Figure 2. Type of Incidents

1
Student Perceptions of Science Ability,
Experiences, Expectations, and Career
Choices Isabelle D. Cherney1 Michael G.
Cherney21Department of Psychology and
2Department of Physics Creighton University,
Omaha, NE
RESULTS Inventories Males
Females M (SE) M
(SE) Achievement Motivation Work (desire to work
hard) 26.25 (.24) 27.04 (.15) Competitiveness
(desire to win) 19.17 (.27) 16.77 (.22) Big 5
Personality Agreeableness 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 Inventory Extrinsic
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 Intolerance Novelty 16.38
(.27) 15.74 (.18) Task Beliefs 53.27
(.40) 52.04 (.27) Spatial Index 77.38
(1.42) 62.05 (.79)
METHODS PARTICIPANTS 470 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
PROCEDURE The 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.
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.
INTRODUCTION In 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.
Inventories General Physics Astronomy Other
s (Higher numbers mean more) M (SE) M
(SE) M (SE) Achievement Motivation Mastery
(preference for difficult tasks) 28.38
(.53) 26.80 (.37) 26.51 (.20) Big 5
Personality Openness (intellectually
curious) 69.23 (1.46) 66.19 (.87) 65.44 (.41) P
ersonal efficacy 54.25 (.94) 50.70
(.74) 51.85 (.28) (internal locus of control
higher grades, more responsibility for their
achievement) Work Preference Inventory Intrinsic
Motivation 43.77 (.74) 41.54
(.49) 41.98 (.21) Challenging Tasks 20.49
(.34) 19.63 (.28) 19.29 (.13) Enjoyment of
ones 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 Intolerance Novelty
(feel threatened by novelty) 14.76 (.58) 15.95
(.37) 16.02 (.17) Insolubility (dont 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)

• 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.

General Physics Astronomy
Other Math is important 97.9 60.4 74.4 Ma
th is important to parents 70.2 49.5 64.5 M
ath 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
Choices Health sciences 80.9 30.8 42.7 Na
tural 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
5.29 Ratings of map reading ability 6.77 6.1
0 6.43 Math ability 7.51 6.03 6.54 Coll
ege math ability 6.17 4.90 5.29 Scientist
s Salary Estimate 121,800 84,400
95,500