Over the course of a school year, elementary school children lose confidence that they can “be scientists,” but not that they can “do science,” according to a new study.
Researchers also found that children think more adults in their community can “do science” than “are scientists,” which suggests they have more inclusive views of who can do science, even while they might hold stereotypes about who can be a scientist.
“Action-focused language—instead of identity-focused encouragement—leads children to hold more inclusive beliefs about who can succeed in science and bolsters science efficacy and interest, particularly among children from ethnic minority groups that are underrepresented in science,” says Marjorie Rhodes, an associate professor in the psychology department at New York University and senior author of the study in Developmental Science.
A more diverse group
The results are consistent with those reported earlier this year that found that asking young girls to “do science” leads them to show greater persistence in subsequent science activities than does asking them to “be scientists.”
The children in these previous studies were primarily white, however, and the researchers hypothesized that the benefits of action-focused language would extend more broadly (to children of both genders) in more racially, ethnically, and economically diverse samples.
For the new study, researchers studied more than 300 elementary-school children in Brooklyn and the Bronx over the course of the school year. Children in the study were primarily Hispanic, but reflected the racial diversity of their surrounding communities and roughly evenly split between boys and girls.
“Studying a more diverse population is crucial if we want to understand and ensure efforts to improve science engagement work for everyone,” says Ryan Lei, a postdoctoral research fellow and lead author of the paper. “That we see similar effects across children of different backgrounds in these communities suggests that using action-focused language could be a promising strategy to help a large number of children stay engaged in science.”
Identity-focused language
The researchers measured children’s interest and self-efficacy in science three times across the course of a school year (once in the fall, once in the middle of the school year, and once in the late spring).
Researchers asked half of the children at each point how interested and how good they thought they were in “being a scientist.” They asked the other half how interested in and good they thought they were at “doing science.”
The results showed that, over the course of the school year, children’s confidence and interest in “being a scientist” declined. But, they maintained confidence and interest in their ability to “do science,” showing that persistent curiosity in science links to messages about actions and not identity.
The researchers also examined what might underlie these effects by asking how children see the group of people who “do science” or “are scientists.” To measure this, Rhodes and colleagues asked the children to think of all the parents of the kids at their school and to judge how many of those parents either “were scientists” or “did science.”
Results showed that children thought more adults in their community “did science” than “were scientists,” and these beliefs partially accounted for the effects of language on their own interest and efficacy.
“These finding suggest that using identity-focused language with children, such as asking them to ‘be a scientist,’ can, in fact, backfire whenever children have reason to question if they are really a member of the group,” Rhodes says. “Such reasons to question can come from social stereotypes—such as a belief that few people from a child’s community can grow up to be a scientist.
“This research indicates that a subtle change in how we talk about science with children—using more action-oriented language—can potentially guard against declines in children’s science interest and self-efficacy.”
Additional researchers from NYU and from Princeton University contributed to the study. The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health supported the work.
Source: NYU
