Suchner and Barrington (1980) reported that students have greater knowledge
bases of topics in science that follow traditional gender roles. They suggested that girls
know more about nutrition, child development, and health-related topics, whereas boys
know more about applied sciences. Together, these studies adumbrate the effect of specic
interests on ones cognitive development.
Furthermore, students not only perceive science as a masculine subject, they perceive
scientists as predominantly male (Mason, 1986; Mead & Metraux, 1952). Chambers
(1983) study highlighted the gender-role stereotype young children have of science as a
male domain. Chambers selected 4807 students in grades kindergarten through 5 to draw
a picture of a scientist. Upon review of the drawings, only 28 were perceived as female
scientists, and all were drawn by girls. The perception of science as a masculine endeavor
appears to form at a young age. If science is so strongly perceived as stereotypically
masculine, the appropriate feminine gender role would be one of avoidance.
The greatest gender-related differences in the study of science begin during the middle
school years. This is also the time when a young adolescent girl is most concerned with
her feminine development. If feminine values and science are diametrically in opposition,
the expected societal roles may cause a swing from science. As a result, the study of
science may be eliminated because it does not t well with ones gender-role schema
(Eccles, 1985).
Perception of Course Difculty
Duckworth and Entwistle (1974) examined the perceived difculty among the subjects
of biology, chemistry, and physics. Both girls and boys reported that biology is easier and
that the most demanding subject is physics. Hudson (1963) and Stronk (1974) found that
students who tend to study physics score higher on intelligence tests and are higher achiev-
ers in school.
Research suggests that physics and chemistry are considered among the most challeng-
ing school subjects (Edwards & Wilson, 1958; Soy, 1967; Stronk, 1974). It has been
suggested that the noted difculty of high school physics is the cause of falling enrollments
62 FARENGA AND JOYCE
(Walberg & Ahlgren, 1973). A similar nding reveals that elementary school teachers
believe that physical science is a most difcult subject (Behnke, 1959; Ramsay & Howe,
1969; Schirner, 1968). Stronk (1974) reported that, even among high achieving students,
physics is perceived to be the most difcult subject, followed closely by chemistry.
Several reasons have been cited for the relative difculty of the physical sciences: the
mismatch of content with students cognitive ability (Flowers, 1967); poor psychological
ordering of material (Ormerod, 1975); lack of horizontal alignment of mathematics skills
and science curriculum (Crofts, 1971); and difculty due to technical language (Lemke,
1990; Ramsey & Howe, 1969).
Many studies have suggested that the content of physical science is inappropriate for
the mental age of the student. It seems that students may not be able to conceptually
formulate abstract theoretical problems (Flowers, 1967; Wells, 1971; Wright, 1974).
Gagne and White (1978) argued that the syllabi should conform to the psychological
ordering rather than that of adult logic. Gagnes task analysis provides a scaffold to arrange
content horizontally and vertically into a hierarchy of principles, concepts, and skills.
Additional studies indicated that problems in the physical sciences stem from students
difculty with mathematics. Thus the difculty with mathematics seems to act as an
adverse factor in childrens attitude to the study of physical sciences (Ormerod & Duck-
worth, 1975, p. 32). Although students perceive the sciences as difcult, gradations of
difculty exist among the disciplines of science.
Attraction to Biology. The prole of a student who selects biology is of one who tends
to be more verbal, less mathematical, has the lowest level of school achievement among
the students selecting science, is more socially concerned, and is more person-oriented
(Stronk, 1974).
Research indicates that girls of all ability levels are more person-oriented than boys
(Chodorow, 1976; Fox & Denham, 1974; Gilligan, 1982; Harding, 1986; Walberg, 1969).
Smithers and Collings (1984) suggested that female scientists are more person-oriented
than are males who select to enroll in the arts. Kelly (1988) noted that a girls choice to
study biology may be a compromise with societal expectations. Some girls possess the
ability to do well in the physical sciences, but may select courses with a more relevant
social value. Haley-Oliphant (1985) reported that, in a British study, students identied
physics, chemistry, and mathematics as masculine endeavors, whereas biology was con-
sidered masculine by boys, but perceived as neutral by girls.
The physical sciences involve working with and manipulating objects that are inanimate.
The perceived essence of the physical sciences invoke concepts of: aggressive competitive
behavior, remoteness of concern with living things, emotionless employment of the sci-
entic method, and the domination of nature (Easlea, 1986, pp. 134143).
