Introduction
Is it possible in the 21 st century that schools
still fail to provide all of their students with equitable learning
experiences? Having taught physics in two different school systems, one
where it is a required course and one where it is an elective course,
an aspect of the classes that has caught my attention is the ratio of
male to female students in the classroom. In one county where I taught
previously, where physics is a required course, the balance of male to
female students in any particular class was roughly half and half. In
the county where I am presently employed, physics is an elective course
there is a larger percentage of male students to their female
counterpart enrolled. While the under enrollment of female student in
physics course is an important equity issue, as a classroom teacher it
is an issue beyond my control. I do have control of my own classroom
and the instructional practices. I want to ensure that all of my
students, male and female, are given equal opportunity to learn and
achieve.
My own experience as a physics teacher for
several years has led me to wonder whether or not the gender gaps and
inequity suggested and documented in the literature exists in my own
classroom. These experiences include informal observations of my
students, test scores, and conversations with students, colleagues, and
parents. Physics content is difficult; however, I do not subscribe to
the school of thought that writes off unequal performance by female
students as a result of their gender. I believe that if provided with
the proper instruction that female students should be able to perform
at the same levels as their male counterparts. I believe that while it
may require a different approach male and female students can reach the
same level of achievement in the end.
It is the responsibility of an educator to
ensure male and female students are provided with the opportunities
they need to succeed. This may mean varying instructional practices for
male and female students. If there is a gender gap in my own classes as
determine by a pre-test post-test measured learning growth and also
comments and feedback provided by students, I have an obligation to
identify the contributing factors and attempts to ameliorate them.
While current research into gender gaps in
physics achievement provides important information about the existence
of such inequity, these studies provide the classroom teacher with
little more than generalities. As a physics teacher, I need to know if
these same general trends seen in physics education throughout the
world are also present in my classroom. If a gap does exist in my own
classes I can try to identify its origin and improve the issues for
future students.
First and foremost, this research topic for me
as a concerned physics teacher is not a topic that had ever been
addressed in my training as an educator. The findings of this research
have the immediate potential to enable me to reevaluate my
instructional methods and techniques. This may also result in greater
learning opportunities for all of my students as best teaching
practices are usually best for all students. On a larger scale, issues
of gender equality in learning are relevant for all educators striving
to provide their students with the best learning experience they can
offer. Physics teachers, science teachers, and all teachers who are
concerned about equity in their classroom should evaluate their
teaching practices to ensure that all of their students are being
provided with optimal learning conditions.
I employ various instructional methods and
materials such as lecture, inquiry based labs, problem solving
sessions, computer simulations, discussions, video, web based
assignments, and student presentations. Given the varied nature of the
methods I implement I believe that there is something for everyone,
which accommodate as many learning styles as possible. There is also
redundancy between many of these activities which is also done
purposely to allow students to interact with the content in as many
ways as possible.
The purpose of this action research is to
discover if gender differences in the ability to learn physics content
exists in my own physics students. If the ability to learn physics
content in my classroom appears to less for a certain gender than I
must use the data collected to try and identify the root cause or
causes and work to improve upon them.
Literature Review
Gender equality in society and education has
made huge strides over the last century. Women attend colleges and
universities in equal or greater numbers than their male counterparts
and are able to gain employment in all sectors of the work force.
However, there remains a disparity in the representation of women in
disciplines for which the qualifications include science related
credentials, other than medical careers (Reid & Skryabina,
2003). Women continue to be underrepresented in mathematics,
engineering, and the physical sciences, making up only 16% of those
profitable professions, while women in general make up 45% of the work
force (Tai & Sadler, 2001). Science related careers are more
important that ever in our modern society that is rooted in information
and technology. Girls routinely enroll in advanced science courses in
lower numbers than their male counterparts; consequently, limiting
their future job prospects in science related fields (Zohar &
Sela, 2003).
