Examining the Gender Gap in Introductory Physics Lauren Kost Steven Pollock, Noah Finkelstein...

Examining the Gender Gap in Introductory Physics

Lauren Kost

Steven Pollock, Noah Finkelstein

Department of Physics,

University of Colorado at Boulder

May 4, 2009

Acknowledgments• Physics faculty:

Michael DubsonNoah FinkelsteinKathy PerkinsSteven PollockCarl Wieman

• Ph. D. students:Charles BailyLauren KostBenjamin SpikeChandra Turpen

• Postdocs:Stephanie ChasteenSteven GoldhaberLaurel MayhewArchie PaulsonNoah Podolefsky

• School of Ed members:Valerie OteroKara GrayBud Talbott IIIMay Lee

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. REC 0448176, CAREER: Physics Education and Contexts of Student Learning. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF

MotivationAIP Statistics:

50% of physics students in HS are female22% of bachelors in physics go to females10% of faculty in physics are female

Lorenzo et. al. Am. J. Phys. 74, 118 (2006)

Harvard Claim:Fully interactive courses eliminate the gender gap.

Interactive Engagement techniques better than Traditional Lecture

Hake, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998)

Gender Gaps at CU Boulder

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Partial Partial Partial

Level of Engagement

FM

CE

<S

>M

- <

S>

F (

%)

Pretest Posttest

Gender Gaps at CU Boulder

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Partial Partial Partial Full Full Full Full

Level of Engagement

FM

CE

<S

>M

- <

S>

F (

%)

Pretest Posttest

Gender Gaps at CU Boulder

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Partial Partial Partial Full Full Full Full All

Level of Engagement

FM

CE

<S

>M

- <

S>

F (

%)

Pretest Posttest

Conclusions (I)

• Despite fully interactive techniques, gender gap persists at our institution

• Harvard claims results independent of instructor, we see otherwise

• Where does the gender gap come from? Why does it exist?– Do gender differences exist in other

aspects of the introductory course?

Gender Gaps in Course Grades

-10 -5 0 5 10

Course Grade

Exams

Participation

Homework

<S>M - <S>F (%)

Females higher Males higher

Gender Gaps in CLASS Shifts

Gender Gaps in BackgroundEffect Size

HS GPA * 0.47

SAT – Math * 0.33

ACT – Math * 0.14

Females Males1 year HS Physics * 80% 89%

1 year HS Calculus 70% 67%

* = statistically significant difference

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 <= S <= 12 12 < S <= 18 18 < S <= 27 27 < S <= 45 45 < S <= 100

FMCE Pretest score (%)

Av

g. F

MC

E P

os

tte

st

sc

ore

(%

)

Females Males

Impact of Pretest on Post Test

rpre,post = 0.56

37% 19%

8% 22%

21% 16%

14% 22%20% 21%

Regression Analysis

• Control for prior physics and math knowledge and incoming attitudes and beliefs

• Multiple Regression– The average posttest gender difference is 3%

(reduced from the observed difference of 10%).

– 70% of the gender gap is accounted for by background differences.

Conclusions (II)• Gender differences exist in several

components of introductory course

• Males and females are differently prepared

• Differences in male and female backgrounds account for about 70% of the gender gap

• How do males and females experience the introductory physics course?

Current Work

• Survey on student experiences

– Clickers & Peer Instruction

– Tutorials

– Physics Identity

– Epistemology

– Sources of Self-Efficacy

Peer Instruction• How comfortable do you feel discussing the physics

content with your peers during clicker questions?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Uncomfortable Neutral Comfortable

% o

f S

tud

en

ts

Females Males

p = 0.3

Physics Identity

• I feel like I could be a good physicist.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Disagree Neutral Agree

% o

f S

tud

en

ts

Females Males

p < 0.001

Physics Self-Efficacy• I worried about my ability to solve physics

problems on exams.

p < 0.001

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Agree Neutral Disagree

% o

f S

tud

en

ts

Females Males

p < 0.001

Different Experiences

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Identity Self-Efficacy

Ave

rag

e V

alu

e

Females Males

(7 questions) (4 questions)

Conclusions (III)

• The gender gap persists at our institution

• Gender gap largely due to background differences of males and females

• Preliminary evidence to suggest differences in how males and females experience the course

Thank You

• Find more info at:

http://per.colorado.edu

• Kost, et al, PRST PER 5, 010101 (2009).

Physics Self-Efficacy• Physics makes me feel uneasy.

p < 0.001

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Agree Neutral Disagree

% o

f S

tud

en

ts

Females Males

p < 0.001

Gender Gaps in Physics 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

Fall 04 Spring 05 Fall 05 Spring 06 Fall 06 Spring 07 All

<S

>M

- <

S>

F

0

5

10

15

20

25

30FMCE Posttest BEMA Pretest BEMA PosttestN

/A

Gender Gaps in Physics 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

Fall 04 Spring 05 Fall 05 Spring 06 Fall 06 Spring 07 All

<S

>M

- <

S>

F

0

5

10

15

20

25

30FMCE Posttest BEMA Pretest BEMA PosttestN

/A

Courses, Student Population, and Data• 7 semesters introductory, calculus-based mechanics

– 3 semesters Partially Interactive (without Tutorials)– 4 semesters Fully Interactive (with Tutorials)

• Student population– 25% female– 50% engineering majors (6% physics majors)– 80% white

• Data sources– Matched FMCE pre/post data (N ~ 2100)– Matched CLASS pre/post data (N ~ 1900)– Course grades (N ~ 3600)– Demographic and background data (N ~ 3600)

Gender Gaps at CU Boulder

Pollock, et. al. Phys. Rev. ST PER, 3, 010107 (2007)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Partially Interactive Fully Interactive

<S

>M

- <

S>

F (

%)

Pretest Posttest

Conclusions

• Even when controlling for physics background, math skills, and attitudes and beliefs, gender is still a significant factor in posttest score.

• Accounted for only 43% of variation in post test scores, other factors to consider

Normalized Gain

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

IE 1 IE 2

Avg

. N

orm

aliz

ed G

ain

Females Males

Normalized Gain by semester

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

SP 04 Tut

FA 04 Grps

SP 05 Trad

FA 05 Trad

SP 06 Tut

FA 06 Tut

SP 07 Tut

ALL

Av

g.

No

rma

lize

d G

ain

Females Males

Multiple Regression

Matched Analysis – 1110 Gain

rpre,gain = 0.281

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0 <= S <= 12 12 < S <= 18 18 < S <= 27 27 < S <= 45 45 < S <= 100

Females Males