In sum, it is the essence of physics that discourages feminine participation. Easlea (1986)
stated:
. . . there also surely exists the attraction of the masculine aura of physics: action in a
world largely uncomplicated by women, supposedly hard, rigorous method, the aggressive
attitude to nature, the strong connection with industry, above all, physics profound as-
sociation with the military represented most dramatically by the creation of weapons of
mass destruction together with their means of delivery. (p. 145)
It appears that activities of this nature are not congruent with feminine values. Feminine
INTENTIONS OF YOUNG STUDENTS 63
values and interests are better aligned with helping and studying living things. Therefore,
the study of biology and related elds become the science of choice for girls.
Gilligans (1982) interview of a young girl captures indirectly the girls disposition and
subsequent attitude toward science. Gilligan asked the girl to describe herself as a person
whom she would recognize. The young girl replied:
I want to be some kind of a scientist or something, and I want to do things, and I want to
help people. . . . And I want to do something to help other people. . . . I think that
everybody should try to help somebody else in some way, and the way Im choosing is
through science. (p. 34)
It is clear from the young girls statement that her pursuit of science is embedded in
humanistic values. The description of her actions seem to bring her in touch with the world
of which she is part. It is suggested by Chodorow (1976) that the feeling of connectedness
to the world is ingrained through the socialization process.
Hypotheses
1. Males will select signicantly more science courses than will females.
2. Males will select signicantly more physical science courses than will females.
3. Females will select signicantly more life science courses than will males.
4. Males will select signicantly more technology courses than will females.
5. When given a choice, females will select signicantly more science courses for
males than they would for themselves.
6. When given a choice, males will select signicantly fewer science courses for
females than they would for themselves.
METHOD
Subjects
The sample selected for the study consisted of 427 students between the ages of 9 and
13. The students attended two elementary schools in a predominantly white, middle class,
suburban community. The sample of 203 males and 224 females was selected from 28
classes, grades 46. All students in the study were exposed to a laboratory-based science
program as part of their regular classroom experience.
Instrument
To determine what type of subjects are of interest to boys and girls, the Course Selection
Sheet (CSS) was administered (see Appendixes A and B).
The CSS required the student to choose ve courses he or she would like to study next
year. The CSS included 24 possible choices, 12 science and 12 nonscience courses. The
students were given a place on the CSS to include the name of any additional course not
listed.
The second part of the course selection process was conducted by having the students
select courses for members of the opposite gender. Students were requested to select
courses that they thought a person other than they would enjoy. The format and course
offerings were the same as the courses the students selected for themselves in part one.
64 FARENGA AND JOYCE
Procedure
All of the CSSs were coded, and students were only requested to circle either that they
were male or female. The students exposure to curricula used in their classrooms and
their daily out-of-school experiences were considered as the treatment.
Prior to completing the CSS, the students were informed that they were taking part in
an experiment to see what courses young people preferred. Students were instructed not
to place any identifying marks on the answer sheets and to answer the questions as ac-
curately as possible.
In all grades, the directions and questions for the CSS were read aloud while students
read silently. Time was given between each question to allow students to select their
answers. Students were instructed to raise their hands if they were having difculty, re-
quired additional time, or needed any type of clarication.
The CSS had two sections to be completed. The directions for the sections were read
aloud for all grades. Students were then given time for questions. The rst section required
students to select courses for themselves.
The second section required students to select courses for someone other than them-
selves. The students were instructed that they were going to make additional course se-
lections for a member of the opposite gender. Emphasis was placed on the section of the
directions that read, if you are a girl, select subjects for a boy, and if you are a boy, select
subjects for a girl. Students were requested to select subjects that they thought the person
would like. Students in all classes were done within 4 minutes.
Statistical Analysis
Four t-tests for independent samples and two paired t-tests for nonindependent samples
were used in the analysis. The t-tests for independent samples analyzed differences between
number of courses by gender. The paired t-tests analyzed signicant differences between
number of courses selected for oneself and courses selected for a member of the opposite
gender.
The results of each t-test were evaluated in terms of effect size (d) or the degree to
which a phenomenon exists. By converting mean differences into standardized scores, a
comparative effect size could be determined (Cohen, 1965).
RESULTS
Hypothesis 1
The data revealed a signicant difference by gender for the total number of science
courses selected (Table 1). The mean number of science courses selected by males was
3.42 compared to a mean of 2.42 for females (p 0.000). The effect size (d 0.70)
revealed that a large difference existed between the two means.
Hypothesis 2
The results of the data analysis indicated that there was a signicant difference between
boys and girls with respect to the type and number of physical science courses selected
(Table 2). The mean number of physical science courses selected by males was 1.30
compared with 0.41 for females (p 0.000). The effect size (d 1.25) revealed that a
large difference existed between the two means.
