- 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

Who and what gets recognized in peer recognition

Meagan Sundstrom1,†, L. N. Simpfendoerfer1, Annie Tan1, Ashley B. Heim2, and N. G. Holmes1,*

  • 1Laboratory of Atomic and Solid State Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA
  • 2Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA

  • *Corresponding author: ngholmes@cornell.edu
  • †mas899@cornell.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010127 – Published 15 April, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.010127

Abstract

Previous work has identified that recognition from others is an important predictor of students’ participation, persistence, and career intentions in physics. However, research has also found a gender bias in peer recognition in which student nominations of strong peers in their physics course disproportionately favor men over women. In this study, we draw on methods from social network analysis and find a consistent gender bias in which men disproportionately undernominate women as strong in their physics course in two offerings of both a lecture course (for science and engineering, but not physics, majors) and a distinct lab course (for science, engineering, and physics majors). We also find in one offering of the lecture course that women disproportionately undernominate men, contrary to what previous research would predict. We expand on prior work by also probing two data sources related to who and what gets recognized in peer recognition: students’ interactions with their peers (who gets recognized) and students’ written explanations of their nominations of strong peers (what gets recognized). Results suggest that the nature of the observed gender bias in peer recognition varies between the instructional contexts of lecture and lab. In the lecture course, the gender bias is related to who gets recognized: both men and women disproportionately overnominate their interaction ties to students of their same gender as strong in the course. In the lab course, the gender bias is also related to what gets recognized: men nominate men more than women because of skills related to interactions, such as being helpful. These findings illuminate the different ways in which students form perceptions of their peers and add nuance to our understanding of the nature of gender bias in peer recognition.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (83)

  1. 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).
  2. Robynne M. Lock, Zahra Hazari, and Geoff Potvin, Physics career intentions: The effect of physics identity, math identity, and gender, AIP Conf. Proc. 1513, 262 (2013).
  3. Heidi B. Carlone and Angela Johnson, Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 44, 1187 (2007).
  4. Zahra Hazari, Gerhard Sonnert, Philip M. Sadler, and Marie-Claire Shanahan, Connecting high school physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 47, 978 (2010).
  5. Zahra Hazari and Cheryl Cass, Towards meaningful physics recognition: What does this recognition actually look like?, Phys. Teach. 56, 442 (2018).
  6. Zahra Hazari, Eric Brewe, Renee Michelle Goertzen, and Theodore Hodapp, The importance of high school physics teachers for female students’ physics identity and persistence, Phys. Teach. 55, 96 (2017).
  7. 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).
  8. Maria Vetleseter Bøe, Staying recognised as clever: High-achieving physics students’ identity performances, Phys. Educ. 58, 035012 (2023).
  9. Lucy Avraamidou, Identities in/out of physics and the politics of recognition, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 59, 58 (2022).
  10. Yangqiuting Li and Chandralekha Singh, The impact of perceived recognition by physics instructors on women’s self-efficacy and interest, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020125 (2023).
  11. 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), http://www.jstor.org/stable/43631586.
  12. Ewan Bottomley, Antje Kohnle, Ken Mavor, Paula Jean Miles, and Vivienne Wild, The relationship between gender and academic performance in undergraduate physics students: The role of physics identity, perceived recognition, and self-efficacy, Eur. J. Phys. 44, 025701 (2022).
  13. 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).
  14. Meagan Sundstrom, Ashley B. Heim, Barum Park, and N. G. Holmes, Introductory physics students’ recognition of strong peers: Gender and racial or ethnic bias differ by course level and context, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020148 (2022).
  15. James Paul Gee, Chapter 3: Identity as an analytic lens for research in education, Rev. Res. Educ. 25, 99 (2000).
  16. 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).
  17. Cathrine Hasse, Gender diversity in play with physics: The problem of premises for participation in activities, Mind Cult. Act., 9, 250 (2002).
  18. Anna T. Danielsson, Exploring woman university physics students ‘doing gender’ and ‘doing physics’, Gender Educ. 24, 25 (2012).
  19. Allison J. Gonsalves, Anna Danielsson, and Helena Pettersson, Masculinities and experimental practices in physics: The view from three case studies, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020120 (2016).
  20. Ursula Kessels, Melanie Rau, and Bettina Hannover, What goes well with physics? Measuring and altering the image of science, Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 76, 761 (2006).
  21. Elena Makarova and Walter Herzog, Trapped in the gender stereotype? The image of science among secondary school students and teachers, Equality, Diversity Inclusion 34, 106 (2015).
  22. Elena Makarova, Belinda Aeschlimann, and Walter Herzog, The gender gap in STEM fields: The impact of the gender stereotype of math and science on secondary students’ career aspirations, Front. Educ. 4, 60 (2019).
  23. Erika D. Tate and Marcia C. Linn, How does identity shape the experiences of women of color engineering students?, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 14, 483 (2005).
  24. Robert Ceglie, Underrepresentation of women of color in the science pipeline: The construction of science identities, J. Women Minorities Sci. Engin. 17, 271 (2011).
  25. Corinne A. Moss-Racusin, John F. Dovidio, Victoria L. Brescoll, Mark J. Graham, and Jo Handelsman, Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109, 16474 (2012).
  26. 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).
  27. Linda J. Sax, Kathleen J. Lehman, Ramón S. Barthelemy, 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).
  28. Angela Johnson, Rose Young, and Elizabeth Mulvey, Where do women of color complete physics degrees?, Phys. Teach. 58, 620 (2020).
  29. Anne Marie Porter and Rachel Ivie, Women in Physics and Astronomy, 2019 (AIP Statistical Research Center, College Park, MD, 2019).
  30. 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).
  31. Shima Salehi, N. G. Holmes, and Carl Wieman, Exploring bias in mechanical engineering students’ perceptions of classmates, PLoS One 14, e0212477 (2019).
  32. Paula Heron and Laurie E. McNeil, Phys21: Preparing Physics Students for 21st Century Careers, technical report, Joint Task Force on Undergraduate Physics Programs (American Physical Society and American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2016).
  33. 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 (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2014), p. 29.
  34. N. G. Holmes and Carl E. Wieman, Introductory physics labs: We can do better, Phys. Today 71, No. 1, 38 (2018).
  35. Emily M. Smith and N. G. Holmes, Best practice for instructional labs, Nat. Phys. 17, 662 (2021).
  36. 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).
  37. N. G. Holmes, Carl E. Wieman, and D. A. Bonn, Teaching critical thinking, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 11199 (2015).
  38. Gina M. Quan, Chandra Turpen, and Andrew Elby, Analyzing identity trajectories within the physics community, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020125 (2022).
  39. Dina Zohrabi Alaee, Micah K. Campbell, and Benjamin M. Zwickl, Impact of virtual research experience for undergraduates experiences on students’ psychosocial gains during the COVID-19 pandemic, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010101 (2022).
  40. Sofia Dokuka, Diliara Valeeva, and Maria Yudkevich, How academic achievement spreads: The role of distinct social networks in academic performance diffusion, PLoS One 15, e0236737 (2020).
  41. Meagan Sundstrom, Andy Schang, Ashley B. Heim, and N. G. Holmes, Understanding interaction network formation across instructional contexts in remote physics courses, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020141 (2022).
  42. Karen L. Tonso, Student engineers and engineer identity: Campus engineer identities as figured world, Cultural Studies Sci. Educ. 1, 273 (2006).
  43. Deborah Fields and Noel Enyedy, Picking up the mantle of “expert”: Assigned roles assertion of identity, and peer recognition within a programming class, Mind Cult. Act. 20, 113 (2013).
  44. Karin Due, Who is the competent physics student? A study of students’ positions and social interaction in small-group discussions, Cultural Studies Sci. Educ. 9, 441 (2014).
  45. Allison J. Gonsalves, Physics and the girly girl—there is a contradiction somewhere: Doctoral students’ positioning around discourses of gender and competence in physics, Cultural Studies Sci. Educ. 9, 503 (2014).
  46. Allison Gonsalves, Persistent discourses in physics education: Gender neutrality and the gendering of competence, Cultural Studies Sci. Educ., 9, 461 (2014).
  47. Paul W. Irving and Eleanor C. Sayre, Becoming a physicist: The roles of research, mindsets, and milestones in upper-division student perceptions, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020120 (2015).
  48. 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).
  49. Danny Doucette, Russell Clark, and Chandralekha Singh, What makes a good physics lab partner?, presented at PER Conf. 2020, virtual conference, 10.1119/perc.2020.pr.Doucette.
  50. Katelyn M. Cooper, Anna Krieg, and Sara E. Brownell, Who perceives they are smarter? Exploring the influence of student characteristics on student academic self-concept in physiology, Adv. Physiol. Educ. 42, 200 (2018).
  51. Emily M. Stump and Natasha G. Holmes, Student views of what counts as doing physics in the lab, presented at PER Conf. 2022, Grand Rapids, MI, 10.1119/perc.2022.pr.Stump.
  52. Rebeckah Fussell, Megan Renz, Philip Krasicky, Robert Fulbright, Jr., and Natasha Holmes, Introductory data analysis with Jupyter Notebooks, PICUP Collection (2022), https://doi.org/10.1119/PICUP.Exercise.DataAnalysis.
  53. 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).
  54. 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).
  55. Remy Dou and Justyna P. Zwolak, Practitioner’s guide to social network analysis: Examining physics anxiety in an active-learning setting, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020105 (2019).
  56. Kelley Commeford, Eric Brewe, and Adrienne Traxler, Characterizing active learning environments in physics using network analysis and classroom observations, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020136 (2021).
  57. Jeffrey A. Smith and James Moody, Structural effects of network sampling coverage i: Nodes missing at random, Soc. Netw. 35, 652 (2013).
  58. Devyn Shafer, Maggie S. Mahmood, and Tim Stelzer, Impact of broad categorization on statistical results: How underrepresented minority designation can mask the struggles of both Asian American and African American students, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010113 (2021).
  59. Daniel Z. Grunspan, Benjamin L. Wiggins, and Steven M. Goodreau, Understanding classrooms through social network analysis: A primer for social network analysis in education research., CBE Life Sci. Educ. 13, 167 (2014).
  60. Eric Brewe, The roles of engagement: Network analysis in physics education research, in Getting Started in PER (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2018), Vol. 2.
  61. Tom A. B. Snijders and Stephen P. Borgatti, Non-parametric standard errors and tests for network statistics, Connections 22, 61 (1999), https://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~snijders/Snijders_Borgatti.pdf.
  62. Yuzhou Chen, Yulia R. Gel, Vyacheslav Lyubchich, and Kusha Nezafati, Snowboot: Bootstrap methods for network inference, arXiv:1902.09029.
  63. Carolyn J. Anderson, Stanley Wasserman, and Bradley Crouch, A p* primer: Logit models for social networks, Soc. Netw. 21, 37 (1999).
  64. Garry Robins, Pip Pattison, Yuval Kalish, and Dean Lusher, An introduction to exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks, Soc. Netw. 29, 173 (2007).
  65. David R. Hunter, Mark S. Handcock, Carter T. Butts, Steven M. Goodreau, and Martina Morris, ergm: A package to fit, simulate and diagnose exponential-family models for networks, J. Stat. Softw. 24, 54860 (2008).
  66. N. Pearson, Allison Godwin, and Adam Kirn, Developing an instrument to understand the social-structural integration of diverse students, in Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition (American Society for Engineering Education, Columbus, OH, 2017), https://peer.asee.org/28140.
  67. Cole Walsh, Martin M. Stein, Ryan Tapping, Emily M. Smith, and N. G. Holmes, Exploring the effects of omitted variable bias in physics education research, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010119 (2021).
  68. Eric D. Kolaczyk and Pavel N. Krivitsky, On the question of effective sample size in network modeling: An asymptotic inquiry, Stat. Sci. 30, 184 (2015).
  69. Fan Yin and Carter T. Butts, Highly scalable maximum likelihood and conjugate Bayesian inference for ERGMs on graph sets with equivalent vertices, arXiv:2110.13527.
  70. Miller McPherson, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James M. Cook, Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks, Annu. Rev. Sociol. 27, 415 (2001).
  71. Jacob Cohen, The earth is round (p<.05), Am. Psychol. 49, 997 (1994).
  72. Geoff Cumming, Understanding the New Statistics: Effect Sizes, Confidence Intervals, and Meta-analysis (Routledge, London, 2013).
  73. Brian A. Nosek, Charles R. Ebersole, Alexander C. DeHaven, and David T. Mellor, The preregistration revolution, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115, 2600 (2018).
  74. Michael Correll and Michael Gleicher, Error bars considered harmful: Exploring alternate encodings for mean and error, IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph., 20, 2142 (2014).
  75. R. Tesch, Qualitative research—analysis types and software protocols (The Falmer Press, Hampshire, UK, 1990).
  76. John L. Campbell, Charles Quincy, Jordan Osserman, and Ove K. Pedersen, Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement, Sociol. Methods Res. 42, 294 (2013).
  77. Wendy K. Adams and Carl E. Wieman, Analyzing the many skills involved in solving complex physics problems, Am. J. Phys. 83, 459 (2015).
  78. Andrei P. Kirilenko and Svetlana Stepchenkova, Inter-coder agreement in one-to-many classification: Fuzzy kappa, PLoS One 11, e0149787 (2016).
  79. Scott W. Duxbury, The problem of scaling in exponential random graph models, Sociol. Methods Res. 52, 764 (2021).
  80. 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).
  81. Jesper Bruun and Ian G. Bearden, Time development in the early history of social networks: Link stabilization group dynamics, and segregation, PLoS One 9, e112775 (2014).
  82. Jean Yonemura Wing, Beyond black and white: The model minority myth and the invisibility of Asian American students, Urban Rev. 39, 455 (2007).
  83. Nolan L. Cabrera, Beyond black and white: How white, male, college students see their Asian American peers, Equity Excell. Educ. 47, 133 (2014).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010127– Published 15 April, 2024
  • Received 3 May 2023
  • Accepted 11 March 2024
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