Research in Science Education

, Volume 43, Issue 4, pp 1535–1549 | Cite as

Children’s Drawings About “Radiation”—Before and After Fukushima



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.


Students’ conceptions Radiation Radioactivity Children’s drawings 


  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. Barraza, L. (1999). Children’s drawings about the environment. Environmental Education Research, 5(1), 49–66. doi: 10.1080/1350462990050103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw–a–scientist test. Science Education, 67(2), 255–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dikmenli, M. (2010). Misconceptions of cell division held by student teachers in biology: A drawing analysis. Scientific Research and Essays, 5(2), 235–247.Google Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Driver, R. (1985). Children’s ideas in science. Milton Keynes [u.a.]: Open Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  9. Duit, R. (2009). Bibliography—Students’ alternative frameworks and science education. Accessed Sept 19, 2012.
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hope, G. (2008). Thinking and learning through drawing in primary classrooms. London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Libarkin, J., Asghar, A., Crockett, C., & Sadler, P. (2011). Invisible misconceptions: Student understanding of ultraviolet and infrared radiation. Astronomy Education Review, 10(1).Google Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Limon, M. (2002). Conceptual change in history. In Reconsidering conceptual change: issues in theory and practice (pp. 259–289). Dordrecht: Springer NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  17. Markic, S. (Ed.). (2008). Studies on freshman science student teachers’ beliefs about science teaching and learning. Aachen: Shaker.Google Scholar
  18. Millar, R., & Jarnail Singh, G. (1996). School students’ understanding of processes involving radioactive substances and ionizing radiation. Physics Education, 31(1), 27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Millar, R., Klaassen, K., & Eijkelhof, H. (1990). Teaching about radioactivity and ionising radiation: An alternative approach. Physics Education, 25(6), 338–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Neumann, S., & Hopf, M. (2011). Was verbinden Schülerinnen und Schüler mit dem Begriff ‘Strahlung’? Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, (17).Google Scholar
  21. 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.
  22. Rennie, L., & Jarvis, T. (1995). Children’s choice of drawings to communicate their ideas about technology. Research in Science Education, 25(3), 239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Thomas, G. V., & Silk, A. M. J. (1990). An introduction to the psychology of children's drawings. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. White, R. T., & Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Austrian Educational Competence Centre PhysicsUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations