Several media effects perspectives suggest that televised images can influence children's perceptions of science and scientists. This study analysed images of science and scientists in four children's educational science programmes. The images of science as truth, as fun, and as a part of everyday life, as well as the image that science is for everyone, were quite evident. Little evidence was found for the image of science as magical or mysterious. Support for the images of science as dangerous and science as a solution to problems was mixed. Images of scientists as omniscient and elite were quite prevalent; there was no evidence for the image of scientists as evil or violent. Some support was found for the image of scientists as eccentric and antisocial. Overall, the images were more constructive than detrimental. Predictions about the effect these images could have on children and on the scientific community are given.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bandura, A. , 1986, Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).
2.
Chen, M. , 1994, Television and informal science education: assessing the past, present, and future of research. Informal Science Learning: What the Research Says about Television, Science Museums, and Community-Based Projects (Dedham, MA: Research Communications Limited), pp. 15-59.
3.
Gerbner, G. , Gross, L., Morgan, M., and Signorielli, N., 1994, Growing up with television: the cultivation perspective. Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, edited by J. Bryant and D. Zillman (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum), pp. 17-41.
4.
National Science Foundation , 1993, Indicators of Science and Mathematics Education 1992, edited by L. E. Suter (Washington, DC: National Science Foundation), p. 80.
5.
The US Federal Communications Commission has adopted stricter guidelines concerning what will count as children's educational programming.
6.
Mielke, K. W. , 1983, Formative research on appeal and comprehension of 3-2-1 CONTACT. Children's Understanding of Television, edited by J. Bryant and D. R. Anderson (New York: Academic Press), pp. 241-262.
7.
Bandura, A. , 1994, Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, edited by J. Bryant and D. Zillman (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum), pp. 61-90.
8.
Mead, G. H. , 1934, Mind, Self, and Society (University of Chicago Press).
9.
Gerbner, G. , 1987, Science on TV: how it affects public conceptions. Issues in Science and Technology, 3, 109-115.
10.
National Science Board , 1993, Science and technology: public attitudes and public understanding. Science & Engineering Indicators 1992 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office), pp. 193-215.
11.
In 1990, 52% of students agreed with this statement, while 7% disagreed and 41% were undecided. In 1993, 43% of students agreed with this statement, while 9% disagreed and 48% were undecided.
12.
In 1990, 27% of students agreed with this statement, while 32% disagreed and 41% were undecided. In 1993, 26% of students agreed with this statement, while 30% disagreed and 44% were undecided.
13.
Kahle, J. B. , 1993, Images of scientists: gender issues in science classrooms. What Research Says to the Science and Mathematics Teacher, Number 4, Curtin University of Technology, Perth Australia.
14.
Rosenthal, D. B. , 1993, Images of scientists: a comparison of biology and liberal studies majors. School Science and Mathematics, 93, 212-216.
15.
Boylan, C. R. , Hill, D. M., and Wallace, A. R., 1992, Beyond stereotypes. Science Education, 76, 465-476.
16.
Chambers, D. W. , 1983, Stereotypical images of the scientist: the draw-a-scientist test. Science Education, 67, 255-265.
17.
Petkova, K. , and Boyadjieva, P., 1994, The image of the scientist and its functions. Public Understanding of Science, 3, 215-224.
18.
Nelkin, D. , 1987, Selling Science (New York: WH Freeman).
19.
LaFollette, M. C. , 1990, Making Science Our Own: Public Images of Science 1910-1955 (University of Chicago Press), p. 100.
20.
Collins, H. M. , 1987, Certainty and the public understanding of science: science on television. Social Studies of Science, 17, 689-713.
21.
Einsiedel, E. F. , 1992, Framing science and technology in the Canadian press. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 89-101.
22.
Tudor, A. , 1989, Monsters and Mad Scientists: A Cultural History of the Horror Movie (New York: Blackwell), p. 133.
23.
Banks, J. , and Tankel, J., 1990, Science as fiction: technology in prime time television. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 7, 24-36.
24.
Saunders, M. F., 1994, Star Trek as Modern Myth. Unpublished master's thesis, Colorado State University.
25.
LaFollette, M. C. , 1990, Making Science Our Own: Public Images of Science 1910-1955 (University of Chicago Press).
26.
LaFollette, M. C. , 1990, Making Science Our Own: Public Images of Science 1910-1955 (University of Chicago Press), p. 105.
27.
Weart, S. R. , 1988, Nuclear Fear: A History of Images (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
28.