This trend of under enrollment is not limited to
the United States and can be seen in educational settings in countries
around the world from Israel to Scotland . Efforts have been made to
investigate this problem in various ways. The factors leading up to the
decision to enroll in advanced science courses, physics in particular,
have been examined along with the influences affecting the performance
of girls once they are enrolled. The aspects contributing to the
enrollment and performance of girls in physics have been examined more
closely than other content areas in the literature, due to a
particularly noticeable gender gap, or disparity in achievement,
between boys and girls. While many biological differences exist between
the genders, these differences have been dismissed by researchers as a
reason for the discrepancy (Klein, 2004; Tai & Sadler, 2001).
Motivation, self efficacy, peer pressure,
societal and gender norms, family attitudes, guidance from educational
professionals, prior experience, and requirements from high schools,
colleges, and universities are all factors that have been investigated
by researchers in an effort to explain the disparity in enrollment.
Issues that have been examined in an effort to explain performance of
girls in physics include attitudes of teachers and students, teaching
and learning styles, classroom culture, and prior experiences. While
this issue is complex and the dynamics that influence enrollment and
performance are complicated, several factors can be addressed
immediately by school and educational professionals, including
teachers, administrators, and guidance counselors. Rather than be
overwhelmed by a daunting task, educators must start addressing the
issues that they do have some control over, and hope that societal and
family factors will follow by example. A vast number of the issues
currently influencing our society and economy are affected by and
rooted in science and its applications. As a result, it is imperative
that girls are provided an equitable path to pursue educations and
careers in related scientific fields.
The gender gap is seen in two parts of education
that require attention. Enrollment and performance in physics courses
reveal a degree of inequity that requires attention. There are two
different types of influences on enrollment and performance. These
influences can be divided into factors that can be addressed in the
educational system at all levels, primarily by teachers,
administrators, and those who provide guidance. These include school
experiences in science classes, course requirements for high school and
college, guidance, course recommendations, teaching styles, and
teaching attitudes. The other influences include motivation, gender
norms, family culture, self efficacy, peer group and the learning
styles and attitudes of the students. These factors are much more
difficult to control or adjust from an educational perspective. That is
not to say that they are not serious issues that do require attention
in order to bring about a serious and lasting change to the way that
girls and all students are educated and the best practices by which to
do so. Rather, these factors are cultural and more personal in nature
and, consequently, more difficult to address and change in an
educational setting.
This review is the result of a desire to
increase enrollment in physics courses from female students and to
ensure that those female students who do enroll are given the
opportunity and provided with the best instructional practices to
ensure equity and promote success in a positive learning environment.
The literature can be divided into two main categories. Those studies
that look at enrollment factors and those that look at performance
factors. As a classroom teacher with a desire to have an impact on
student achievement, I believe that methods to increase performance are
most relevant. For physics teachers in particular the following
statement should be of the most concern, “The largest gender
differences in achievements are consistently found in
physics” (Zohar & Sela, 2003 p.246).
The purpose of this literature review is to
evaluate current thought on gender disparities in enrollment and
performance in physics courses in order to help identify them in my own
classes if they exists and work to close the gap if one is found .
Furthermore, the review attempted to determine what factors a classroom
teacher may be able to control and attempt to modify with the goal of
increasing the academic performance of female students, in order to
determine the variables for the study. I believe that whatever gaps in
achievement do exist are not biological and that, under optimal and
comparable circumstances, male and female students perform academically
at equal levels. The purpose of this study is to determine if there are
differences in achievement between the male and female students in an
advanced physics course and to try to identify possible causes if a
significant difference in achievement is found.
Enrollment
In most schools in most countries physics is an
elective course. When female students choose not to enroll in such a
course they begin to limit their future educational and career choices.
Kessels (2005) suggests that enrolment in advance science courses, such
as physics and advanced physics courses may be incompatible with the
psychological development of the identity of young adults. It is not
socially acceptable in many peer groups to be smart and such behavior
may result in ostracism from the group. The formation of self-image is
strongly influenced in early childhood and adolescence. Gender
stereotypes present in many societies and families are incompatible
with women pursuing careers in the physical sciences, which are much
more frequently associated as being masculine professions (DeBacker
& Nelson, 2000). Attitudes and achievement in science for boys
and girls are very similar in elementary school and then begin to
diverge in middle and high school, which can be attributed to both
educational and societal factors (Bacharach, Baumeister, &
Furr, 2003).
