- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Featured in Physics
  • Open Access

Gendered performance differences in introductory physics: A study from a large land-grant university

Matthew Dew1,*, Jonathan Perry2, Lewis Ford1, William Bassichis1, and Tatiana Erukhimova1

  • 1Department of Physics and Astronomy, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, USA
  • 2Department of Physics, University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712, USA

  • *etanya@tamu.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010106 – Published 9 February, 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.010106

Abstract

Studies examining gender differences in introductory physics show a consensus when it comes to a gender gap on conceptual assessments; however, the story is not as clear when it comes to differences in gendered performance on exams. This study examined whether gendered differences exist on midterm and final exams in introductory physics courses and if such differences were correlated with a gender difference in final course grades. The population for this study included more than 10 000 students enrolled in algebra- and calculus-based introductory physics courses between Spring 2007 and Spring 2019. We found a small but statistically significant difference, with a weak effect size, in final letter grades for only one out of four courses: algebra-based mechanics. By looking at midterm exam grades, statistically significant differences were noted for some exams in three out of four courses, with calculus-based electricity and magnetism being the exception. In all statistically significant cases, the effect size was small or weak, indicating that performance on exams and final letter grades was not strongly dependent on gender. As an added dimension examining gendered differences, we investigated if differences exist when accounting for instructor gender. Additionally, a questionnaire was administered in Fall 2019 to more than 1600 students in both introductory sequences to explore students’ perceptions of performance, class contributions, and inclusion. We observed some differences between students’ perception of their performance and contribution when grouped by gender, but no difference on perception of inclusion.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Research News

Busting the “Men are Better at Physics” Myth

Published 9 February, 2021

Men and women perform equally well in introductory physics courses, according to a new study that looked at the exam grades of over 10,000 students.

See more in Physics

Article Text

References (52)

