Gender differences in science: An expertise perspective

Educational Psychology Review

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 149-169

  Taasoobshirazi, Gita ^a   Carr, Martha ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Expertise; Gender; Physics; Science

Indexed keywords

EID: 42149160577     PISSN: 1040726X     EISSN: 1573336X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10648-007-9067-y     Document Type: Article

References (125)

1. Abuhamdeh, S., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2004). The artistic personality: A systems approach. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.) Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 31-42). Washington: American Psychological Association.
2. Adelman, C. (1991). Women at thirtysomething. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
3. Alexander, P. A. (2003). Can we get there from here? Educational Researcher, 32, 3-4.
4. Anzai, Y. (1991). Learning and use of representations for physics expertise. In K. A. Anders, & J. Smith (Eds.) Toward a general theory of expertise (pp. 64-92). New York: Cambridge University Press.
5. Atkin, J. A. (1977). An information processing model of learning and problem solving. (Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 6488.
6. Baker, D., & Leary, R. (2003). Letting girls speak out about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 176-200.
7. Bell, A. E., Spencer, S. J., Iserman, E., & Logel, C. E. R. (2003). Stereotype threat and women's performance in engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 92, 307-312.
8. Beller, M., & Gafni, N. (1996). The 1991 international assessment of educational progress in mathematics and sciences: The gender differences perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 365-377.
9. Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1984). Academic precocity: Aspects of its development. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
10. Bloom, B. S. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine Books.
11. Boster, J. S., & Johnson, J. C. (1989). Form or function: A comparison of expert and novice judgments of similarity among fish. American Anthropologist, 91, 866-889.
12. Brainard, S. G., & Carlin, L. (1998). A six-year longitudinal study of undergraduate women in engineering and science. Journal of Engineering Education, 87, 369-375.
13. Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., Norby, M. N., & Ronning, R. R. (2004). Cognitive psychology and instruction. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
14. Burkam, D. T., Lee, V. E., & Smerdon, B. A. (1997). Gender and science learning early in high school: Subject matter and laboratory experiences. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 297-331.
15. Cavallo, A. M. L., Rozman, M., Blickenstaff, J., & Walker, N. (2004). Students' learning approaches, reasoning abilities, motivational goals, and epistemological beliefs in differing science courses. Journal of College Science Teaching, 33, 18-24.
16. Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The Draw-a-Scientist test. Science Education, 67, 255-265.
17. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self- explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145-182.
18. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
19. Crowley, K., Callanan, M. A., Tenenbaum, H. R., & Allen, E. (2001). Parents explain more often to boys than to girls during shared scientific thinking. Psychological Science, 12, 258-261.
20. Davis, R. (1989). Expert systems: How far can they go? AI Magazine, 10, 61-67.
21. DeBacker, T. K., & Nelson, R. M. (2000). Motivation to learn science: Differences related to gender, class type, and ability. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 245-254.
22. Dee-Lucas, D., & Larkin, J. H. (1986). Novice strategies for processing scientific texts. Discourse Processes, 9, 329-354.
23. Desouza, J. M. S., & Czemiak, C. M. (2002). Social implications and gender differences among preschoolers: Implications for science activities. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 16, 175-188.
24. Dhillon, A. S. (1998). Individual differences within problem-solving strategies used in physics. Science Education, 82, 379-405.
25. Dietel, R. J., Herman, J. L., & Knuth, R. A. (1991). What does research say about assessment? pp. 1-18. Oakbrook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
26. Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., Hardiman, P. T., & Mestre, J. P. (1992). Constraining novices to perform expert-like problem analysis: Effects on schema acquisition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 307-331.
27. Enman, M., & Lupart, J. (2000). Talented female students' resistance to science: An exploratory study of post-secondary achievement motivation, persistence, and epistemological characteristics. High Ability Studies, 11, 161-178.
28. Ericsson, K. A. (1996). The acquisition of expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.) The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts, sciences, sports, and games (pp. 1-50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
29. Ericsson, K. A. (2006a). Protocol analysis and expert thought: Concurrent verbalizations of thinking during experts' performance on representative task. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.) Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 223-242). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30. Ericsson, K. A. (2006b). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.) Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 685-706). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363-406.