Bennett, W. , 1986, The medium is large, but how good is the message?Scientists and Journalists: Reporting Science as News, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers (New York: The Free Press), pp. 119-128.
29.
Bennett, W. , 1986, The medium is large, but how good is the message?Scientists and Journalists: Reporting Science as News, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers (New York: The Free Press), p. 127.
30.
Lessl, T. M. , 1985, Science and the sacred cosmos: the ideological rhetoric of Carl Sagan. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71, 175-187.
31.
Hornig, S. , 1990, Television's NOVA and the construction of scientific truth. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 7, 17.
32.
Nelkin, D. , 1987, Selling Science (New York: WH Freeman).
33.
Gardner, C. , and Young, R., 1981, Science on TV: a critique. Popular Television and Film, edited by T. Bennett, S. Boyd-Bowman, C. Mercer, and J. Woollacott (London: British Film Institute), pp. 171-193.
34.
Gardner, C. , and Young, R., 1981, Science on TV: a critique. Popular Television and Film, edited by T. Bennett, S. Boyd-Bowman, C. Mercer, and J. Woollacott (London: British Film Institute), p. 178.
35.
Oppenheimer, F. , and Semper, R. J., 1984, Science museums and TV: the perfect match. TV, Science, and Kids (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley), pp. 90-95.
36.
Silverstone, R. , 1991, Communicating science to the public. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16, 106-110.
37.
Evans, W. , 1995, The mundane and the arcane: prestige media coverage of social and natural science. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 72, 168-177.
38.
Dunn, R. G. , 1979, Science, technology and bureaucratic domination: television and the ideology of scientism. Media, Culture and Society, 1, 343-354.
39.
LaFollette, M. C. , 1981, Wizards, villains, and other scientists: the science content of television for children. Unpublished report prepared for Action for Children's Television (ACT), p. 11.
40.
Hornig, S. , 1990, Television's NOVA and the construction of scientific truth. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 7, 21.
41.
Silverstone, R. , 1984, Narrative strategies in television science—a case study. Media, Culture and Society, 6, 377-410.
42.
LaFollette, M. C. , 1990, Making Science Our Own: Public Images of Science 1910-1955 (University of Chicago Press).
43.
Nelkin, D. , 1990, Selling science. Physics Today, 43, 41-46.
44.
Hornig, S. , 1990, Television's NOVA and the construction of scientific truth. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 7, 11-23.
45.
LaFollette, M. C., 1981, Wizards, villains, and other scientists: the science content of television for children. Unpublished report prepared for Action for Children's Television (ACT), p.17.
46.
Gerbner, G. , 1987, Science on television: how it affects public conceptions. Issues in Science and Technology, 3, 109-115.
47.
Nelkin, D. , 1987, Selling Science (New York: Freeman), p. 20.
48.
Basalla, G. , 1976, Pop science: the depiction of science as popular culture. Science and Its Public: The Changing Relationship, edited by G. Holton and W. A. Blanpied (Boston, MA: Reidel).
49.
Gerbner, G. , Gross, L., Morgan, M., and Signorielli, N., 1981, Scientists on the TV screen. Society, 18, 41-44.
50.
Gerbner, G. , Gross, L., Morgan, M., and Signorielli, N., 1981, Scientists on the TV screen. Society, 18, 42.
51.
Potts, R. , and Martinez, I., 1994, Television viewing and children's beliefs about scientists. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 15, 287-300.
52.
LaFollette, M. C. , 1981, Wizards, villains, and other scientists: the science content of television for children. Unpublished report prepared for Action for Children's Television (ACT).
53.
Dunn, R. G. , 1979, Science, technology and bureaucratic domination: television and the ideology of scientism. Media, Culture and Society, 1, 345.
54.
Gerbner, G. , Gross, L., Morgan, M., and Signorielli, N., 1994, Growing up with television: the cultivation perspective. Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, edited by J. Bryant and D. Zillman (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum), pp. 17-41.
55.
LaFollette, M. C. , 1990, Making Science Our Own: Public Images of Science 1910-1955 (University of Chicago Press).
56.
Petkova, K. , and Boyadjieva, P., 1994, The image of the scientist and its functions. Public Understanding of Science, 3, 221.
57.
Petkova, K. , and Boyadjieva, P., 1994, The image of the scientist and its functions. Public Understanding of Science, 3, 222.
58.
Nelkin, D. , 1990, Selling science. Physics Today, 43, 43.
