- 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

High-stakes exams inflate a gender gap and contribute to systematic grading errors in one introductory physics series

David J. Webb

Cassandra A. Paul

  • Physics and Astronomy Department, Science Education Program, San Jose State University, San José, California 95192-0106, USA

PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020134 – Published 21 October, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/ngrs-dxtf

Abstract

Previous research has suggested that changing the percentage of the course grade associated with exam grades in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics courses can change the gender gap in the course. It has also been shown that high-stakes assessments yield the lowest (relative) scores for female students. Previous research by the authors has shown that implementing retake exams can eliminate the gender gap in introductory physics courses. This paper explores several different hypotheses for why retake exams are associated with a zeroed gender gap. Two independent measurements comparing exams with different stakes are used in support of the argument that the entire gender gap on introductory physics exams may be due to the stakes associated with those exams. In other words, these data support the idea that a gender grade gap on exams does not measure a gender difference in the physics knowledge or physics ability of these students. Implications suggest that instructors should choose lower stakes assessment options if they are interested in exam measurements that are not influenced by differences in students’ performance related to exam stakes.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (38)

  1. D. J. Webb and C. A. Paul, Attributing equity gaps to course structure in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020126 (2023).
  2. S. Cotner and C. J. Ballen, Can mixed assessment methods make biology classes more equitable?, PLoS One 12, e0189610 (2017).
  3. R. R. Valencia, The Evolution of Deficit Thinking: Educational Thought and Practice (The Falmer Press, London, 1997).
  4. J. G. Stout, T. A. Ito, N. D. Finkelstein, and S. J. Pollock, How a gender gap in belonging contributes to the gender gap in physics participation, AIP Conf. Proc. 1513, 402 (2013).
  5. A. Madsen, S. B. McKagan, and E. C. Sayre, Gender gap on concept inventories in physics: What is consistent, what is inconsistent, and what factors influence the gap?, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020121 (2013).
  6. E. Burkholder and S. Salehi, Exploring the pre-instruction gender gap in physics, PLoS One 17, e0271184 (2022).
  7. C. Singh and A. Malespina, Test anxiety, self-efficacy, and gender: A quest for equitable assessment practices in physics, presented at PER Conf. 2021, Virtual Conference, 10.1119/perc.2021.pr.Singh.
  8. J. R. Cimpian, T. H. Kim, and Z. T. McDermott, Understanding persistent gender gaps in STEM, Science 368, 1317 (2020).
  9. S. Salehi, E. Burkholder, G. P. Lepage, S. Pollock, and C. Wieman, Demographic gaps or preparation gaps?: The large impact of incoming preparation on performance of students in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020114 (2019).
  10. A. Malespina and C. Singh, Gender differences in grades versus grade penalties: Are grade anomalies more detrimental for female physics majors?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020127 (2022).
  11. L. J. Sax, K. J. Lehman, R. S. Barthelemy, and G. Lim, Women in physics: A comparison to science, technology, engineering, and math education over four decades, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020108 (2016).
  12. S. Cotner, L. M. Jeno, J. D. Walker, C. Jørgensen, and V. Vandvik, Gender gaps in the performance of Norwegian biology students: The roles of test anxiety and science confidence, Int. J. STEM Educ. 7, 55 (2020).
  13. S. Salehi, S. Cotner, S. M. Azarin, E. E. Carlson, M. Driessen, V. E. Ferry, W. Harcombe, S. McGaugh, D. Wassenberg, A. Yonas, and C. J. Ballen, Gender performance gaps across different assessment methods and the underlying mechanisms: The case of incoming preparation and test anxiety, Front. Educ. 4, 107 (2019).
  14. A. Malespina, F. Seifollahi, and C. Singh, Bioscience students in physics courses with higher test anxiety have lower grades on high-stakes assessments and women report more test anxiety than men, Educ. Sci. 14, 1092 (2024).