32. Felder, R., Felder, G., Mauney, M., Hamrin, C., & Dietz, J. (1995). A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention: gender differences in student performance and attitudes. Journal of Engineering Education, 151-163. Retrieved April 12, 2004 from The Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science at Case Western University.
33. Ferry, T. R., Fouad, N. A., & Smith, P. L. (2000). The role of family context in a social cognitive model for career-related choice behavior: A math and science perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57, 348-364.
34. Finegold, M., & Mass, R. (1985). Differences in the processes of solving physics problems between good physics problem solvers and poor physics problem solvers. Research in Science and Technological Education, 3, 59-67.
35. Foote, C. J. (1996). Attribution feedback in the elementary classroom (Doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 2354.
36. Fort, D. C., & Varney, H. L. (1989). How students see scientists: Mostly male, mostly white, and mostly benevolent. Science and Children, 26, 8-13.
37. Glynn, S. M., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Brickman, P. (2007). Nonscience majors learning science: A theoretical model of motivation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1088-1107.
38. Greene, B. A., & DeBacker, T. K. (2004). Goal and orientations toward the future: Links to Motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 91-120.
39. Greenfield, T. A. (1997). Gender- and grade-level differences in science interest and participation. Science Education, 81, 259-275.
40. Hatano, G., & Oura, Y. (2003). Commentary: Reconceptualizing school learning using insight from expertise research. Educational Researcher, 32, 26-29.
41. Hazari, Z., Tai, R. H., & Sadler, P. M. (2007). Gender differences in introductory university physics performance: The influence of high school physics preparation and affective factors pp. 1-30. Wiley, NY: Science Education.
42. Hess, R. D., Hollowly, S. D., Dickson, W. P., & Price, G. G. (1984). Maternal variables as predictors of children's school readiness and later achievement in vocabulary and mathematics in sixth grade. Child Development, 55, 1902-1912.
43. Hewitt, N. M., & Seymour, E. (1991). The problems of women in science, mathematics, an engineering. Retrieved April 12, 2004 from The Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science at Case Western University.
44. Heyworth, R. M. (1999). Procedural and conceptual knowledge of expert and novice students for the solving of a basic problem in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 195-211.
45. Howard, B. C., McGee, S., Shia, R., & Hong, N. (2000). Computer-based science inquiry: How components of metacognitive self-regulation affect problem- solving. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Meeting, Seattle, WA. Retrieved from: http://www.cet.edu/research/ papers/CPhoward01.html (April).
46. Huber, R. A., & Burton, G. M. (1995). What do students think scientists look like? School Science & Mathematics, 95, 371-377.
47. Inzlicht, M., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2000). A threatening intellectual environment: Why females are susceptible to experiencing problem-solving deficits in the presence of males. Psychological Science, 11, 365-371.
48. Ivie, R., Cuzjko, R., & Stowe, K. (2001). Women physicists speak: The 2001 International Study of Women in Physics. American Institute of Physics Report. Retrieved from http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/gendertrends.html.
49. Jones, G., Howe, A., & Rua, M. J. (2000). Gender differences in students' experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education, 84, 180-192.
50. Jones, L. R., Mullis, I. V. S., Raizen, S. A., Weiss, I. R., & Weston, E. A. (1992). The 1990 science report card: NAEP's assessment of fourth, eighth, and twelfth graders. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
51. Jones, G., & Wheatley, J. (1990). Gender differences in teacher-student interactions in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 861-874.
52. Kahle, J. B., & Lakes, M. K. (1983). The myth of equality in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 131-140.
53. Kardash, C. M. (2000). Evaluation of an undergraduate research experience: Perceptions of undergraduate interns and their faculty mentors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 191-201.
54. Kardash, C. M., & Wallace, M. L. (2001). The perceptions of science classes survey: What undergraduate science reform efforts really need to address. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 199-210.
55. Kaschalk, R. (2002). Physics- why bother?.that's why!. Contextual Teaching Exchange, 1, 1-8.
56. Katz, S., Allbritton, D., Aronis, J., Wilson, C., & Soffa, M. L. (2006). Gender, achievement, and persistence in an undergraduate computer science program. The Database for Advances in Information Systems, 37, 42-57.
57. Kleinfeld, J. (1998). The myth that schools shortchange girls: Social science in the service of deception. U.S. News and World Report, pp. 1-5.
58. Knight, M., & Cunningham, C. (2004). Draw an Engineer Test (DAET): Development of a tool to investigate students' ideas about engineers and engineering. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education, Utah. Retrieved from: http://asee.org/acPapers/2004- 1188_Final.pdf. (June).
59. Koch, A. (2001). Training in metacognition and comprehension of physics texts. Science Education, 85, 758-768.
60. Larkin, J. H. (1983). The role of problem representations in physics. In D. Gentner, & A.L. Stevens (Eds.) Mental Models (pp. 75-98). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
61. Larkin, J. H. (1985). Understanding problem representations and skill in physics. In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.) Thinking and learning skills: Vol 2. Research and open questions (pp. 141-159). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
62. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-99.
63. Larkin, J. H., Heller, J., & Greeno, G. (1980). Instructional implications of research in problem solving. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2, 51-65.
64. Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, H., & Simon, D. (1980a). Models of competence in solving physics problems. Cognitive Science, 4, 317-345.
65. Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, H., & Simon, D. (1980b). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208, 1335-1342.
66. Larose, S., Ratelle, C. F., Guay, F., Senecal, C., & Harvey, M. (2006). Trajectories of science self-efficacy and academic and vocational adjustment in science and technology programs. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12, 373-393.
67. Law, D. J., Pellegrino, J. W., & Hunt, E. B. (1993). Comparing the tortoise and the hare: Gender differences and experience in dynamic spatial reasoning tasks. Psychological Science, 4, 35-40.
68. Lee, V. L., Marks, H. M., & Byrd, T. (1994). Sexism in single-sex and coeducational secondary classrooms. Sociology of Education, 67, 92-120.
69. Linn, M. C., & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and categorization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56, 1479-1498.
70. Lupart, J. L., Cannon, E., & Telfer, J. A. (2004). Gender differences in adolescent academic achievement, interests, values, and life-role expectations. High Ability Studies, 15, 25-42.
71. Mannis, J. D., Thomas, N. G., Sloat, B. F., & Davis, C. (1989). An analysis of factors affecting choices of majors in science, mathematics, and engineering at the University of Michigan (Research Report No. 23). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Education of Women.
72. Mattern, N., & Schau, C. (2002). Gender differences in science attitude-achievement relationships over time among white middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 324-340.
73. Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
74. McIver, L. (2000). The effect of programming language on error rates of novice programmers. Paper presented at the twelfth annual meeting of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group, Corigliano Calabro, Italy (April).
75. Meece, J. L., & Jones, G. M. (1996). Gender differences in motivation and strategy use in science: Are girls rote learners? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 393-406.
76. Miller, P. H., Blessing, J. S., & Schwartz, S. (2006). Gender differences in high school students' views about science. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 363-381.
77. Morgan, C., Isaac, J. D., & Sansone, C. (2001). The role of interest in understanding the career choices of female and male college students. Sex Roles, 44, 295-320.
78. Murphy, P., & Whitelegg, E. (2006). Girls and physics: continuing barriers to belonging. The Curriculum Journal, 17, 281-305.
79. National Assessment of Educational Progress (2005). Results of the 2005 science trial urban district assessment. Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
80. National Commission on Excellence in Education (2000). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
81. National Research Council (2001). Assessment in practice. Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
82. National Science Foundation. (2004). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2004. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/pdf/nsf04317.pdf.
83. National Science Foundation. (2006). Science and engineering indicators 2006: Elementary and secondary education. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/ statistics/seind06/c1/c1h.htm.
84. Neto, A. J., & Valente, M. O. (1997). Problem solving in physics: Towards a synergetic metacognitively developed approach. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/ 80/16/59/d1.pdf. (March)
85. Nolen, S. B. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and study strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 269-287.
86. Posnick-Goodwin, S. (2005). In the march toward gender equity, girls surge forward, but boys fall back. California Editor, pp. 1-3.
87. Priest, A. G., & Lindsay, R. O. (1992). New light on novice-expert differences in physics problem solving. The British Psychological Society, 83, 389-405.
88. Reif, F., & Allen, S. (1992). Cognition for interpreting scientific concepts: A study of acceleration. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 1-44.
89. Reif, F., & Heller, J. I. (1982). Knowledge structures and problem solving in physics. Educational Psychologist, 17, 102-127.
90. Ridley, D. R., & Novak, J. D. (1983). Sex-related differences in high school science and mathematics enrollments: Do they give males a critical headstart toward science and math-related careers? Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 29, 308-318.
91. Riley, S. (2005). K-12 programs draw girls to science. EE Times, pp. 1-3.
92. Roe, A. (1956). Psychology of occupations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
93. Rosser, S. V. (2003). Sociology of science: Testing theories for the gender difference. Science, 302, 1506-1507.
94. Schmidt, H. G., & Boshuizen, P. A. (1993). On acquiring expertise in medicine. Educational Psychology Review, 5, 205-220.