INTENTIONS OF YOUNG STUDENTS 65
Hypothesis 3
The t-test of the number of life science courses found that there was a signicant dif-
ference by gender (Table 3). The mean number of courses selected by females was 1.55,
compared to 1.30 for males (p 0.01). The effect size (d 0.22) revealed a small
difference between the means.
Hypothesis 4
The t-test of the number of technology courses found that there was a signicant dif-
ference by gender (Table 4). The mean number of courses selected by males was 0.58,
compared to 0.24 for males (p 0.000). The effect size (d 0.60) revealed a moderate
difference between the means.
Hypothesis 5
The data indicate that, when given a choice, females selected signicantly more science
courses for males than they would for themselves (Table 5). The mean number of courses
selected by females for themselves was 2.42, compared to 3.25 selected for males (p
0.000). The effect size revealed a moderate difference of nearly 0.7 SD (d 0.69).
Hypothesis 6
The data analysis reveals that, when given a choice, males selected signicantly fewer
science courses for females than they would for themselves (Table 6). The mean number
of courses selected by males for females was 2.02, compared to 3.42 selected for males
(p 0.000). The effect size revealed a difference exceeding 1 SD (d 1.01).
DISCUSSION
Interpretation and generalization of the ndings are offered cautiously. A plethora of
reasons has been forwarded to explain why girls do not participate equally with boys in
science. If combined, these variables might account for the underachievement of females
in science.
The ndings of this study suggest the pervasiveness of the gender effect. Together both
young boys and girls perceive science as a predominantly male activity. This nding
parallels the work of Benbow and Minor (1986) with high school students, as well as
recent national studies of college-bound seniors and graduate degree recipients (College-
Bound Seniors, 1997; NCES, 1997a, 1997b). In each study, a polarization of the science
courses occurred by gender. Life science courses are basically viewed more favorably by
females, whereas physical science courses are more appealing to males.
Science Interest Continuum
The gender disparity regarding science interest appears to follow a continuumbeginning
with elementary students perceptions of gender-appropriate coursework and continuing
through doctoral candidates selected elds of study. Data regarding 1997 college-bound
seniors indicate that gender differences are prevalent in students plans regarding science
course selection and intended majors (College-Bound Seniors, 1997). College students
seeking advanced placement in physics (63% male/37% female), chemistry (54%/46%),
66 FARENGA AND JOYCE
TABLE 1
Total Science Courses Selected by Gender
Variable Number of Cases Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error t-Value
Males 203 3.42 1.49 0.104 7.31
a
Females 224 2.42 1.35 0.090
a
p 0.000.
TABLE 2
Physical Science Courses Selected by Gender
Variable Number of Cases Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error t-Value
Males 203 1.30 0.961 0.067 11.34
a
Females 224 0.41 0.600 0.040
a
p 0.000.
TABLE 3
Life Science Courses Selected by Gender
Variable Number of Cases Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error t-Value
Males 203 1.30 1.12 0.079 2.26
a
Females 224 1.55 1.14 0.076
a
p 0.01.
TABLE 4
Technology Courses Selected by Gender
Variable Number of Cases Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error t-Value
Males 203 0.58 0.65 0.046 5.98
a
Females 224 0.24 0.49 0.033
a
p 0.000.
TABLE 5
Differences in Number of Science Courses Selected Self versus Opposite Gender
Female Subjects
Variable Number of Cases Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error t-Value
For self 224 2.42 1.35 0.090 8.21
a
For males 224 3.25 1.06 0.071
a
p 0.000.
TABLE 6
Differences in Number of Science Courses Selected Self versus Opposite Gender
Male Subjects
Variable Number of Cases Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error t-Value
For self 203 3.42 1.49 0.104 11.26
a
For females 203 2.02 1.26 0.088
a
p 0.000.
INTENTIONS OF YOUNG STUDENTS 67
or computer science (71%/29%) are more likely to be male. Conversely, requests for
advanced placement in biology are more often made by females (57% female/43% male).
Gender proles of students intended college majors document that males dominate the
physical sciences (62% male/38% female) and computer sciences (76%/24%). In contrast,
students planning to major in the biological sciences tend to be female (62% female/38%
male). These college-level gender patterns are congruent with those found in the present
study.
A review of the science courses selected for oneself indicate that four out of ve life
science courses favored female participation, whereas all physical science courses favored
male participation. The technological courses were selected more frequently by males and
were assigned more frequently to males by females.
It was apparent that life science courses were generally more popular. Three out of the
ve most popular courses were related to the life sciences. The frequencies of selected
science courses were: life science, 607; physical science, 356; and technology, 171.
