Cognitive difficulty and format of exams predicts gender and socioeconomic gaps in exam performance of students in introductory biology courses

CBE Life Sciences Education

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2016, Pages

  Wright, Christian D ^a   Eddy, Sarah L ^b   Wenderoth, Mary Pat ^c   Abshire, Elizabeth ^c   Blankenbiller, Margaret ^c   Brownell, Sara E ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGY; COGNITION; EDUCATION; EDUCATIONAL MODEL; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SEX DIFFERENCE; SOCIOECONOMICS; STUDENT;

BIOLOGY; COGNITION; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, EDUCATIONAL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SEX FACTORS; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; STUDENTS;

EID: 84971668141     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19317913     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1187/cbe.15-12-0246     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Akaike H (1973). Information theory as an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Second International Symposium on Information Theory, ed. BN Petrov and F Csaki, Budapest, Hungary: Akademiai Kiado, 267-281.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (2011). Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action, Washington, DC.
3. Anderson DR (2008). Model Based Inference in the Life Sciences: A Primer on Evidence, New York: Springer.
4. Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR, Bloom BS (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, New York: Longman.
5. Aronson J, Fried CB, Good C (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. J Exp Soc Psych 38, 113-125.
6. Barton K (2015). MuMIn: Multi-model Inference, R package, Version 1.13.5. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn (accessed 21 April 2015).
7. Bastick T (2002). Gender differences for 6-12th grade students over Bloom’s cognitive domain. Paper presented at the Western Psychological Association, WPA Convention, Irvine, CA, April 14-17, 2002.
8. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014). lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using “Eigen” and S4, R Package, Version 1.1-7. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html (accessed 21 April 2015).
9. Beller M, Gafni N (2000). Can item format (multiple choice vs. open-ended) account for gender differences in mathematics achievement? Sex Roles 42, 1-21.
10. Black P, Wiliam D (1998). Inside the black box: raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan 80, 139-144.
11. Blackwell LS, Trzesniewski KH, Dweck CS (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: a longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Dev 78, 246-263.
12. Bloom BS, Krathwohl DR, Masia BB (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, New York: McKay.
13. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2004). Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociol Method Res 33, 261-304.
14. Carlton ST, Harris AM (1992). Characteristics Associated with Differential Item Functioning on the Scholastic Aptitude Test: Gender and Majority/Minority Group Comparisons, Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
15. Carrell SE, Page ME, West JW (2010). Sex and science: how professor gender perpetuates the gender gap. Q J Econ 125, 1101-1144.
16. Cohen GL, Garcia J, Apfel N, Master A (2006). Reducing the racial achievement gap: a social-psychological intervention. Science 313, 1307-1310.
17. Creech LR, Sweeder RD (2012). Analysis of student performance in large-enrollment life science courses. CBE Life Sci Educ 11, 386-391.
18. Croizet JC, Dutrevis M (2004). Socioeconomic status and intelligence: why test scores do not equal merit. J Poverty 8, 91-107.
19. Crowe A, Dirks C, Wenderoth MP (2008). Biology in Bloom: implementing Bloom’s taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology. CBE Life Sci Educ 7, 368-381.
20. DeAngelo L, Hurtado S, Pryor JH, Kelly KR, Santos JL, Korn WS (2009). The American College Teacher: National Norms for the 2007-2008 HERI Faculty Survey, Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institution, UCLA.
21. de Ayala RJ (2009). The Theory and Practice of Item Response Theory, New York: Guilford.
22. DeMars CE (1998). Gender differences in mathematics and science on a high school proficiency exam: The role of response format. Appl Meas Educ 11, 279-299.
23. DeMars CE (2000). Test stakes and item format interactions. Appl Meas Educ 13, 55-77.
