- 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

Response-shift bias in student self-efficacy during an actively taught physics course

Kelly Miller1, Tobias Espinosa2, Ives Araujo3, and Isaura Gallegos4

  • 1Department of Physics and Division of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA
  • 2Mathematics Statistics and Physics Institute, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande, Santo Antônio da Patrulha-RS, 3005 Cel. Francisco Borges de Lima St., 95500-000, Brazil
  • 3Physics Institute, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, 9500 Bento Gonçalves Avenue, Porto Alegre-RS, 91501-970, Brazil
  • 4Graduate School of Education, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA

PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020167 – Published 19 December, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.020167

Abstract

Self-efficacy is an important measure in science education as it is predictive of persistence and success in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses and is an influential factor in students’ decisions to major in STEM fields. It is unclear what effect active teaching strategies have on students’ self-efficacy, which is typically measured with a pretest at the beginning of the semester and a post-test at the end of the semester. To better understand what happens to self-efficacy over the course of an actively taught physics class, in addition to the typical pretest and post-test, we used a reflective pretest. At the end of the semester, we asked students to reflect on their abilities at the beginning of the semester and we compared this “reflective” self-efficacy to both their presemester and postsemester self-efficacy. We found that students’ reflective self-efficacy was systematically lower than their self-efficacy at the beginning of the semester. Interviews reveal that discrepancies between presemester self-efficacy and reflective self-efficacy are the result of response-shift bias. Because of students’ limited experience with active learning environments, response-shift bias makes it difficult to accurately measure students’ change in self-efficacy over the semester of an actively taught physics course. We conclude that reflective pretests in combination with interviews can help educators and researchers understand if changes in self-efficacy are being masked by response-shift bias.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (43)

