Gender disparities in second-semester college physics: The incremental effects of a " smog of bias"

Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2010, Pages

  Kost Smith, Lauren E ^a   Pollock, Steven J ^a   Finkelstein, Noah D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78649387959     PISSN: 15549178     EISSN: 15549178     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.020112     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2009, NSF 09-305, (Arlington, VA; January 2009). Available from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/
2. S. J. Pollock, N. D. Finkelstein, and L. E. Kost, Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom: How sufficient is interactive engagement? Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 010107 (2007)
3. L. E. Kost, S. J. Pollock, and N. D. Finkelstein, Characterizing the gender gap in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 010101 (2009).
4. E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: A Users Manual (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997).
5. L. C. McDermott and P. S. Schaffer, Tutorials in Introductory Physics (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002).
6. R. R. Hake, Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data forintroductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998).
7. P. Laws, P. Rosborough, and F. Poodry, Women's responses to an activity-based introductory physics program, Am. J. Phys. 67, S32 (1999).
8. M. Schneider, Encouragement of women physics majors at Grinnell college: A case study, Phys. Teach. 39, 280 (2001).
9. Teaching the Majority: Breaking the Gender Barrier in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering, edited by S. V. Rosser (Teacher's College Press, New York, 1995).
10. National Research Council, To Recruit and Advance: Women Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2006).
11. D. Halpern, J. Aronson, N. Reimer, S. Simpkins, J. Star, and K. Wentzel, Encouraging Girls in Math and Science (NCER 2007-2003). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education (2007). Retrieved from http://ncer.ed.gov
12. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992).
13. M. Lorenzo, C. Crouch, and E. Mazur, Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom, Am. J. Phys. 74, 118 (2006).
14. R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, Assessing student learning of Newton's laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula, Am. J. Phys. 66, 338 (1998).
15. P. Heller, R. Keith, and S. Anderson, Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving, Am. J. Phys. 60, 627 (1992).
16. P. Heller and M. Hollabaugh, Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups, Am. J. Phys. 60, 637 (1992).
17. J. Docktor and K. Heller, Gender Differences in Both Force Concept Inventory and Introductory Physics Performance in Proceedings of the 2008 Physics Education Research Conference, edited by C. Henderson, M. Sabella, and L. Hsu (AIP Conference Proceedings, New York, 2008) p. 15.
18. G. Carter, S. L. Westbrook, and C. D. Thompkins, Examining Science Tools as Mediators of Students' Learning about Circuits, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 36, 89 (1999).
19. J. B. Kahle, L. H. Parker, L. J. Rennie, and D. Riley, Gender Differences in Science Education: Building a Model, Educ. Psychol. 28, 379 (1993).
20. C. P. Russel and D. P. French, Factors affecting participation in traditional and inquiry-based laboratories, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 31, 225 (2002).
21. R. H. Tai and P. M. Sadler, Gender differences in introductory undergraduate physics performance: University physics versus college physics in the USA, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 23, 1017 (2001).
22. Z. Hazari, R. H. Tai, and P. M. Sadler, Gender differences in introductory university physics performance: The influence of high school physics preparation and affective factors, Sci. Educ. 91, 847 (2007).
23. P. M. Sadler and R. H. Tai, Success in introductory college physics: The role of high school preparation, Sci. Educ. 85, 111 (2001).
24. D. E. Meltzer, The relationship between mathematics preparation and conceptual learning gains in physics: A possible hidden variable in diagnostic pretest scores, Am. J. Phys. 70, 1259 (2002).
25. CAPA, http://www.lon-capa.org/; Mastering Physics, http://www.masteringphysics.com/
26. V. Otero, N. D. Finkelstein, R. McCray, and S. Pollock, Who is responsible for preparing science teachers? Science 313, 445 (2006).
27. N. D. Finkelstein and S. J. Pollock, Replicating and understanding successful innovations: implementing tutorials in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 1, 010101 (2005).
28. C. Turpen and N. D. Finkelstein, Not all interactive engagement is the same: Variations in physics professors' implementation of Peer Instruction, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020101 (2009).
29. In general, two professors are assigned to each of the largeenrollment introductory physics courses at CU. One professor (the lead) is responsible for the lecture part of the course and the other professor (the back-up) is responsible for the recitation part of the course. The back-up instructor usually does not have much, if any, interaction with students, while the lead instructor is who the students see in lecture. This being the case, we will only talk about the role of the lead instructor in these courses.
30. L. Ding, R. Chabay, B. Sherwood, and R. Beichner, Evaluating an electricity and magnetism assessment tool: Brief electricity and magnetism assessment, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010105 (2006).
31. The pretest BEMA data for this course are reasonably stable (mean scores between 25% and 28%, standard deviations are about 9%) from semester to semester, which is why some faculty have chosen not to give the BEMA pretest to their students.
32. Data on students' high school experience (high school courses, high school GPA, SAT-math, and ACT-math scores), student demographic data (gender, ethnicity, and declared major), and course data (semester of enrollment and course grade) were collected from the Office of Planning, Budget, and Analysis at CU-Boulder. None of these data were self-reported.
33. While we recognize that there are other ways of quantifying a students' mathematics background, the most objective measures that were available to use were SAT-and ACT-Math scores and years of high school calculus. We found in the regression analyses that SAT-and ACT-Math scores were better predictors of student performance than years of high school calculus, so we chose to use those measures as a proxy for mathematics background.