Educationally, the decline in girls' attitudes
towards science may be attributed to early experiences with science,
science curriculum, and teachers (Greenfield, 1997; Zohar &
Bronshtien, 2005). Early positive experiences in science classrooms
have a lasting impact on girls and manifest themselves in eagerness and
capability to get involved ( Greenfield , 1997). A student's
self-efficacy can be affected through positive classroom experiences.
Highly qualified teachers, who actively engage all students equally,
are crucial to fostering a positive attitude towards science at a young
and formative age in all students. While studies indicate that girls
recognize science as being important and valuable in numbers comparable
to boys, those same girls believe they have a lesser ability than their
male counterparts (DeBacker & Nelson, 2000).
Course requirements and recommendations also
play a role in the enrollment of female students in physics courses.
Many girls, who are qualified to enroll in a physics course, are turned
away and placed on another track (Zohar & Bronshtien, 2005).
“Girls were more likely than their male counterparts to take
both biology and chemistry” (Zohar & Sela, 2003,
p246.). Common practices include stressing difficulty rather than the
rewards of taking such a course. Teachers also suggest other courses
where they inform girls they will be able to achieve higher grades
(Zohar & Bronshtien, 2005). “Girls with average
grades are usually not encouraged to study physics, while boys with
similar achievement get different messages” (Zohar &
Bronshtien, 2005, p63.).
Performance
A wide variety of factors have been studied in
order to determine their effect on the performance of female students
in physics course. These include, but are not limited to, attitudes
towards learning, perceived societal gender roles, motivation, self
efficacy, instructor's gender, classroom learning environment, and
teaching styles. Working under the assumption that male and female
students should be able to achieve at comparable levels, all else being
equal, these factors and all other possibilities must be considered as
possible culprits for the achievement gap.
In their study of 242 high school students
enrolled in biology, chemistry, and physics, DeBacker & Nelson
(2000) found that of the 128 boys and 113 girls surveyed,
“girls reported lower perceived ability than boys did
regardless of achievement level and science class” (p. 251).
In addition to their deflated feelings regarding their abilities, when
poled, girls also responded to enjoying physics less than their male
counterpart (Zohar & Sela, 2003). Reid and Skryabina (2003)
came to similar conclusions in their analysis of more than 800
students. “Boys show more positive attitudes towards science
than girls…But is it really a problem of girls?”
(p. 510.) These negative feelings about courses and their own ability
affect female students' motivation and self-efficacy. Instructional
practices, like cooperative learning or problem-based learning, may
provide educators a way to address these issues and bring about a
positive change.
Similar suggestions and analysis can be found
with Greenfield (1997), who suggests that such
“gender-equitable instructional strategies” need to
take place in school in science classes at all levels. “Hands
on laboratory work combined with carefully structured collaborative
learning can be particularly effective at the elementary levels to help
ensure that girls are as active in science labs as boys, and perhaps
will be more likely to remain that way through subsequent
classes” (p. 272). When girls are given an opportunity to
form a place for themselves in the science classroom early on, their
views of themselves and science have a better chance of developing as
the students mature ( Greenfield , 1997).
While early experience influences girls'
self-efficacy, experiences in current physics courses also have an
impact. These factors seem to fall into three main categories:
classroom, content, and teacher. What content is being taught and how
the material is being presented seems to have a larger impact on female
students than male students (Tai & Sadler, 2001; Zohar
& Bronshtien 2005; Zohar & Sela, 2003).
Zohar and Sela (2003) found in the research in
mathematics and physics that, “In a written questionnaire 91%
of girls regarded understanding as the most important aspect of
learning mathematics, compared with 65% of the boys…Boys
tended to be more satisfied than girls with simply attaining the
correct answers, rather than understanding” (p. 248).
The need for girls to reach a deeper
understanding of physical concepts and to believe they only understand
when they can place the ideas into a wider scope and make connections
and relationships was also documented by Zohar and Bronshtein (2005).