  1. President’s Council of Advisors on Science, and Technology, Prepare and inspire: K-12 education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) for America’s future (President’s Council of Advisors on Science, and Technology, Washington, DC, 2010). Retrieved from https://nsf.gov/attachments/117803/public/2a--Prepare_and_Inspire--PCAST.pdf.
  2. C. Dweck, Is Math a Gift? Beliefs That Put Females at Risk, Why Aren’t More Women In Science? Top Researchers Debate the Evidence, edited by S. Ceci and W. Williams (APA Press, Washington, DC, 2007), pp. 47–55.
  3. C. Dweck, Mindsets and Math/Science Achievement, Institute for Advanced Study, Commission on Mathematics and Science Education (Carnegie Corporation of New York, New York, 2008).
  4. I. Goodman, C. Cunningham, and C. Lachapelle, The Women’s Experience in College Engineering (Goodman Research Group, Inc., Cambridge, MA, 2002), https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED507395.pdf.
  5. R. Lapan, A. Adams, S. Turner, and J. Hinkelman, Seventh graders’ vocational interest and efficacy expectation patterns, J. Career Develop. 26, 215 (2000).
  6. A. Bandura, Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change, Psychol. Rev. 84, 191 (1977).
  7. A. Bandura, in Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, edited by V. S. Ramachaudran (Academic Press, New York, 1994), pp. 71–81.
  8. A. Bandura, Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control (Longman, New York, 1997).
  9. R. W. Lent, F. G. Lopez, S. D. Brown, and P. A. Gore, Latent structure of the sources of mathematics self-efficacy, J. Vocat. Behav. 49, 292 (1996).
  10. S. L. Britner, Motivation in high school science students: A comparison of gender differences in life, physical, and earth science classes, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 45, 955 (2008).
  11. S. L. Britner and F. Pajares, Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of middle school students, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 43, 485 (2006).
  12. F. Pajares, Gender differences in mathematics self-efficacy beliefs, Gender Differences in Mathematics: An Integrative Psychology Approach (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2005), pp. 294–315.
  13. A. Zeldin, S. Britner, and F. Pajares, A comparative study of the self-efficacy beliefs of successful men and women in mathematics, science, and technology careers, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 45, 1036 (2008).
  14. B. Zimmerman, Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25, 82 (2000).
  15. S. Andrew, Self-efficacy as a predictor of academic performance in science, J. Adv. Nurs. 27, 596 (1998).
  16. R. W. Lent, S. D. Brown, and K. C. Larkin, Self-efficacy in the prediction of academic performance and perceived career options, J. Counsel. Psychol. 33, 265 (1986).
  17. K. D. Multon, S. D. Brown, and R. W. Lent, Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation, J. Counsel. Psychol. 38, 30 (1991).
  18. J. Pietsch, R. Walker, and E. Chapman, The relationship among self-concept, self-efficacy, and performance in mathematics during secondary school, J. Educ. Psychol. 95, 589 (2003).
  19. J. Dalgety and R. K. Coll, Exploring first-year science students’ chemistry self-efficacy, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 4, 97 (2006).
  20. G. Trujillo and K. D. Tanner, Considering the role of affect in learning: Monitoring students’ self-efficacy, sense of belonging, and science identity, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 13, 6 (2014).
  21. R. Dou, E. Brewe, J. P. Zwolak, G. Potvin, E. A. Williams, and L. H. Kramer, Beyond performance metrics: Examining a decrease in students’ physics self–efficacy through a social networks lens, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020124 (2016).
  22. V. Sawtelle, E. Brewe, and L. H. Kramer, Positive impacts of modeling instruction on self-efficacy, AIP Conf. Proc. 1289, 289 (2010).
  23. 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).
  24. P. Cantrell, Traditional vs. reflective pretests for measuring science teaching efficacy beliefs in preservice teachers, School Sci. Math. 103, 177 (2003).
  25. L. G. Hill and D. L. Betz, Revisiting the reflective pretest, Am. J. Eval. 26, 501 (2005).
  26. R. P. Hechter, Changes in preservice elementary teachers’ personal science teaching efficacy and science teaching outcome expectancies: The influence of context, J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 22, 187 (2011).
  27. D. Moore and C. A. Tananis, Measuring change in a short-term educational program using a reflective pretest design, Am. J. Eval. 30, 189 (2009).
  28. T. J. Cartwright and J. Atwood, Elementary pre–service teachers’ response–shift bias: Self–efficacy and attitudes toward science, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 36, 2421 (2014).
  29. R. L. Linn and A. S. Jeffrey, The determination of the significance of change between pre-and posttesting periods, Rev. Educ. Res. 47, 121 (1977).
  30. G. S. Howard and R. D. Patrick, Response-shift bias: A source of contamination of self-report measures, J. Appl. Psychol. 64, 144 (1979).
  31. J. H. Bray, E. M. Scott, and S. H. George, Methods of analysis with response-shift bias, Educ. Psychol. Meas. 44, 781 (1984).
  32. J. H. Bray and G. S. Howard, Methodological considerations in the evaluation of a teacher-training program, J. Educ. Psychol. 72, 62 (1980).
  33. P. C. Blumenfeld, E. Soloway, R. Marx, J. Krajcik, M. Guzdial, and A. Palincsar, Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning, Educ. Psychol. 26, 369 (1991).
  34. L. K. Michaelsen, A. B. Knight, and L. D. Fink, Team-Based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups (Greenwood Publishing Group, New York, 2002).
  35. J. Lenaerts, W. Wieme, and E. Van Zele, Peer Instruction: A case study for an introductory magnetism course, Eur. J. Phys. 24, 7 (2002).
  36. E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual (Prentice- Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997).
  37. L. C. McDermott and P. S. Shaffer, Tutorials in Introductory Physics (Pearson, Boston, 2010).
  38. H. Fencl and K. Scheel, Pedagogical approaches, contextual variables, and the development of student self-efficacy in undergraduate physics courses, AIP Conf. Proc. 720, 173 (2004).
  39. V. Sawtelle, A Gender Study Investigating Physics Self-Efficacy (Florida International University, Miami, FL, 2011).
  40. K. Roulston, Reflective Interviewing: A Guide to Theory and Practice, (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2010), pp. 1–216.
  41. R. K. Yin, Qualitative Research from Start to Finish (Guilford Publications, New York, 2015).
  42. J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Routledge, London, 1988).
  43. S Sawilowsky, New effect size rules of thumb, J. Mod. Appl. Stat. Methods 8, 597 (2009).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020167– Published 19 December, 2023
  • Received 5 August 2022
  • Accepted 1 December 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