34. s=(S-) /SD, where is the average SAT-math score for all students and SD is the standard deviation of the SAT-math scores.
35. W. K. Adams, K. K. Perkins, N. Podolefsky, M. Dubson, N. D. Finkelstein, and C. E. Wieman, New instrument for measuring student beliefs about physics and learning physics: the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010101 (2006).
36. L. McCullough, Gender, context, and physics assessment, J. Int. Women's Stud. 5, 20 (2004).
37. T. L. McCaskey, M. H. Dancy, and A. Elby, Effects in assessment caused by splits between belief and understanding in Proceedings of the 2003 Physics Education Research Conference, edited by J. Marx, S. Franklin, and K. Cummings (AIP Conference Proceedings, New York, 2004) p. 37.
38. E. Hazel, P. Logan, and P. Gallagher, Equitable assessment of students in physics: importance of gender and language back-ground, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 19, 381 (1997).
39. Phys1 are the average values for males who took both Physics 1 and 2, and for males who took Physics 1 only, respectively. SDM is the standard deviation for all males who took Physics 1. A similar calculation is used for the effect size of the females.
40. The effect size is calculated as ES=(M-F /SD, where the SD for all students is used.
41. R. Chabay and B. Sherwood, Restructuring the introductory electricity and magnetism course, Am. J. Phys. 74, 329 (2006).
42. M. A. Kohlmyer, M. D. Caballero, R. Catrambone, R. W. Chabay, L. Ding, M. P. Haugan, M. J. Marr, B. A. Sherwood, and M. F. Schatz, Tale of two curricula: The performance of 2000 students in introductory electromagnetism, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020105 (2009).
43. The normalized learning gain that we are using here is the gain for each individual student, calculated as g=(post-pre)/(100-pre).
44. The post-test scores for the FMCE and BEMA are slightly different. The mean FMCE post-test score is 65% and the mean BEMA post-test score is 56%. Even when we normalize the gender gaps by these post-test scores, the trends are the same.
45. At CU, students can drop a course within the first two and half weeks of the semester and the course will not appear on their transcript. If students drop the course after two and a half weeks, a grade of W (withdraw) will appear on their transcript. It is only these students, who receive a grade of W for the course, that are included in this analysis.
46. We presented here only average CLASS shifts over all Physics 2 semesters. While there are some differences in CLASS shifts by semester, most semesters show trends similar to the averages we have presented here. One exception is Semester A2, in which both males and females showed significant positive gains overall.
47. Z. Hazari, P. M. Sadler, and R. H. Tai, Gender differences in the high school and affective experiences of introductory college physics students, Phys. Teach. 46, 423 (2008).
48. S. E. Carrell, M. E. Page, and J. E. West, Sex and science: How professor gender perpetuates the gender gap, NBER Working Paper 14959 (Cambridge, MA; May 2009). Available from http://www.nber.org/papers/w14959
49. In our previous work (Ref. [3]), a similar multiple-regression analysis on the FMCE posttest yielded an R2 value of 0.44. Similar analyses conducted by other researchers have R2 values of 0.16 (Ref. [21]), 0.28 (Ref. [22]), and 0.36 (Ref. [23]). The R2 value reported here of 0.34 is within this range.
50. Though not part of the data set used for this analysis, Professor F taught again in a more recent semester. We did not observe the same trends with respect to course grades or DFW rates the second time that she taught as the first time. While we did not find consistent evidence of a positive impact of a female professor on the performance of females in the course, we still believe it is an issue that deserves further study.
51. D. M. Marx and J. S. Roman, Female Role Models: Protecting Women's Math Test Performance, Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28, 1183 (2002).
52. L. E. Kost, S. J. Pollock, and N. D. Finkelstein, Unpacking Gender Differences in Students' Perceived Experiences in Introductory Physics in Proceedings of the 2009 Physics Education Research Conference, edited by M. Sabella, C. Henderson, and C. Singh (AIP Conference Proceedings, New York, 2009), p. 177.
53. C. M. Steele, A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance, Am. Psychol. 52, 613 (1997).
54. S. J. Spencer, C. M. Steele, and D. M. Quinn, Stereotype threat and women's math performance, J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 35, 4 (1999).
55. C. M. Steele, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, edited by L. Berkowitz (Academic Press, New York, 1988), p. 261.
56. G. L. Cohen, J. Garcia, N. Apfel, and A. Master, Reducing the racial achievement gap: A social-psychological intervention, Science 313, 1307 (2006).
57. A. Martens, M. Johns, J. Greenberg, and J. Schimel, Combating stereotype threat: The effect of self-affirmation on women's intellectual performance, J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 42, 236 (2006).
58. A. Miyake, L. E. Kost-Smith, N. D. Finkelstein, S. J. Pollock, G. L. Cohen, and T. A. Ito, Reducing the Gender Achievement Gap in College Science: A Classroom Study of Values Affirmation (to be published).
59. V. Valian, Why So Slow: The Advancement of Women (MIT, Cambridge, 1999).
60. B. D. Tatum, Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? And Other Conversations About Race (Basic Books, New York, 1997).
61. B. L. Whitten, S. R. Foster, M. L. Duncombe, P. E. Allen, P. Heron, H. M. Zorn, L. McCullough, K. A. Shaw, and B. A. P. Taylor, What Works? Increasing the Participation of Women in Undergraduate Physics, J. of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 9, 239 (2003).