95. Schneider, A. (1998). Why don't women publish as much as men? Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. 1-5.
96. Schneider, W. (1993). Acquiring expertise: determinants of exceptional performance. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.) International Handbook of Research and Development of Giftedness and Talent (pp. 311-324). United Kingdom: Pergamon Press.
97. Seymour, E. (1992a). "The problem iceberg" in science, mathematics, and engineering education: Student explanations for high attrition rates. Journal of College Science Teaching, 21, 230-238.
98. Seymour, E. (1992b). The problem iceberg in science, mathematics, and engineering education: Student explanations for high attrition rates. Journal of College Science Teaching, 21, 230-232.
99. Seymour, E. (1995). The loss of women from science, mathematics, and engineering undergraduate majors: An explanatory account. Science Education, 79, 437-473.
100. Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
101. She, H. C. (2001). Different gender students' participation in the high and low-achieving middle school questioning-oriented biology classrooms in Taiwan. Research in Science & Technological Education, 19, 147-158.
102. Shepardson, D. P., & Pizzini, E. L. (1992). Gender bias in female elementary teachers' perceptions of the scientific ability of students. Science Education, 76, 147-153.
103. Shin, N., Jonassen, D. H., & McGee, S. (2003). Predictors of well-structured and ill- structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 6-33.
104. Shin, N., & McGee, S. (2002). The influence of inquiry-based multimedia learning environment on specific problem-solving skills among ninth grade students across gender differences. Paper Presented at Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Dallas, TX. Retrieved from: http://www.cet.edu/research/papers/CPshin02.html. (November).
105. Siebert, E. D. (2001). Science education program standards. In E. D. Siebert, & W. J. McIntosh (Eds.) College pathways to the science education standards (pp. 115-138). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
106. Smith, J. L. (2004). Understanding the process of stereotype threat: A review of mediational variables and new performance goal directions. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 177-206.
107. Solomon, J. (1997). Girls' science education: choice, solidarity and culture. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 407-417.
108. Stake, J. E. (2006). The critical mediating role of social encouragement for science motivation and confidence among high school girls and boys. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1017-1045.
109. Strenta, A. C., Elliott, R., Adair, R., Matier, M., & Scott, J. (1994). Choosing and leaving science in highly selective institutions. Research in Higher Education, 35, 513-547.
110. Stumpf, H., & Stanley, J. (1996). Gender related differences on the College Board's Advanced Placement and Achievement tests, 1982-1992. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 353-364.
111. Swanson, H. L. (1990). Influence of metacognitive knowledge and aptitude on problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 306-314.
112. Tai, R. H., & Sadler, P. M. (2001). Gender differences in introductory undergraduate physics performance: University physics versus college physics in the USA. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 1017-1037.
113. Tenenbaum, H. R., & Leaper, C. (2003). Parent-child conversations about science: The socialization of gender inequities? Developmental Psychology, 39, 34-47.
114. Tenenbaum, H. R., Snow, C. E., Roach, K. A., & Kurland, B. (2005). Talking and reading science: Longitudinal data on sex differences in mother-child conversations in low-income families. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 1-19.
115. Tobias, S. (1990). They're not dumb, they're different: Stalking the second tier. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation.
116. Tobias, S. (1989). Another look at research on the adaptation of instruction to student characteristics. Educational Psychologist, 24, 213-227.
117. Tobias, S., & Everson, H. (2000). Cognition and metacognition. Issues in Education, 6, 167-173.
118. Tuminaro, J., & Redish, E. F. (2007). Elements of a cognitive model of physics problem solving: Epistemic games. Physics Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 3, 1-22.
119. Van Heuvelen, A. (1991). Overview, case-study physics. American Journal of Physics, 59, 898-907.
120. Wee, A. T. S., Baaquie, B. E., & Huan, A. C. H. (1993). Gender differences in undergraduate physics examination performance and learning strategies in Singapore. Physics Education, 28, 158-163.
121. Willingham, W. W., & Johnson, L. M. (1997). Supplement to gender and fair assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
122. Willson, V. L., Ackerman, C., & Malave, C. (2000). Cross-time attitudes, concept formation, and achievement in college freshman physics. Journal of Research on College Teaching, 37, 1112-1120.
123. Worrall, N., & Tsarna, H. (1987). Teachers' reported practices toward girls and boys in science and languages. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 300-312.
124. Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. (2003). Women in science: Career processes and outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
125. Zajchowski, R., & Martin, J. (1993). Differences in the problem solving of stronger and weaker novices in physics: Knowledge strategies, or knowledge structure. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 459-470.