Gender gaps and gendered action in a first-year physics laboratory

James Day · Jared B. Stang · Natasha G. Holmes · Dhaneesh Kumar · D. A. Bonn

66 citations0/0 files storedPhysical Review Physics Education Research

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Career Development and Diversity Science Education and Pedagogy Gender and Technology in Education

Abstract

This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Gender in Physics.]It is established that male students outperform female students on almost all commonly used physics concept inventories.However, there is significant variation in the factors that contribute to the gap, as well as the direction in which they influence it.It is presently unknown if such a gender gap exists on the relatively new Concise Data Processing Assessment (CDPA) and, therefore, whether gendered actions in the teaching lab might influence-or be influenced by-the gender gap.To begin to get an estimates of the gap, its predictors, and its correlates, we have measured performance on the CDPA at the pretest and post-test level.We have also made observations of how students in mixed-gender partnerships divide their time in the lab.We find a gender gap on the CDPA that persists from pre-to post-test and that is as big as, if not bigger than, similar reported gaps.We also observe compelling differences in how students divide their time in the lab.In mixed-gender pairs, male students tend to monopolize the computer, female and male students tend to share the equipment equally, and female students tend to spend more time on other activities that are not the equipment or computer, such as writing or speaking to peers.We also find no correlation between computer use, when students are presumably working with their data, and performance on the CDPA post-test.In parallel to our analysis, we scrutinize some of the more commonly used approaches to similar data.We argue in favor of more explicitly checking the assumptions associated with the statistical methods that are used and improved reporting and contextualization of effect sizes.Ultimately, we claim no evidence that female students are less capable of learning than their male peers, and we suggest caution when using gain measures to draw conclusions about differences in science classroom performance across gender.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 66 citations exist upstream.

References

1992A power primer.1991Situated Learning 1989Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning 1995Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans.1998Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses 1981Distribution Theory for Glass's Estimator of Effect Size and Related Estimators 2012Using Effect Size—or Why the P Value Is Not Enough 2002Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat

Cited by

2019Demographic gaps or preparation gaps?: The large impact of incoming preparation on performance of students in introductory physics 2017Developing skills versus reinforcing concepts in physics labs: Insight from a survey of students’ beliefs about experimental physics 2016Open-ended versus guided laboratory activities:Impact on students’ beliefs about experimental physics 2020Group roles in unstructured labs show inequitable gender divide 2018Is agreeing with a gender stereotype correlated with the performance of female students in introductory physics?

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.