However, there were noticeable preferences of girls selecting the natural sciences, and
the boys selecting the physical sciences. This nding is consistent with Benbow and Mi-
nors (1986) study of 1900 mathematically precocious youths. They found differences
favoring gifted girls in biology, but favoring gifted boys in chemistry and physics. Similar
ndings in the research were also found by Baird, Lazarowitz, and Allman (1984) and
Kahle, Parker, Rennie, and Riley (1993). In both studies, girls reported greater interest in
sciences associated with plants and animals, and boys with matter and energy.
The ve science subjects most preferred by the students in this study were marine
biology, robotics, zoology, ecology, and chemistry. Care must be used in making assump-
tions about the numbers of students enrolled in course and the gender balance of each
course. Popularity of the selected courses was polarized along a physical science axis for
boys and life science axis for the girls.
The only course that would have a balanced enrollment based on the preferences of
boys and girls was marine biology. Zoology and ecology were predominantly selected by
girls, whereas chemistry and robotics were predominantly selected by boys. These ndings
raise some serious concerns for curriculum planners as to the status of the physical sciences
in the elementary school. As an example, the enrollment ratio of boys to girls in the robotics
class was 6:1. Further, courses in aviation/aerospace, chemistry, and astronomy were all
predominantly selected by boys. The enrollment ratio was tenfold greater in favor of boys
in aviation/aerospace.
The differences in course selection proles at the elementary level resemble the per-
centages of males and females who received doctorates in physical and life sciences. In
1994, 6.1% of women pursuing doctoral studies earned degrees in physical sciences
(NCES, 1997a, 1997b). During the same time period, more than twice as many
men (13.7%) received doctorates in physical sciences. In contrast, a slightly higher per-
centage of females (11.1%) pursued doctoral degrees in life sciences as compared to males
(10.1%).
The gender disparity is even greater at the masters level where males (2.3%) receive
degrees in physical sciences at a rate three times greater than that of females (0.8%). In
life sciences, females (1.4%) and males (1.3%) earned masters degrees at a similar rate.
Students Beliefs
Direct responses to the questionnaire on opposite gender course selections provided the
data to assess differences in beliefs between boys and girls. Their opposite gender-based
science course selections demonstrate strong stereotypical patterns. Course enrollment pro-
68 FARENGA AND JOYCE
les reveal a reciprocal relationship between selected life science and physical science
course by gender.
Among the boys, 69% selected no physical science courses for girls, whereas 59% of
the girls selected two or more physical science courses for boys. Further, only 12% of the
girls selected no physical science courses for boys, whereas only 5% of the boys selected
two or more physical science courses for girls. Among the girls, only 2% selected no life
science courses for boys, whereas 52%of the boys selected two or more life science courses
for girls. Respectively, among the girls, 76% selected two or more life science courses for
boys, whereas, among the boys, 16% selected no life science courses for girls.
When the total number of science courses selected for the opposite gender is included
in the analysis, the pervasiveness of stereotypical gender-based patterns is more pro-
nounced. Among the boys, when asked to select courses for young girls, 26% selected one
science course compared to 5% of the girls who selected one science course for boys. The
examination of four or more science courses selected revealed that 15% of the boys and
44% of the girls assigned science courses to the opposite gender.
These ndings are consistent with the research claiming that there is a masculine image
of science and science is perceived to be a male domain (Chambers, 1983; Johnson, 1984;
Mason, 1986; Mead & Metraux, 1957; Steinkamp & Maehr, 1983; Vockell & Lobonc,
1981). The ndings suggest that, in science, stereotypical patterns are in place by age 9.
The students in the study appear to have constructed a reality in which particular science
courses are better suited to an individual based on gender. What is intriguing is that course
selection patterns appear to be complementary with little disagreement by gender. Thus,
students construction of gender and science with respect to self and others should be
carefully studied to avoid fostering stereotypic behaviors.
Informal Science Experience
Studies indicate that students whose at-home experiences parallel the schools curricu-
lum function productively in school activities (Majoribanks, 1991). Previous studies have
suggested that experiential differences affect future learning outcomes in science (Farenga,
1995; Harlen, 1992; Kahle, 1990), and that the home is such a powerful inuence that no
change is possible without its informed support. The aggregated effect that experience
provides can form the foundation to subsequent learning.
The importance of environmental inuences outside of school has been the focus of
numerous studies (Farenga, 1995; Kahle et al., 1993; Majoribanks, 1991; Mason & Kahle,
1989; Walberg, 1991). The aggregated effect that experience provides can form the foun-
dation to subsequent learning. In response to the research, schools need to identify students
levels of science-related experience and match instruction to reinforce meaningful learning.