  15. T. Espinosa, K. Miller, I. Araujo, and E. Mazur, Reducing the gender gap in students’ physics self-efficacy in a team- and project-based introductory physics class, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010132 (2019).
  16. R. B. Harris, D. Z. Grunspan, M. A. Pelch, G. Fernandes, G. Ramirez, and S. Freeman, Can test anxiety interventions alleviate a gender gap in an undergraduate STEM course?, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 18, ar35 (2019).
  17. 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).
  18. Z. Hazari, G. Sonnert, P. M. Sadler, and M. Shanahan, Connecting high school physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 47, 978 (2010).
  19. 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).
  20. 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).
  21. S. Sencar and A. Eryilmaz, Factors mediating the effect of gender on ninth-grade Turkish students’ misconceptions concerning electric circuits, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 41, 603 (2004).
  22. S. R. Wheeler and M. R. Blanchard, Contextual choices in online physics problems: Promising insights into closing the gender gap, Front. Psychol. 10, 594 (2019).
  23. S. French, A. Dickerson, and R. A. Mulde, A review of the benefits and drawbacks of high-stakes final examinations in higher education, Higher Educ. 88, 893 (2024).
  24. S.-J. Leslie, A. Cimpian, M. Meyer, and E. Freeland, Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines, Science 347, 262 (2015).
  25. M. Muradoglu, S. H. Arnold, A. Poddar, A. Stanaland, D. Yilmaz, and A. Cimpian, Why a culture of brilliance is bad for physics, Nat. Rev. Phys. 6, 75 (2024).
  26. A. Furnham, Self-estimates of intelligence: Culture and gender difference in self and other estimates of both general (g) and multiple intelligences, Pers. Individ. Differ. 31, 1381 (2001).
  27. A. B. Simmons and A. F. Heckler, Grades, grade component weighting, and demographic disparities in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020125 (2020).
  28. J. T. Davis, K. Adams, and A. Morgan, The effect of exam retakes on future exam performance in a large classroom setting, Adv. Physiol. Educ. 48, 685 (2024).
  29. G. Kortemeyer, W. Bauer, W. Benenson, and E. Kashy, Retaking a test online, Phys. Teach. 44, 235 (2006).
  30. I. Rodriguez, E. Brewe, V. Sawtelle, and L. H. Kramer, Impact of equity models and statistical measures on interpretations of educational reform, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020103 (2012).
  31. D. J. Webb, C. A. Paul, and M. K. Chessey, Relative impacts of different grade scales on student success in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020114 (2020).
  32. C. A. Paul and D. J. Webb, Percent grade scale amplifies racial or ethnic inequities in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020103 (2022).
  33. C. Paul, D. J. Webb, M. K. Chessey, and J. Lucas, Pondering zeros: Uncovering hidden inequities within a decade of grades, presented at PER Conf. 2018, Washington, DC, 10.1119/perc.2018.pr.Paul.
  34. B. Van Dusen and J. Nissen, Modernizing use of regression models in physics education research: A review of hierarchical linear, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020108 (2019).
  35. I. Dar-Nimrod and S. J. Heine, Exposure to scientific theories affects women’s math performance, Science 314, 435 (2006).
  36. C. A. Paul and D. J. Webb, Examining equity and graduation rates at two institutions using a course deficit model and the collaborative learning through active sense-making in physics curriculum, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010107 (2025).
  37. J. W. Young and J. L. Fisler, Sex differences on the SAT: An analysis of demographic and educational variables, Res. High. Educ. 41, 401 (2000).
  38. W. Potter, D. Webb, C. Paul, E. West, M. Bowen, B. Weiss, L. Coleman, and C. De Leone, Sixteen years of collaborative learning through active sense-making in physics (CLASP) at UC Davis, Am. J. Phys. 82, 153 (2014).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020134– Published 21 October, 2025
  • Received 15 April 2025
  • Accepted 3 October 2025
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