- Open Access
Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom: How sufficient is interactive engagement?
Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 010107 – Published 5 June, 2007
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.010107
Abstract
Previous research [Lorenzo et al., Am. J. Phys. 74, 118 (2006)] demonstrated that the difference in performance between male and female students can be reduced and even eliminated, in consistent fashion, by using interactive engagement techniques in the introductory physics classroom. The present paper describes similar studies in a different, large research university and finds that the use of interactive engagement techniques does not necessarily reduce the gender gap. Furthermore, in the environments studied, there is a gap in learning gains between male and female students whether partially or fully interactive classroom techniques are used. Our findings suggest that engaging students in interactive educational environments is not sufficient to reduce the gender gap, and we find instances where despite significant learning gains by all students, the gender gap is increased. There is indication that there are both student and instructor effects that impact the gender gap, which are the subjects of ongoing studies.
Article Text
References (17)
- M. Lorenzo, C. Crouch, and E. Mazur, Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom, Am. J. Phys. 74, 118 (2006).
- R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation, Am. J. Phys. 66, 338 (1998).
- L. Ding, R. Chabay, B. Sherwood, and R. Beichner, Evaluating an electricity and magnetism assessment tool: Brief electricity and magnetism assessment Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010105 (2006).
- E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: A Users Manual (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997).
- CAPA, http://www.lon-capa.org/; Mastering Physics, http://www.masteringphysics.com/.
- L. C. McDermott and P. S. Schaffer, Tutorials in Introductory Physics (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002).
- N. D. Finkelstein and S. J. Pollock, Replicating and understanding successful innovations: Implementing tutorials in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 1, 010101 (2005).
Each course included a lead instructor and a backup instructor as described in Ref. [7]. While team taught, the duties in the class administration were divided, and each professor took the lead role of the course only one time. An attempt was made to mentor future lead-faculty members by having them assume the backup roles the semester prior to assuming lead instructional roles. This instructional partnering ensured that the IE techniques were enacted seriously and with some consistency; however, variation in instructional practice did occur and is the subject of current investigation.
- R. R. Hake, Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998).
- R. Thornton, D. Kuhl, K. Cummings, and J. Marx (unpublished); K. Cummings, J. Marx, R. Thornton, and D. Kuhl (unpublished).
Combining these differences (student pre- and post-test range and the instrument used to evaluate student performance), we note that the CU students tend not to saturate the instrument, whereas the Harvard students appear to, which may be a contributing factor in the Harvard results.
Note the small ( five point), but consistent, difference between the fall and spring pretest scores. These indicate slightly different demographic pools for on- and off-sequence course offerings.
Of further note, we observe no consistent trend where the gender gap increases or decreases depending upon overall learning gain for the course (see Table II).
- N. D. Finkelstein, Learning physics in context: A study of student learning about electricity and magnetism, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 27, 1187 (2005).
- M. S. Sabella, in Proceedings of the 2002 Physics Education Research Conference, edited by S. Franklin, K. Cummings, and J. Marx (PERC Publishing, New York, 2002), p. 79; http://piggy.rit.edu/franklin/perc2002/Sabella.pdf
- V. Coletta and J. Phillips, Interpreting FCI scores: Normalized gain, preinstruction scores, and scientific reasoning ability, Am. J. Phys. 73, 1172 (2005).
Differences depend on courses, but, for example, in F04 males scored four points higher than females on in-class exams (statistically significant at ) but when averaged with homework and participation scores, women’s and men’s final course scores differed by less than half a point, not a significant difference.