Lamb (1989) and Walberg (1991) suggested that schools foster the continuance of ed-
ucational inequalities by capitalizing on experiences present in certain segments of the
population. Girls and boys come to school with vastly different science-related experi-
ences. Current curriculum topics may promote unfair competition between genders, and
young boys may have an unfair experiential advantage. Selected activities, if based on past
experiences, may widen the gender gap in science achievement. Walberg (1991) suggested
the Matthew effect to explain how past science-related achievement can increase future
differences.
Inequalities may be related to differing family backgrounds, socioeconomic levels, and
gender. Teachers who recognize the disparity in students informal science experience can
employ constructivist strategies to maximize students prior knowledge and interests.
Those teachers focus on breaking the mold in teaching to allow for individual differences.
INTENTIONS OF YOUNG STUDENTS 69
By integrating students interests, prior knowledge, and learning activities, teachers can
provide an environment in which knowledge can be constructed gradually over time.
Teachers and administrators must clearly articulate the school curriculum to parents,
thus providing the necessary information to coordinate classroom instruction and home
activities. When viewed as a two-pronged approach to learning, informal science experi-
ences and classroom science lessons can effectively form a synergistic relationship that
may enhance students future interest and participation in the eld of science. Parents can
provide exposure to many informal science-related experiences through books, television
programs, zoos, museums, hobbies, clubs, web sites, and family vacations. Collectively,
these experiences may provide students with the necessary opportunities to build cognitive
schemata needed to interpret and appreciate future learning in science.
Research has shown that the experiential background of young boys provides them with
an a priori sense of comfort, curiosity and competence in scienceor science sensibil-
itywhich is not enjoyed by most young girls (Farenga & Joyce, 1997a, 1997b; Kahle
et al., 1993; Wang et al., 1993).
Curriculum Evaluation
It is evident that interest in specic elds of science appears to form at a very early age
(Baker, 1990; Bayer, 1997; Brandwein, 1951; Farenga, 1995; Roe, 1952; Zim, 1941). This
was demonstrated in the manner in which children selected their courses.
The ndings from the present study have strong implications for science education. The
elementary syllabi of many states cover broad curriculum areas involving physical science,
life science, and the interaction of the two in the study of ecosystems. Students who lack
prior exposure to science experiences may be at risk in developing a positive interest
toward learning science. This lack of exposure and limited science experiences may cause
girls to perceive science as an inappropriate course of study.
Sociologically, stereotyping has been found to have adverse effects on females selection
of science courses (Kahle, 1990; Kahle et al., 1993; Shymansky & Kyle, 1988). As a
result, females have been found to perceive science as a male domain (Chambers, 1983;
Mason, 1986; Mead & Metraux, 1957; Vockell & Lobonc, 1981).
The results of this study suggest that the perception of science as an appropriate or
inappropriate eld of study is developed at a younger age than 9. The study reveals a
strong gender effect pointing toward stereotypic perceptions of selected science courses.
The students perceptions of science are seen years prior to the actual encounter with the
science courses listed on the course selection menu. These ndings suggest that declining
enrollments in future science courses may be in progress well before high school or college.
Young boys and girls have already formed their opinions as to the enjoyment each would
nd in studying such courses. Equally distressing is that both boys and girls in the study
perceive science as more appropriate for boys. It appears that both genders support the
stereotype that science is a male domain.
The implication is that, as students progress through the grades, their peers may reinforce
gender-role-stereotyped behaviors and preferences. Previous research indicates that, as
students continue through school, their stereotypic perceptions of science will increase
(Kelly, 1988; Parker, Rennie, & Harding, 1995). The possibility of increased stereotypic
inuences that can cause negative perceptions of science should create an urgency for the
development of science intervention programs prior to middle school.
It is necessary to interest girls in the sciences at an early age. The perception of young
girls taking science must be changed, not only by young boys, but by girls themselves.
70 FARENGA AND JOYCE
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
INTENTIONS OF YOUNG STUDENTS 71
REFERENCES
Archer, J., & Lloyd, B. (1982). Sex and gender. New York: Pelican.
Baird, J. H., Lazarowitz, R., & Allman, V. (1984). Science choices and preferences of middle and
secondary school students in Utah. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 4754.
Baker, D. (1990, April). Gender differences in science: Where they start and where they go. Paper
presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research and Science Teaching, Atlanta,
GA.
Bakker, D. J. (1990). Neuropsychology treatment of dyslexia. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bayer facts of science education. (1997). [On-line]. Available: http://www.bayerus.com/science/
america/index.html.
Behnke, F. L. (1959). Opinions of a selected group of high school science teachers and scientists
on some issues related to science and science teaching. Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation. New
York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review,
88, 354364.
Benbow, C. P., & Minor, L. (1986). Mathematically talented males and females and achievement
in high school sciences. American Educational Research Journal, 18, 298302.