This is not the way that most traditional introductory physics classes
are taught. “Teaching physics with more concentration on deep
and narrow approaches to the subject matter appear to be profoundly
more beneficial than concentrating on broad and shallow
approaches…However, the tenet among many practicing high
school physics teachers has remained, ‘Exposure, Exposure,
Exposure'” (Tai & Sadler, 2001, p.1035). Current
teaching practices appear incongruent with the learning styles and
needs of female students.
Further evidence suggests that a failure to
grasp a concept effects girls' outlook more than boys and that girls
only feel they understand something when they can apply and see how the
information applies to a larger setting (Zohar & Sela, 2003).
In their research Zohar and Sela also found that 75% of girls thought
that their class was too competitive as opposed to 27.8% of boys.
Competition was welcomed and enjoyed by most of the male students while
it bothered many of the female students. One female student in the
study had this to say, “That's another reason why girls don't
take physics. I would have preferred to take chemistry because they
[i.e. students in chemistry class] are not as
competitive…it's pretty disgusting” (p. 258).
Another female student from the study commented that, “It's
much easier for the boys to get along in the physics class. It's simply
that there is always this kind of competition: who solved the problem,
who got it right. It's a bit difficult. I think for girls it's
more…difficult sometimes…It suits them a little
better, they get along better in class” (Zohar &
Sela, 2003, p.258). This issue of competition and its psychological
impact on female students was also noted by Zohar and Bronshtien
(2005), who suggest that small group discussions, which are preferred
by girls, facilitate a greater comprehension of concepts and further
clarification of those concepts.
The competitive nature of the traditional
classroom where, “rote learning and algorithmic problem
solving” (Zohar & Sela, 2003, p.259) dominate is not
appealing to girls who, more so than their male counterparts, strive to
form a deeper understanding of content and the ability to apply their
newly acquired knowledge. “Clearly, their pleasure in
learning physics is related to their ability to understand”
(Zohar & Sela, 2003, p.259). Reid and Skryabina (2003) found
similar preferences in their study where girls responded that they had
more interest in physics when they were able to apply to real life
situations in the world around them.
Labuddle and Herzog (2000) found that teaching
strategies that had the most success in raising the achievement of
girls were addressing preconceived notions and relating physics to
every day phenomenon and thus making it relevant, real, and applicable
to students. However, they go on to say that, “The applied
strategies improve not only the girls' but also the boys' achievement
in and attitudes toward physics” (Labuddle & Herzog,
2000, p.155.). Teaching strategies and the classroom environment can be
control by the instructor. Consequently, the teacher has a great deal
of control of factors that directly impact the motivation and
self-efficacy of girls enrolled in physics courses.
Teachers may ultimately be responsible for the
achievement gap in physics courses, rather than the students or the
course itself. The manner in which information is presented and the
culture of the class have been established as factors to which girls
and boys respond differently. Why the responses are different is not
the concern of this review. The fact that there are differences and its
impact on the academic achievement of female students is of concern. In
an attempt to determine whether the gap is a result of biological
factors or sociological factors, polls and surveys conducted with
educators yielded some interesting results. “Studies suggest
that teacher's knowledge and beliefs in this area may be unsatisfactory
for the purpose of gender-fair physics teaching because teachers tend
to underestimate the problem and do not tend to think it needs special
treatment and care” (Zohar & Boaz, 2005, p.65.). In
their survey the opinion of most teachers was that science professions
are more fitting for boys than girls and those factors beyond their
control are responsible for any gender gap (Zohar & Boaz, 2005)
The results from the research done by Zohar and
Boaz (2005) are alarming. When teachers were asked questions gauging
whether or not they were aware of a gap 32% said gender was not an
issue, 20% identify that a gap existed but underestimated its
magnitude. A majority of teachers were either ignorant of the gap or
underestimated its actual influence (Zohar & Boaz, 2005).
Perhaps even more alarming was the 64% of teachers who did not identify
the gap as an issue that required any remedy (Zohar & Boaz,
2005). Interestingly, even teachers, who did not believe there was a
gap, attempted to explain the gap in terms of self-efficacy and
differences between female interests and traditional physics curricula
(Zohar & Boaz, 2005). In his research Klein (2004) suggests
that the gender of the teacher may play a role in academic achievement.