24. Derting TL, Ebert-May D (2010). Learner-centered inquiry in undergraduate biology: positive relationships with long-term student achievement. CBE Life Sci Educ 9, 462-472.
25. Dweck CS (1999). Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development, Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
26. Dweck CS (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, New York: Ballantine.
27. Eddy SL, Brownell SE, Wenderoth MP (2014). Gender gaps in achievement and participation in multiple introductory biology classrooms. CBE Life Sci Educ 13, 478-492.
28. Eddy SL, Converse M, Wenderoth MP (2015). PORTAAL: a classroom observation tool assessing evidence-based teaching practices for active learning in large science, technology, engineering, and mathematics classes. CBE Life Sci Educ 14, ar23.
29. Eddy SL, Hogan KA (2014). Getting under the hood: how and for whom does increasing course structure work? CBE Life Sci Educ 13, 453-468.
30. Entwistle NJ, Entwistle A (1991). Contrasting forms of understanding for degree examinations: the student experience and its implications. High Educ 22, 205-227.
31. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, Wenderoth MP (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111, 8410-8415.
32. Freeman S, Haak D, Wenderoth MP (2011). Increased course structure improves performance in introductory biology. CBE Life Sci Educ 10, 175-186.
33. Freeman S, O’Conner E, Parks JW, Cunningham M, Hurley D, Haak D, Dirks C, Wenderoth MP (2007). Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology. CBE Life Sci Educ 6, 132-139.
34. Garamszegi LZ (2011). Information-theoretic approaches to statistical analysis in behavioral ecology: an introduction. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65, 1-11.
35. Good C, Aronson J, Harder JA (2008). Problems in the pipeline: stereotype threat and women’s achievement in high-level math courses. J Appl Dev Psychol 29, 17-28.
36. Good C, Aronson J, Inzlicht M (2003). Improving adolescents’ standardized test performance: an intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. J Appl Dev Psychol 24, 645-662.
37. Grant H, Dweck CS (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. J Pers Soc Psychol 85, 541-553.
38. Haak DC, HilleRisLambers J, Pitre E, Freeman S (2011). Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science 332, 1213-1216.
39. Handwerk P, Tognatta N, Coley RJ, Gitomer DH (2008). Access to Success: Patterns of Advanced Placement Participation in U.S. High Schools, Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
40. Harackiewicz JM, Canning EA, Tibbetts Y, Giffen CJ, Blair SS, Rouse DI, Hyde JS (2014). Closing the social class achievement gap for first-generation students in undergraduate biology. J Educ Psychol 106, 375-389.
41. Harris AM, Carlton ST (1993). Patterns of gender differences on mathematics items on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Appl Meas Educ 6, 137-151.
42. Ingersoll RM (1999). The problem of underqualified teachers in American secondary schools. Educ Res 28, 26-37.
43. Jensen JL, McDaniel MA, Woodard SM, Kummer TA (2014). Teaching to the test … or testing to teach: exams requiring higher order thinking skills encourage greater conceptual understanding. Educ Psychol Rev 26, 307-329.
44. Keller J (2007). Stereotype threat in classroom settings: the interactive effect of domain identification, task difficulty and stereotype threat on female students’ math performance. Br J Educ Psychol 77, 323-338.
45. Kreft IGG, de Leeuw J (2002). Introducing Multilevel Modeling, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46. Lauer S, Momsen J, Offerdahl E, Kryjevskaia M, Christensen W, Montplaisir L (2013). Stereotyped: investigating gender in introductory science courses. CBE Life Sci Educ 12, 30-38.
47. Le LT (2009). Investigating gender differential item functioning across countries and test languages for PISA science items. Int J Test 9, 122-133.
48. Lindberg SM, Hyde JS, Petersen JL, Linn MC (2010). New trends in gender and mathematics performance: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 136, 1123-1135.
49. Mattern KD, Shaw EJ, Williams FE (2008). Examining the Relationship between the SAT, High School Measures of Academic Performance, and Socioeconomic Status: Turning Our Attention to the Unit of Analysis (RN-36), New York: College Board. http://research.collegeboard.org/publications/content/2012/05/examining-relationship -between-sat-high-school-measures-academic (accessed 27 April 2015).
50. Mazzeo J, Schmitt AP, Bleistein CA (1993). Sex-Related Performance Differences on Constructed-Response and Multiple-Choice Sections of Advanced Placement Examinations (CB Rep. No. 92-7; ETS RR No. 93-5), New York: College Entrance Examination Board. http://research.collegeboard.org/publications/content/2012/05/sex-related-performance-differences-constructed-response-and-multiple (accessed 25 April 2015).
51. McCullough L (2004). Gender, context, and physics assessment. J Int Womens Stud 5, 20-30.
52. McDaniel MA, Thomas RC, Agarwal PK, McDermott KB, Roediger HL (2013). Quizzing in middle-school science: successful transfer performance on classroom exams. Appl Cognit Psychol 27, 360-372.
53. Migliaccio B, Sheikh O (2009). Gender differences in performance in Principles of Biochemistry based on Bloom’s taxonomy of question difficulty and study habits. NCSU Undergrad Res J 5, 76-83.
54. Miyake A, Kost-Smith LE, Finkelstein ND, Pollock SJ, Cohen GL, Ito TA (2010). Reducing the gender achievement gap in college science: a classroom study of values affirmation. Science 330, 1234-1237.
55. Momsen JL, Long TM, Wyse SA, Ebert-May D (2010). Just the facts? Introductory undergraduate biology courses focus on low-level cognitive skills. CBE Life Sci Educ 9, 435-440.
56. Momsen J, Offerdahl E, Kryjevskaia M, Montplaisir L, Anderson E, Grosz N (2013). Using assessments to investigate and compare the nature of learning in undergraduate science courses. CBE Life Sci Educ 12, 239-249.
57. Neuschmidt O, Barth J, Hastedt D (2008). Trends in gender differences in mathematics and science (TIMSS 1995-2003). Stud Educ Eval 34, 56-72.
58. Oakes J (1990). Multiplying Inequalities: The Effects of Race, Social Class, and Tracking on Opportunities to Learn Mathematics and Science, Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
59. Paterson L, Goldstein H (1991). New statistical methods for analysing social structures: an introduction to multilevel models. Br Educ Res J 17, 387-393.
60. Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods, 2nd ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
61. Rauschenberger MM, Sweeder RD (2010). Gender performance differences in biochemistry. Biochem Mol Biol Educ 38, 380-384.
62. Rickards JP, Friedman F (1978). The encoding versus the external storage hypothesis in note taking. Contemp Educ Psychol 3, 136-143.
63. Ryan KE, Chiu S (2001). An examination of item context effects, DIF, and gender DIF. Appl Meas Educ 14, 73-90.
64. Shapiro JR, Williams AM, Hambarchyan M (2013). Are all interventions equal? A multi-threat approach to tailoring stereotype threat interventions. J Pers Soc Psychol 104, 277-288.
65. Sherman DK, Hartson KA, Binning KR, Purdie-Vaughns V, Garcia J, Taborsky-Barba S, Tomassetti S, Nussbaum AD, Cohen GL (2013). Deflecting the trajectory and changing the narrative: how self-affirmation affects academic performance and motivation under identity threat. J Pers Soc Psychol 104, 591-618.
66. Smeding A, Darnon C, Souchal C, Toczek-Capelle MC, Butera F (2013). Reducing the socio-economic status achievement gap at university by promoting mastery-oriented assessment. PLoS One 8, e71678.
67. Smith JL, Brown ER, Thoman DB, Deemer ED (2015). Losing its expected communal value: how stereotype threat undermines women’s identity as research scientists. Soc Psychol Educ 18, 443-466.
68. Spencer SJ, Steele CM, Quinn DM (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. J Exp Soc Psychol 35, 4-28.
69. Stanger-Hall KF (2012). Multiple-choice exams: an obstacle for higher-level thinking in introductory science classes. CBE Life Sci Educ 11, 294-306.
70. Steele CM (1997). A threat in the air: how stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. Am Psychol 52, 613-629.
71. Steele CM, Aronson J (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. J Pers Soc Psychol 69, 797-811.
72. Taylor CS, Lee Y (2011). Ethnic DIF in reading tests with mixed item formats. Educ Assess 16, 35-68.
73. Thomas PR, Bain JD (1984). Contextual dependence of learning approaches: the effects of assessments. Hum Learn 3, 227-240.
74. Weaver AJ, Raptis H (2001). Gender differences in introductory atmospheric and oceanic science exams: multiple choice versus constructed response questions. J Sci Educ Technol 10, 115-126.
75. Wenglinsky H (2002). How schools matter: the link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Educ Policy Anal Arch 10, 12-32.
76. Willoughby SD, Metz A (2009). Exploring gender differences with different gain calculators in astronomy and biology. Am J Phys 77, 651-657.
77. Zar JH (2010). Biostatistical Analysis, 5th ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
78. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009). Mixed Effect Models and Extensions in Ecology in R, New York: Springer.