Bennett, W. J. (1986). First lessons. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Birke, L. (1986). Changing minds: Towards gender equality in science? In J. Harding (Ed.), Per-
spectives on gender and science (pp. 184201). Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
Block, J. H. (1983). Differential premise arising from differential socialization of sexes: Some con-
jectures. Child Development, 54, 13351354.
Brandwein, P. F. (1951). Selection and training of future scientists. Science Education, 35, 251
253.
Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The Draw-a-Scientist Test. Science
Education, 67, 255265.
Chodorow, N. J. (1978). The reproduction of mothering. Los Angeles, CA: University of California
Press.
Chodorow, N. J. (1989). Feminism and psychoanalytic theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Cohen, J. (1965). Some statistical issues in psychological research. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook
of clinical psychology (pp. 95121). New York: McGraw-Hill.
72 FARENGA AND JOYCE
College-bound seniors: 1997 proles of SAT program test takers. (1997). New York: The College
Board.
Cooley, W. W. (1964). The potential science pool, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3,
211215.
Crofts, C. A. (1971). The inter-relation between mathematics and science teaching, Education in
Science, 43, 2021.
Culp, R. E., Crook, A. S., & Housley, P. C. (1983). A comparison of observed and reported adult
infant interactions: Effects of perceived sex. Sex Roles, 9, 475479.
Czujko, R., & Bernstein, D. (1989). Who takes science? A report on student coursework in science
and mathematics (AIP Publication No. R-345). New York: American Institute of Physics.
Dinnerstein, D. (1977). The mermaid and the minotaur. New York: Colophon Books.
Duckworth, D., & Entwistle, N. J. (1974). Attitudes to school subjects: A repertory grid technique,
British Journal of Education in Psychology, 44, 7683.
Easlea, B. (1986). The masculine image of science with special reference to physics: How much
does gender matter? In J. Harding (Ed.), Perspectives on gender and science (pp. 132158).
Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
Eccles, J. S. (1985). Why doesnt Jane run? Sex differences in educational and occupational patterns.
In F. D. Horowitz and M. OBrien (Eds.), The gifted and talented: Developmental perspective.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Eccles, J. S. (1989). Bringing young women to math and science. In M. Crawford & M. Gentry
(Eds.), Gender and thought: Psychological perspectives. New York: Springer.
Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., & Kaczala, C. M. (1982). Socialization of achievement attitudes and
beliefs: Parental inuences. Child Development, 53, 310321.
Edwards, T. B., & Wilson, A. B. (1958). The specialization of interests and academic achievement.
Harvard Educational Review, 28, 183196.
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
Farenga, S. J. (1995). Out-of-school science-related experiences, science attitudes, and selection of
science mini-courses in high ability, upper elementary students. Dissertation Abstracts Interna-
tional. p. 1242 (University Microlms No. 9525483)
Farenga, S. J., & Joyce, B. A. (1997a). Beyond the classroom: Gender differences in science ex-
periences. Education, 117, 563568.
Farenga, S. J., & Joyce, B. A. (1997b). What children bring to the classroom: Learning science from
experience. School Science and Mathematics, 97, 248252.
Flowers, G. P. (1967, Sept. 15). Disappearing BScs, Letter to Times Educational Supplement.
Fox, L. H., & Cohn, S. J. (1980). Sex differences in development of precocious mathematical talent.
In L. H. Fox, L. Brody, & D. Tobin (Eds.), Women and the mathematical mystique (pp. 94111).
Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
Fox, L. H., & Denham, S. A. (1974). Values and career interests of mathematically and scientically
precocious youth. In J. C. Stanley, D. P. Keating, & L. H. Fox (Eds.), Mathematical talent:
Discovery, description, and development (pp. 140175). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity Press.
Freud, S. (1925). Some physical consequences of the anatomical distinction between the sexes. In
Standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (J. Strachey, Ed. &
Trans.). London: Hogarth.
Gagne, R. M., & White, R. T. (1978). Memory structures and learning outcomes. Review of Edu-
cational Research, 48, 187222.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Guttentag, M., & Bray, H. (1976). Undoing sex stereotypes. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Haley-Oliphant, A. E. (1985). International perspectives on the status and role of women in science.
In J. Butler-Kahle (Ed.), Women in science: A report from the eld (pp. 169182). Philadelphia:
Falmer Press.
INTENTIONS OF YOUNG STUDENTS 73
Hanson, S. L. (1996). Lost talent: Women in the sciences. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Harding, J. (1986). The making of a scientist. In J. Harding (Ed.), Perspectives on gender and science
(pp. 159183). Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
Harlen, W. (1992). Primary science: Taking the plunge. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hollinger, C. L. (1991). Facilitating career development of young gifted women. Roeper Review,
13, 135139.