“The fact that the variance is largely due to the gender of
the teachers, not pupils, suggests that, left to their own devices,
girls and boys would reach similar achievement levels, and that the
gaps that presently exist have extrinsic causes” (p. 189.).
Consequently, it would appear that teachers, who recognize a gap does
exist in achievement and are willing to admit that they may share in
the responsibility for the gap, have the ability to remedy the
situation through modifications in their instructional practices and
classroom management.
Summary
The purpose of this literature review was to
provide information about the gender disparity in science, and physics
in particular, with respect to courses being taken and performance in
those courses. The literature review details various aspects of the
problem that have been researched and address to this point. When
teachers recognize and acknowledge the disparity the research suggests,
using a different approach to presenting material, making connections
between that content and society, and changing the classroom culture
could lead to improved achievement for both male and female students.
Strategies used to increased girls' achievement help their male
counterparts as well (Labudde & Herzog, 2000).
In the last 100 years women have made leaps and
bounds in terms of equality and equal representation throughout
society. Still, there remains a gap in the representation of women in
physical science and engineering careers. That disparity can be traced
back to physical science class from elementary school through the
university level. Girls are underrepresented in those classes and
perform lower than their male counterparts when they are enrolled.
Self-efficacy and motivation appear to play a role in the performance
gap and are directly related to the instructor and the manner in which
that person conducts their class, instructional styles, and
methodologies. The instructional needs of female students in
traditional physics courses are not being met.
Rote memorization and plugging numbers into
formulas neither engage most girls nor provide them with the deeper
understanding and relationships they desire. Teaching practices that
address these issues are really best practices that should be used with
all students and will benefit both girls and their male counterparts.
These types of necessary pedagogical changes will only take place when
teachers acknowledge there is a gender gap in achievement and that they
can and must do something to remedy the situation.
Methods
I investigated a class of advanced physics
students for this study. The high school is a predominately Caucasian
school and physics classes typically conform to those demographics. The
class is composed of junior and senior students. Those returning to the
school have had one of two possible backgrounds in science. The seniors
will have taken physical science, biology, and chemistry while the
juniors have taken biology and chemistry. In the past, about half of
those students have tested into gifted program. As a gifted certified
teacher the school typically keeps my classes below twenty-one
students. The class is made up of 22 students, 13 males and 9 female,
that meet for ninety minutes a day for eighteen weeks.
The classroom is a lab room with two large lab
tables along with tables and desks to provide seating for all students.
The room is equipped with an interactive white board, television, VCR,
DVD player, and four desk top computers with internet access. To
accommodate the number of students in the class trips will be made
weekly to the computer lab to provide students access and time to view
and interact with various computer simulations. There are also 12 x 10
white boards and 24 x 12 white boards for student presentations and
problem solving.
The study was conducted over the course of a
unit that covered energy and momentum. Instructional methods used
include lecture, inquiry labs, problem solving sessions,
demonstrations, computer simulations, web based assignments,
discussions, student presentations, and videos. When students work in
groups they will work in homogenous and heterogeneous based on gender.
They varied throughout the unit so that every student will have the
opportunity to work in both types of groups.
Throughout the study, I collected information
regarding learning growth as well as information regarding
predispositions, motivation, and attitudes. I hope to answer the
following questions:
• Is there a gender gap in
learning growth and mastery?
• What are learning growth
and overall mastery for both female students and male students?
• How do girls and boys
perceive their performance?
• Does interest in the
subject matter effect learning outcomes?
• How do students'
perceptions of physics as an important topic to study effect their
performance?
• How does technology assist
students in learning physics?
• What technologies to
students believe are the most helpful in learning physics content?
• What technologies do
students believe are unhelpful or even counterproductive?
• Does technology enable
student to make relevant connections to the importance of physics in
society?
Data Collection Process
Consent forms were
distributed to all students to bring home prior to the study. The pre
test and first questionnaire were administered prior to the
presentation of content. Students were coded all forms with their own
unique student identification number. This helped to ensure students'
identities remain as anonymous as possible while the data was being
collected and during the analysis process.