  1. P. Heron and L. McNeil, Phys21: Preparing Physics Students for 21st-Century Careers (American Physical Society, College Park, Maryland, 2016).
  2. A. Marie Porter and R. Ivie, Women in Physics and Astronomy, 2019, Tech. Rep. (AIP Statistical Research Center, Melville, NY, 2019).
  3. National Science Foundation, Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2019, Special Report NSF 19-304 (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Alexandria, VA, 2019).
  4. L. J. Sax, K. J. Lehman, R. S. Barthelemy, and G. Lim, Women in physics: A comparison to science, technology, engineering, and math education over four decades, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020108 (2016).
  5. L. McCullough, Women in physics: A review, Phys. Teach. 40, 86 (2002).
  6. C. Nord, S. Roey, R. Perkins, M. Lyons, N. Lemanski, Y. Tamir, J. Brown, J. Schuknecht, and K. Herrold, The nation’s report card: America’s high school graduates (2011), retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2011462.pdf.
  7. I. Goodman, C. Cunningham, C. Lachapelle, M. Thompson, K. Bittinger, R. Brennan, and M. Delci, Final Report of the Women’s Experiences in College Engineering (WECE) Project. ERIC ED507395 (2002), 10.13140/2.1.2027.5524.
  8. L. Bian, S.-J. Leslie, and A. Cimpian, Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests, Science 355, 389 (2017).
  9. N. M. Hewitt and E. Seymour, A long, discouraging climb, ASEE Prism 1, 24 (1992), https://www.jstor.org/stable/24148866.
  10. G. C. Marchand and G. Taasoobshirazi, Stereotype threat and women’s performance in physics, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 35, 3050 (2013).
  11. A. Maries, N. I. Karim, and C. Singh, Is agreeing with a gender stereotype correlated with the performance of female students in introductory physics?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 020119 (2018).
  12. 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, Science 330, 1234 (2010).
  13. V. Sawtelle, E. Brewe, and L. H. Kramer, Exploring the relationship between self-efficacy and retention in introductory physics, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 49, 1096 (2012).
  14. Z. Hazari, G. Sonnert, P. M. Sadler, and M.-C. Shanahan, Connecting high school physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 47, 978 (2010).
  15. Z. Y. Kalender, E. Marshman, C. D. Schunn, T. J. Nokes-Malach, and C. Singh, Gendered patterns in the construction of physics identity from motivational factors, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020119 (2019).
  16. S. L. Eddy and S. E. Brownell, Beneath the numbers: A review of gender disparities in undergraduate education across science, technology, engineering, and math disciplines, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020106 (2016).
  17. J. Blue, A. Traxler, and G. Cochran, Resource letter: Gp-1: Gender and physics, Am. J. Phys. 87, 616 (2019).
  18. J. M. Nissen and J. T. Shemwell, Gender, experience, and self-efficacy in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020105 (2016).
  19. C. Lindstrom and M. Sharma, Self-efficacy of first year university physics students: Do gender and prior formal instruction in physics matter?, Int. J. Innov. Sci. Math. Educ. 19, 1 (2010), https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/index.php/CAL/article/view/4770.
  20. E. Marshman, Z. Y. Kalender, C. Schunn, T. Nokes-Malach, and C. Singh, A longitudinal analysis of students motivational characteristics in introductory physics courses: Gender differences, Can. J. Phys. 96, 391 (2018).
  21. T. Espinosa, K. Miller, I. Araujo, and E. Mazur, Reducing the gender gap in students’ physics self-efficacy in a team- and project-based introductory physics class, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010132 (2019).
  22. R. Henderson, V. Sawtelle, and J. M. Nissen, Gender & self-efficacy: A call to physics educators, Phys. Teach. 58, 345 (2020).
  23. E. M. Marshman, Z. Yasemin Kalender, T. Nokes-Malach, C. Schunn, and C. Singh, Female students with A’s have similar physics self-efficacy as male students with C’s in introductory courses: A cause for alarm?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 020123 (2018).
  24. A. Madsen, S. B. McKagan, and E. C. Sayre, Gender gap on concept inventories in physics: What is consistent, what is inconsistent, and what factors influence the gap?, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020121 (2013).
  25. J. Docktor and K. Heller, Gender differences in both Force Concept Inventory and introductory physics performance, AIP Conf. Proc. 1064, 15 (2008).
  26. S. Bates, R. Donnelly, C. MacPhee, D. Sands, M. Birch, and N. R Walet, Gender differences in conceptual understanding of Newtonian mechanics: A UK cross-institution comparison, Eur. J. Phys. 34, 421 (2013).
  27. A. Traxler, R. Henderson, J. Stewart, G. Stewart, A. Papak, and R. Lindell, Gender fairness within the Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010103 (2018).
  28. R. Henderson, P. Miller, J. Stewart, A. Traxler, and R. Lindell, Item-level gender fairness in the force and motion conceptual evaluation and the conceptual survey of electricity and magnetism, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 020103 (2018).
  29. 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).
  30. L. McCullough, Gender, context, and physics assessment, J. Int. Women’s Studies 5, 20 (2004), https://vc.bridgew.edu/jiws/vol5/iss4/2/.
  31. R. Henderson, G. Stewart, J. Stewart, L. Michaluk, and A. Traxler, Exploring the gender gap in the conceptual survey of electricity and magnetism, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020114 (2017).
  32. L. E. Kost-Smith, S. J. Pollock, and N. D. Finkelstein, Gender disparities in second-semester college physics: The incremental effects of a “smog of bias”, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020112 (2010).
  33. 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).
  34. R. L. Matz, B. P. Koester, S. Fiorini, G. Grom, L. Shepard, C. G. Stangor, B. Weiner, and T. A. McKay, Patterns of gendered performance differences in large introductory courses at five research universities, AERA Open 3, 2332858417743754 (2017).
  35. E. Brewe, V. Sawtelle, L. H. Kramer, G. E. O’Brien, I. Rodriguez, and P. Pamelá, Toward equity through participation in modeling instruction in introductory university physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 010106 (2010).
  36. S. Lauer, J. Momsen, E. Offerdahl, M. Kryjevskaia, W. Christensen, and L. Montplaisir, Stereotyped: Investigating gender in introductory science courses, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 12, 30 (2013).
  37. S. Salehi, E. Burkholder, G. Peter Lepage, S. Pollock, and C. Wieman, Demographic gaps or preparation gaps?: The large impact of incoming preparation on performance of students in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020114 (2019).
  38. S. Andersson and A. Johansson, Gender gap or program gap? Students’ negotiations of study practice in a course in electromagnetism, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020112 (2016).
  39. 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).
  40. M. Lorenzo, C. H. Crouch, and E. Mazur, Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom, Am. J. Phys. 74, 118 (2006).
  41. I. Rodriguez, G. Potvin, and L. H. Kramer, How gender and reformed introductory physics impacts student success in advanced physics courses and continuation in the physics major, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020118 (2016).
  42. N. I. Karim, A. Maries, and C. Singh, Do evidence-based active-engagement courses reduce the gender gap in introductory physics?, Eur. J. Phys. 39, 025701 (2018).
  43. M. J. Cahill, K. M. Hynes, R. Trousil, L. A. Brooks, M. A. McDaniel, M. Repice, J. Zhao, and R. F. Frey, Multiyear, multi-instructor evaluation of a large-class interactive-engagement curriculum, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 020101 (2014).
  44. E. P. Bettinger and B. Terry Long, Do faculty serve as role models? the impact of instructor gender on female students, Am. Econ. Rev. 95, 152 (2005).
  45. S. E. Carrell, M. E. Page, and J. E. West, Sex and science: How professor gender perpetuates the gender gap*, Quart. J. Econ. 125, 1101 (2010).
  46. F. Hoffmann and P. Oreopoulos, A professor like me the influence of instructor gender on college achievement, J. Hum. Resour. 44, 479 (2009).
  47. S. M. Solanki and D. Xu, Looking beyond academic performance: The influence of instructor gender on student motivation in stem fields, Am. Educ. Res. J. 55, 801 (2018).
  48. D. Martin, Student Enrollment Profile Report, Enrollment Profile (Texas A&M University, Texas, 2017).
  49. C. Strømgren, Genderizeio (2013), available at https://genderize.io/.
  50. J. Huang, A. J. Gates, R. Sinatra, and A.-L. Barabási, Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117, 4609 (2020).
  51. M. W. Fagerland, t tests, non-parametric tests, and large studies: A paradox of statistical practice?, BMC Med. Res. Methodology 12, 78 (2012).
  52. L. Cohen, L. Manion, and K. Morrison, Research Methods in Education (Routledge, New York, 2018).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010106– Published 9 February, 2021
  • Received 2 June 2020
  • Accepted 4 January 2021
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation