- 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

Investigating peer recognition across an introductory physics sequence: Do first impressions last?

Meagan Sundstrom1,2,* and Logan Kageorge3,†

  • 1Laboratory of Atomic and Solid State Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA
  • 2Department of Physics, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
  • 3Department of Mathematics and Science, Brenau University, Gainesville, Georgia 30501, USA

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

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010133 – Published 3 May, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.010133

Abstract

Students’ beliefs about the extent to which meaningful others, including their peers, recognize them as a strong science student are correlated with their persistence in science courses and careers. Yet, prior work has found a gender bias in peer recognition, in which student nominations of strong peers disproportionately favor men over women, in some instructional science contexts. Researchers have hypothesized that such a gender bias diminishes over time, as determined by students’ academic year: studies have found a gender bias in peer recognition in science courses aimed at first-year students, but not in science courses aimed at beyond first-year students. This hypothesis that patterns of peer recognition change over time, however, has yet to be tested with longitudinal data—previous studies only examine snapshots of different students in different science courses. In this study, we isolate the effect of time on peer recognition by analyzing student nominations of strong peers across a two-semester introductory physics course sequence, containing the same set of students and the same instructor in both semesters, at a mostly women institution. Using a combination of social network analysis and qualitative methods, we find that while many students receive similar levels of peer recognition over time, the four most highly nominated students—the recognition celebrities—exhibit some change between semesters even in this highly controlled setting. Furthermore, we observe that these changes in the celebrities track closely with changes in student outspokenness and that being outspoken is likely more important for gaining recognition than earning a high grade in the class. These findings lend support to prior work’s hypothesis that peer recognition changes over time, but also challenge the generalizability of previous results (i.e., that patterns of recognition are related to students’ academic year). Instead, peer recognition seems highly sensitive to variables such as individual students’ participation and, therefore, may be course specific. We provide recommendations for both when and how instructors may intervene on peer recognition based on our results.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (36)

  1. James Paul Gee, Identity as an analytic lens for research in education (Chap. 3), Rev. Res. Educ. 25, 99 (2000), https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=a1a6126a811ef192bc959829a8ce3de18b2542fd.
  2. 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).
  3. 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).
  4. 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).
  5. 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).
  6. Zahra Hazari and Cheryl Cass, Towards meaningful physics recognition: What does this recognition actually look like?, Phys. Teach. 56, 442 (2018).
  7. 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).
  8. 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).
  9. Maria Vetleseter Bøe, Staying recognised as clever: High-achieving physics students’ identity performances, Phys. Educ. 58, 035012 (2023).
  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. 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).
  12. Shima Salehi, N. G. Holmes, and Carl Wieman, Exploring bias in mechanical engineering students’ perceptions of classmates, PLoS One 14, e0212477 (2019).
  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. Meagan Sundstrom, L. N. Simpfendoerfer, Annie Tan, Ashley B. Heim, and N. G. Holmes, Who and what gets recognized in peer recognition, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010127 (2024).
  16. Stephen Kanim and Ximena C. Cid, Demographics of physics education research, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020106 (2020).
  17. https://github.com/msundstrom33/DoFirstImpressionsLast.
  18. Shih-Yin Lin, Scott S. Douglas, John M. Aiken, Chien-Lin Liu, Edwin F. Greco, Brian D. Thoms, Marcos D. Caballero, and Michael F. Schatz, Peer evaluation of video lab reports in an introductory physics MOOC, arXiv:1407.4714.
  19. 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).
  20. 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).
  21. 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).
  22. 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).
  23. 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).
  24. Jeffrey A. Smith and James Moody, Structural effects of network sampling coverage i: Nodes missing at random, Soc. Netw. 35, 652 (2013).
  25. 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).
  26. 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.
  27. Carter T. Butts, Exact bounds for degree centralization, Soc. Netw. 28, 283 (2006).
  28. R. Tesch, Qualitative Research—Analysis Types and Software Protocols (The Falmer Press, Hampshire, UK, 1990).
  29. Stephanie Buchert, Eric L. Laws, Jennifer M. Apperson, and Norman J. Bregman, First impressions and professor reputation: Influence on student evaluations of instruction, Social Psychol. Educ. 11, 397 (2008).
  30. Eric L. Laws, Jennifer M. Apperson, Stephanie Buchert, and Norman J. Bregman, Student evaluations of instruction: When are enduring first impressions formed?, North Am. J. Psychol. 12, 81 (2010), https://openurl.ebsco.com/EPDB%3Agcd%3A15%3A6728031/detailv2?sid=ebsco%3Aplink%3Ascholar&id=ebsco%3Agcd%3A48667753&crl=c.
  31. 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).
  32. 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).
  33. 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).
  34. Sierra C. Nichols, Yongyong Y. Xia, Mikaylie Parco, and Elizabeth G. Bailey, Participation and performance by gender in synchronous online lectures: Three unique case studies during emergency remote teaching, J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 23, 00281 (2022).
  35. Kimberly D. Tanner, Structure matters: Twenty-one teaching strategies to promote student engagement and cultivate classroom equity, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 12, 322 (2013).
  36. John M. Malouff and Einar B. Thorsteinsson, Bias in grading: A meta-analysis of experimental research findings, Aust. J. Adult Commun. Educ. 60, 245 (2016).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010133– Published 3 May, 2024
  • Received 29 October 2023
  • Accepted 26 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