Hudson, A. C. (1983). Sex typing. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology:
Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.
Hudson, L. (1963). The relation of psychological test scores to academic bias, British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 33, 120131.
Johnston, S. (1984). Girls need a science education too. The Australian Science Teachers Journal,
30, 1823.
Kagan, J. (1969). On the meaning of behavior: Illustrations from the infant. Child Development, 40,
11211134.
Kahle, J. B. (1990). Why girls dont know. In M. Budd Rowe (Ed.), What research says to the
science teacher: The process of knowing (vol. 6, pp. 5567). Washington, DC: National Science
Teachers Association.
Kahle, J. B., Parker, L. H., Rennie, L. J., & Riley, D. (1993). Gender differences in science education:
Building a model. Educational Psychologist, 28, 374404.
Kahle, J. B., & Lakes, M. K. (1983). The myth of equality in science classrooms. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 20, 131140.
Keller, E. F. (1986). How gender matters: Or why it is so hard for us to count past two. In J. Harding
(Ed.), Prespectives on gender and science (pp. 168183). London: Falmer Press.
Kelly, A. (1988). Sex stereotypes and school science: A three-year follow-up. Education Studies,
14, 151163.
Klein, M. (1932). The psycho-analysis of children. London: Hogarth.
Koelsche, C. L., & Newberry, S. L. (1971). A study of the relationship between certain variables
and the science interests of children, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 8, 237241.
Kohlberg, L. A. (1966). A cognitive-developmental analysis of childrens sex-role concepts and
attitudes. In E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex differences (pp. 82173). Palo Alto, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive development approach to socialization. In
D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Kohlberg, L. (1978). Revisions in the theory and practice of moral development. New Directions
for Child Development, 2, 8388.
Lamb, S. (1989). Cultural consumption and the educational plans of Australian secondary school
students. Sociology of Education, 62, 95108.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Language, learning and values. Norwood NJ: Ablex.
MacCurdy, R. D. (1954). Characteristics of superior students and some factors that were found in
their background. Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation. Boston University, Boston, MA.
Marjoribanks, K. (1991). Educational productivity and talent development. In B. J. Fraser & H. J.
Walberg (Eds.), Families, schools, and students educational outcomes. (pp. 7591). New York:
Pergamon.
Markus, H., & Oyserman, D. (1989). Gender and thought: The role of the self-concept. In M.
Crawford & M. Gentry (Eds.), Gender and thought: Psychological perspectives. New York:
Springer.
Mason, C. L. (1986). Student attitudes toward science & science-related careers: An investigation
of the efcacy of a high school biology teachers intervention program. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 47, 2105A.
Mason, C. L., & Kahle, J. B. (1989). Students attitudes toward science and science related careers:
A program designed to promote a stimulating gender-free learning environment, Journal of Re-
search in Science Teaching, 26, 2539.
Mau, L. E. (1912). Some experiments with regard to the relative interests of children in physical
and biological nature materials in the kindergarten and primary grades, The Nature Study Review,
8, 285291.
74 FARENGA AND JOYCE
McCurdy, H. C. (1960). The childhood pattern of genius. Horizon, 2, 3338.
Mead, M., & Metraux, R. (1952). Image of the scientist among high school students: A pilot study.
Science, 126, 384390.
Mischel, W. (1966). A social learning view of sex differences. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The devel-
opment of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Moore, S. (1962, Sept. 15). Science interest peak at age 12, Science Newsletter, 82, 178.
Mullins, I. V. S., & Jenkins, L. B. (1988). The science report card: Elements of risk and recovery.
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Nash, S. C. (1979). Sex role as a mediator of intellectual functioning. In M. A. Wittig & A. C.
Petersen (Eds.), Sex-related differences in cognitive functioning: Developmental issues (pp. 263
381). New York: Academic Press.
National Center for Education Statistics (1997a). The condition of education. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Ofce.
National Center for Education Statistics (1997b). Digest of education statistics. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Ofce.
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A Nation at risk: The imperative for
educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Ofce.
National Science Board Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science, and Tech-
nology. (1983). Educating Americans for the 21st century: A report to the American people and
the national science board. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
Nelson, B., Weiss, I., & Capper, J. (1990). Science and mathematics education brieng book (vol.
II). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we know: Verbal reports on mental
processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231259.
Ormerod, M. B. (1975). Subject preference and choice in co-educational and single sex secondary
schools, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 45, 335338.
Ormerod, M. B., & Duckworth, D. (1975). Pupils attitudes to science: A review of the research.
Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
Parker, L. H., Rennie, L. J., & Harding, J. (1995). Gender equity. In B. J. Fraser & H. J. Walberg
(Eds.), Improving science education (pp. 186210). Chicago: National Society for the Study of
Education.
Perrodin, A. F. (1966). Childrens attitudes towards elementary science. Science Education, 50,
214218.
Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Piaget, J. (1970). Piagets theory. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichaels manual of child psychology
(vol. 1). New York: Wiley.
Rallinson, R. (1943). The interests of children in non-scientic subjects, British Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 13, 3947.
Ramsey, G. A., & Howe, R. W. (1969). An analysis of research related to instructional procedures
in elementary science. Science and Children, 6, 2536.
Reis, S. M., & Callahan, C. M. (1989). Gifted females: Theyve come a long wayor have they?
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12, 99117.
Richardson, R. P. (1971). Development and use of the SCI inventory to measure upper elementary
school childrens scientic curiosity and interests. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ohio State
University.
Roe, A. (1952). A psychologist examines 64 eminent scientists. Scientic American, 187, 2125.
Sadker, D., & Sadker, M. (1985). Is the ok classroom, ok? Phi Delta Kappan, 66, 358361.
Schirner, S. (1968). A comparison of student outcomes in various earth science courses taught by
17 Iowa teachers. A National Association for Research in Science Teaching Paper.
Shroyer, M. G., Powell, J. C., & Backe, K. A. (1991, April). Gender differences: What do kids tell
us and what should we do in the curriculum to make a difference? Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Lake Geneva, WI.
INTENTIONS OF YOUNG STUDENTS 75
Shymansky, J. A., & Kyle, W. C. (1988). A summary of research in science education1986.
Science Education, 72, 245373.
Smith, C., & Lloyd, B. B. (1978). Maternal behavior and perceived sex of infant. Child Development,
49, 12631265.
Smithers, A., & Collings, J. (1984 April). Persons orientation and science choices. Paper presented
at the IPN Symposium, Interests in Science and Technology, Kiel, Germany.
Soar, R. S., & Soar, R. M. (1972). An empirical analysis of selected Follow Through programs: An
example of a process approach to evaluation. In I. Gordon (Ed.), Early childhood education.
Chicago: National Society for Study of Education.
Soy, E. M. (1967). Attitudes of prospective elementary teachers towards science as a eld of spe-
cialty, School, Science and Mathematics, 67, 507517.
Stein, M. I. (1956). Atransactional approach to creativity. In C. W. Taylor (Ed.), The 1955 University
of Utah Research Conference on the Identication of Creative Scientic Talents. Salt Lake City,
UT: University of Utah Press.
Steinkamp, M. W., & Maehr, M. (1983). Affect, ability and science achievement: A Quantitative
synthesis of correlational research. Review of Educational Research, 53, 369396.
Stronk, D. R. (1974). The sociological backgrounds of scientically talented secondary school stu-
dents throughout the state of Texas, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11, 3137.
Suchner, R., & Barrington, B. (1980). Men and womens attitudes and information about science,
health, and energy. National Science Foundation paper. Washington, DC: National Science Foun-
dation.
Thompson, R. M., & McCurdy, R. D. (1957). Science interest is born. Science and Society, 85,
5657.
Vockell, E. L., & Lobonc, S. (1981). Sex-role stereotyping by high school females in science. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 18, 209219.
Walberg, H. J. (1967). Dimensions of scientic interest in girls and boys studying physics. Science
Education, 51, 111116.
Walberg, H. J. (1969). Physics, femininity, and creativity. Developmental Psychology, 1, 4754.
Walberg, H. J. (1991). Educational productivity and talent development. In B. J. Fraser & H. J.
Walberg (Eds.), Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences (pp. 93
109). New York: Pergamon.
Walberg, H. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1973). Changing attitudes toward science among adolescents. Nature,
245, 187190.
Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1959). Sex differences and judgment processes. Journal of Personality,
27, 555564.
Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for school learning.
Review of Educational Research, 63, 249294.
Weinreich-Haste, H. (1981). The image of science. In A. Kelly (Ed.), The missing half (pp. 2741).
Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
Wells, J. (1971). The difculty of science. Educational Review, 24, 212224.
Winnicott, D. W. (1965). Maturational processes and the facilitating environment. London: Hogarth.
Wright, P. G. (1974). Against the teaching of thermodynamics in school, Education in Chemistry,
11, 910.
Yoder, A. H. (1894). Study of the boyhoods of great men. Pedagogical Seminary, 3, 134156.
Zim, H. S. (1941). The adolescent interested in science. Science Education, 25, 16.