Abstract
Although the term “radiation” has a fixed place in everyday life as well as in the media, there is very little empirical research on students’ conceptions about this topic. In our study we wanted to find out what students associate with this term. In 2009, we asked 509 students (between grade 4 and grade 6) from seven different schools to draw pictures related to “radiation”. This method of children’s drawings was supported by short interviews (n = 74). The motifs appearing in the drawings were analysed, and we investigated whether or not the age and the sex of the children had any influence on the choice of motifs. One major result was that the older the students were, the more likely they were to choose sources of invisible radiation (nuclear power plants, mobile phones) as their motifs. Nine months after the tragic events in Fukushima (and at the same time 2 years after the 2009 data collection), we replicated the study. This time, we received 516 drawings from the same schools as in the 2009 study (supported by 33 interviews). This replicative trend study made it possible to compare the choice of motifs and discover possible differences. The results of this analysis showed that the drawings of 2011 included significantly more motifs related to radioactivity. This difference was prevalent in the drawings regardless of sex or age differences. Direct references to the Fukushima accident could be found in both the drawings and interviews.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In Austria, this is equal to students in grade 4 to grade 6. the Austrian science curriculum introduces the concept of radiation in grade 7 (heat radiation) and in grade 8 (nuclear radiation).
Journalists agree that in Austria (a country with no nuclear power plants and a population vastly opposed to the use of nuclear power), media reports in March/April 2011 were disproportionately covering the Fukushima disaster with nearly exclusive focus on the nuclear aspect and neglecting the role of the preceding earthquake and Tsunami, which killed more than 19,000 people.
Students were free to draw more than one motif. In 43.5 % of the drawings, these motifs belonged to more than one category and were also classified into more than one category. This is why, both in 2009 and in 2011, the percentages add up to more than 100 %.
Except for grade 4, where no significant change could be found due to the low absolute number of drawings in the fourth grade which included motifs related to radioactivity (11 boys and 8 girls).
References
Acar Sesen, B., & Ince, E. (2010). Internet as a source of misconception: “Radiation and radioactivity’. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(4), 94–100.
Barraza, L. (1999). Children’s drawings about the environment. Environmental Education Research, 5(1), 49–66. doi:10.1080/1350462990050103.
Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (1994). Children’s ideas about radioactivity and radiation:sources, modes of travel, uses and dangers. Research in Science and Technological Education, 12(2), 145–160.
Brown, J. M., Henderson, J., & Armstrong, M. P. (1987). Children's perceptions of nuclear power stations as revealed through their drawings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 7(3), 189–199. doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(87)80029-4.
Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw–a–scientist test. Science Education, 67(2), 255–265.
Dikmenli, M. (2010). Misconceptions of cell division held by student teachers in biology: A drawing analysis. Scientific Research and Essays, 5(2), 235–247.
Dove, J. E., Everett, L. A., & Preece, P. F. W. (1999). Exploring a hydrological concept through children’s drawings. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 485–497. doi:10.1080/095006999290534.
Driver, R. (1985). Children’s ideas in science. Milton Keynes [u.a.]: Open Univ. Press.
Duit, R. (2009). Bibliography—Students’ alternative frameworks and science education. http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html. Accessed Sept 19, 2012.
Finson, K. D. (2002). Drawing a scientist: What we do and do not know after fifty years of drawings. School Science and Mathematics, 102(7), 335–345. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2002.tb18217.x.
Handford, H. A., Mayes, S. D., Mattison, R. E., Humphrey, F. J., Bagnato, S., Bixler, E. O., & Kales, J. D. (1986). Child and parent reaction to the three mile island nuclear accident. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 25(3), 346–356. doi:10.1016/s0002-7138(09)60256-9.
Hope, G. (2008). Thinking and learning through drawing in primary classrooms. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Klingman, A., Goldstein, Z., & Lerner, P. (1991). Adolescents’ response to nuclear threat: Before and after the chernobyl accident. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 20(5), 519–530. doi:10.1007/bf01540635.
Libarkin, J., Asghar, A., Crockett, C., & Sadler, P. (2011). Invisible misconceptions: Student understanding of ultraviolet and infrared radiation. Astronomy Education Review, 10(1).
Lijnse, P. L., Eijkelhof, H. M. C., Klaassen, C. W. J. M., & Scholte, R. L. J. (1990). Pupils’ and mass-media ideas about radioactivity. International Journal of Science Education, 12(1), 67–78.
Limon, M. (2002). Conceptual change in history. In Reconsidering conceptual change: issues in theory and practice (pp. 259–289). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands
Markic, S. (Ed.). (2008). Studies on freshman science student teachers’ beliefs about science teaching and learning. Aachen: Shaker.
Millar, R., & Jarnail Singh, G. (1996). School students’ understanding of processes involving radioactive substances and ionizing radiation. Physics Education, 31(1), 27–33.
Millar, R., Klaassen, K., & Eijkelhof, H. (1990). Teaching about radioactivity and ionising radiation: An alternative approach. Physics Education, 25(6), 338–342.
Neumann, S., & Hopf, M. (2011). Was verbinden Schülerinnen und Schüler mit dem Begriff ‘Strahlung’? Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, (17).
Neumann, S., & Hopf, M. (2012). Students’ conceptions about ‘radiation’: Results from an explorative interview study of 9th grade students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1–9. doi:10.1007/s10956-012-9369-9.
Rennie, L., & Jarvis, T. (1995). Children’s choice of drawings to communicate their ideas about technology. Research in Science Education, 25(3), 239–252.
Thomas, G. V., & Silk, A. M. J. (1990). An introduction to the psychology of children's drawings. New York: New York University Press.
Verplanken, B. (1989). Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions toward nuclear energy before and after Chernobyl in a longitudinal within-subjects design. Environment and Behavior, 21(4), 371–392.
White, R. T., & Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Neumann, S., Hopf, M. Children’s Drawings About “Radiation”—Before and After Fukushima. Res Sci Educ 43, 1535–1549 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9320-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9320-3