Assessing gender differences in response system questions for an introductory physics course

American Journal of Physics

Volumn 81, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 231-236

  Richardson, Chris T ^a   O'Shea, Brian W ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84874215306     PISSN: 00029505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1119/1.4773562     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Hestenes D. Wells M. Swackhamer G. Force concept inventory. Phys. Teach. 1992, 30:141-158. 10.1119/1.2343497
2. Thornton R.K. Sokoloff D.R. 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. 1998, 66:338-352. 10.1119/1.18863
3. Kost-Smith L. Pollock S.J. Finkelstein N.D. Characterizing the gender gap in introductory physics courses. PRST Phys. Educ. Res. 2009, 5:010101-1-14. 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.010101
4. Docktor J. Heller K. Gender differences in both force concept inventory and classroom Performance. AIP Conf. Proc. 2008, 1064:15-18. 10.1063/1.3021243
5. Kost-Smith L. Pollock S.J. Finkelstein N.D. Gender disparities in second-semester college physics: The incremental effects of a 'smog of bias,'. PRST Phys. Educ. Res. 2010, 6:020112-1-17. 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.020112.
6. Pollock S. J. Finkelstein N.D. Kost L. Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom: How sufficient is interactive engagement?. PRST Phys. Educ. Res. 2007, 3:010101-1-4. 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.010107
7. Lorenzo M. Crouch C.H. Mazur E. Reducing the gender gap in the classroom. Am. J. Phys. 2006, 74:118-122. 10.1119/1.2162549
8. Kost-Smith L. Pollock S.J. Finkelstein N.D. Cohen G.L. Ito T.A. Miyake A. Replicating a self-affirmation intervention to address gender differences: Successes and challenges. AIP Conf. Proc 2012, 1413:231-234. 10.1063/1.3680037
9. Kortemeyer G. Gender differences in the use of an online homework system in an introductory physics course. PRST Phys. Educ. Res. 2009, 5:010107-1-8. 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.010107
10. Kortemeyer G. The challenge of teaching introductory physics to pre-medical students. Phys. Teach. 2007, 45:552-557. 10.1119/1.2809149
11. Kortemeyer G. Kashy E. Benenson W. Bauer W. Experiences using the open-source learning content management and assessment system LON-CAPA in introductory physics courses. Am. J. Phys. 2008, 76:438-444. 10.1119/1.2835046
12. Redish E.F. Steinberg R.N. Saul J.M. Student expectations in introductory physics. Am. J. Phys. 1998, 66:212-224. 10.1119/1.18847
13. Hake R.R. Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am. J. Phys. 1998, 66:64-74. 10.1119/1.18809
14. Ding L. Reay N.W. Lee A. Bao L. Are we asking the right questions? Validating clicker question sequences by student interviews. Am. J. Phys. 2009, 77:643-650. 10.1119/1.3116093
15. Forehand M. Bloom's Taxonomy: Original and Revised 2005, Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology.
16. King D. Joshi S. Gender differences in the use and effectiveness of personal response devices. J. Sci. Edu. Technol 2008, 17:544-552. 10.1007/s10956-008-9121-7
17. Weaver R.R. Qi J. Classroom organization and participation: College students' Perceptions. J. Higher Edu. 2005, 76:570-601. 10.1353/jhe.2005.0038
18. Mallow J. Gender-related science anxiety: A first binational study. J. Sci. Edu. Technol 1994, 3:227-238. 10.1007/BF01575898
19. Bruff D. Teaching with Classroom Response Systems: Creating Active Learning Environments 2009, 1st ed. (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California).
20. Caldwell J.E. Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE Life Sciences Educ. 2007, 6:9-20. 10.1187/cbe.06-12-0205
21. Fies C. Marshall J. J. Sci. Edu. Technol. 2006, 15:101-109. 10.1007/s10956-006-0360-1, and.