Learning in physics by doing laboratory work: Towards a new conceptual framework

Gender and Education

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 129-144

  Danielsson, Anna Teresia ^a   Linder, Cedric ^a,b  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF THE WESTERN CAPE   (South Africa)

Author keywords

Education; Identity; Laboratory; Physics; Post structural gender theory; Situated cognition

Indexed keywords

EID: 66449122522     PISSN: 09540253     EISSN: 13600516     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09540250802213081     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Brickhouse, N.W. 2001. Embodying science: A feminist perspective on learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38, no. 3: 282-95.
2. Brickhouse, N.W., and J.T. Potter. 2001. Young women's scientific identity formation in an urban context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38: 965-80.
3. Butler, J. 1999. Gender trouble. Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
4. Byrne, E. 1993. Women and science: The snark syndrome. Washington: Falmer Press.
5. Calabrese Barton, A. 1997. Libratory science education: Weaving connections between feminist theory and science education. Curriculum Inquiry 27, no. 2: 141-63.
6. Case, J., and J. Jawitz. 2004. Using situated cognition theory in researching student experience of the workplace. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41: 415-31.
7. Cohn, C. (1996) Nuclear language and how we learned to pat the bomb. In Feminism and science, ed. E. Fox Keller and H. E. Longino, 173-86. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. Danielsson, A.T. 2007. The gendered doing of physics: A conceptual framework and its application for exploring undergraduate physics students' identity formation in relation to laboratory work. Unpublished Licentiate thesis, Uppsala University.
9. Danielsson, A., and C. Linder. 2007. Doing physics/doing gender: The gendered identity formation of physics students in relation to laboratory work. Paper presented at the Gender and Education Association Conference, March 28-30, in Dublin, Ireland. http:// www.fysik.uu.se/didaktik/ Doing%20Physics%20GEA%20Dublin.pdf.
10. Davies, B. 2005. Community of practice: Legitimacy not choice. Journal of Sociolinguistics 9, no. 4:557-81.
11. Du, X.Y. 2006. Gendered practices of constructing an engineering identity in a problem-based learning environment. European Journal of Engineering Education 31, no. 1: 35-42.
12. Fox Keller, E. 1992. Secrets of life. Secrets of death. London: Routledge.
13. Gee, J.P. 2005. An introduction to discourse analysis. Theory and method. New York: Routledge.
14. Hammer, D. 1995. Epistemological considerations in teaching introductory physics. Science Education 79, no. 4: 393-413.
15. Hammer, D., A. Elby, R. Scherr, and E.F. Redish. 2004. Resources, framing, and transfer. In Transfer of learning: Research and perspectives, ed. J. Mestre, 89-119. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
16. Harding, S. 1986. The science question in feminism. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
17. - 1991. Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women's lives. New York: Cornell University Press.
18. Hasse, C. 2002. Gender diversity in play with physics: The problem of premises for participation in activities. Mind. Culture, and Activity 9, no. 4: 250-69.
19. Henwood, F. 1998. Engineering difference: Discourses on gender, sexuality and work in a college of technology. Gender and Education 10, no. 1: 35-49.
20. Herzig, A.H. 2004. 'Slaughtering this beautiful math': Graduate women choosing and leaving mathematics. Gender and Education 16, no. 3: 379-95.
21. Hildebrand, G.M. 2001. Con/Testing learning models. Paper presented at the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST) Conference, March 26-29, in St. Luis, MO.
22. Hughes, G. 2001. Exploring the availability of student scientist identities within curriculum discourse: An anti-essentialist approach to gender-inclusive science. Gender and Education 13, no. 3: 275-90.
23. Jones, M.G., A. Howe, and M.J. Rua. 2000. Gender differences in students' experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education 84: 180-92.
24. Kleinman, S.S. 1998. Overview of feminist pedagogy on the ideology of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 35, no. 8: 837-44.
25. Koch, A. 2001. Training in metacognition and comprehension of physics texts. Science Education 85: 758-68.
26. Kvale, S. 1997. Den kalitativa forskningsintervjun. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
27. Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Laws, P.W., P.J. Rosborough, and F. Poodry. 1999. Women's responses to an activity-based introductory physics program. Physics Education Resources, American Journal of Physics suppl. 67, no. 7: S32-S37.
29. Linder, C.J. 1992. Is teacher-reflected epistemology a source of conceptual difficulty in physics'? international Journal of Science Education 14:111-21.
30. Lising, L., and A. Elby 2005. The impact of epistemology on learning: A case study from introductory physics. American Journal of Physics 73, no. 4: 372-82.
31. Lorenzo, M., C.H. Crouch, and E. Mazur. 2006. Reducing the gender gap in physics education. American Journal of Physics 74, no. 2: 118-22.
32. McCullough, L. 2004. Gender, context, and physics assessment. Journal of International Women's Studies 5, no. 4: 20-30.
33. Mellström, U. 1999 Män och deras maskiner. Nora: Bokförlaget Nya Doxa.
34. Mendick, H. 2005. A beautiful myth? The gendering of being/doing 'good at math'. Gender and Education 17, no. 2: 203-19.
35. Merchant, C. 1984. Isis nya medvetenhet. Kvinnovetenskaplig tidskrift 4: 7-16.
36. Murphy, P., and E. Whitelegg. 2006. Girls and physics: Continuing barriers to 'belonging'. The Curriculum Journal 17, no 3: 281-305.
37. Nair, I., and S. Majetich. 1995. Physics and engineering in the classroom. In Teaching the majority. Breaking the gender barrier in science, mathematics, and engineering, ed. S.V. Rosser, 25-42. New York: Teachers College Press.
38. Nespor, J. 1994. Knowledge in motion. Space, time, and curriculum in undergraduate physics and management. London: The Falmer Press.
39. Nyström, E. 2007. Talking and taking positions. An encounter between action research and the gendered and racialised discourses of school science. PhD diss., Umeå University.
40. Paechter, C. 2003a. Masculinities and femininities as communities of practice. Women's Studies International Forum 26, no. 1: 69-77.
41. - . 2003b. Learning masculinities and femininities: Power/knowledge and legitimate peripheral participation. Women's Studies International Forum 26, no. 6: 541-52.
42. - .2006. Power, knowledge and embodiment in communities of practice. Women's Studies International Forum 29, no. 1: 13-26.
43. Redish, E.F. 2004. A theoretical framework for physics education research: Modeling student thinking. Paper presented at the Enrico Fermi Summer School in Physics, July 15-25, in Varenna, Italy.
44. Rodd, M., and H. Bartholomew. 2006. Invisible and special: Young women's experiences as undergraduate mathematics students. Gender and Education 18, no. 1: 35-49.
45. Rosser, S.V. (1995). Introduction: Reaching the majority. Retaining women in the pipeline. In Teaching the majority. Breaking the gender barrier in science, mathematics, and engineering, ed. S.V. Rosser, 1-24. New York: Teachers College Press.
46. Salminen-Karlsson, M. 2006. Situating gender in situated learning. Scandinavian Journal of Management 22: 31-48.
47. Schiebinger, L. 1991. The mind has no sex? Women in the origins of modern science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
48. Schneider, M.B. 2001. Encouragement of women physics majors at Grinnell College: A case study. The Physics Teacher39: 280-82.
49. Sfard, A. 1998. On two metaphors for learning and the danger of choosing just one. Educational Researcher 27, no. 2: 4-13.
50. Solomon, Y. 2007. Not belonging? What makes a functional learner identity in undergraduate mathematics? Studies in Higher Education 32, no. 1: 79-96.
51. Stonyer, H. 2002. Making engineering students - making women: The discursive context of engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education 18, no. 4: 392-9.
52. Thacker, B.A. 2003. Recent advances in classroom physics. Reports on Progress in Physics 66: 1833-64.
53. Thomas, K. 1990. Gender and subject in higher education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
54. Tonso, K. 1998. Constructing engineers through practice: Gendered features of learning and identity development. PhD diss., University of Colorado.
55. Traweek, S. 1988. Beamtimes and lifetimes. The world of high energy physicists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
56. Wajcman, J. 1991. Feminism confronts technology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
57. Walker, M. 2001. Engineering identities. British Journal of Sociology of Education 22, no. 1: 75-89.
58. Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice. Learning, meaning and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
59. Wertheim, M. 1995. Pythagoras' trousers: God, physics, and the gender wars. New York: Times Book.