This study made use of two questionnaires and
the use of pre and post-test results. The pre-test and post test
included ten multiple choice questions relating to subject matter being
taught. The pre unit questionnaire will consist of a variety of
questions. The questionnaire contained questions pertaining to
demographic information and previous education. These questions
determined gender, age, previous math and science classes taken and
grades in those classes; PSAT and SAT score (if applicable). Questions
were asked about the students' parents and their current employment,
interests, and educational background.
The remainder of the questionnaire asked
questions about the student's interests, knowledge, and motivation to
take physics. These questions took the form of Likert scaled survey
questions, and open ended free response questions. There will also be
questions in this section of the questionnaire for students to express
and elaborate on their learning styles and preferred methods of
instruction. Lastly, there will be questions asking students about
their own perceptions as they relate to gender and ability in physics.
The pre and post-test contained 10 multiple
choice questions which covered material from the third unit over energy
and momentum in the course. The pre and post-test results were analyzed
to determine learning growth and mastery of content. A second
questionnaire will be given after the post test that will ask students
questions about their experiences during the previous unit. It used
checklists; Likert scaled questions, and open ended questions. The pre
and post test questions can be seen in appendix A and the questionnaire
questions used in the questionnaire can be seen in appendix B.
The second questionnaire asked questions about
the unit of physics the students had just studied and the effectiveness
of instructional techniques used throughout that unit. These questions
included what technology students thought was helpful and detrimental
in their learning, what instructional methods were the most and least
effective, and how their actual learning growth and mastery relate to
their perceived level of ability and accomplishment. Students were
asked questions about the content they believed was the easiest and
most difficult to master and to postulate reasons why they think they
were successful with some material and not so with other.
Data Analysis
The data analysis had several aspects. First,
the scores of the pre and post-test were compared to determine the
level of learning growth. The post-test score were used to determine
overall level of mastery. This data was then compared to the data
collected through the questionnaires. I tried to see if students who
have a greater interest in physics perform better. I also tried to see
if there were any relationships between achievement, motivation, and
self efficacy. Finally, the questionnaires provided data regarding
instructional methods that students find most effective. This
information was compared with the gender of the subject as well as
their level of achievement.
Limitation of the study
As with any study this one has limitations. This
is a study of a small group of physics student who are enrolled in
physics as a choice. As a result, the findings of this study may not be
generalized beyond my classroom. I am biased in my belief that male and
female student should be able to attain the same levels of mastery when
provided with the necessary learning opportunities. Having taught
physics for several years in two school systems and at various levels I
believe I have developed practices and use technology that enable all
of my students to succeed.
Results and Discussion
Quantitative Results
Thirteen male students and nine female students
took a pre and post test as part of a unit of study over topics related
to energy and momentum in an advanced high school physics course. The
comparison of scores between the female and male pretest, the female
and male post test, and the increase in the female scores compared to
the increase in male scores revealed no significant difference between
the female group and the male group. The female pre test had had a mean
of 2.66 with a standard deviation of 0.87. The male pre test had a mean
of 3.54 and a standard deviation of 2.03. A t value of 0.138 and
p-value of 0.19, p > 0.05, indicates no significant difference
between the scores.
The comparison of the scores between the female
and male post test also indicates no significant difference. The female
post test had a mean of 5.44 with a standard deviation of 1.13. The
male post test had a mean of 5.54 with a standard deviation of 1.66. A
t-value of 0.158 and a p-value of 0.88, p > 0.05, indicate no
significant difference between scores.
The comparison of the difference between male
post test scores and pre test scores to that of the female post test
and pre test scores also indicated no significant difference. The male
scores had a mean increase of 2.00 with a standard deviation of 1.22.
The female score had a mean increase of 2.78 with a standard deviation
of 1.48. A t-value of -1.29 and a p-value of 0.21 indicates no
significant difference in achievement.
Table 1. Mean Scores and Standard Deviation for
Pretest, Posttest, and Improvement.
|
|
Pretest
|
Posttest
|
Improvements
|
|
Female
|
Male
|
Female
|
Male
|
Female
|
Male
|
|
Mean
|
2.67
|
3.54
|
5.44
|
5.54
|
2.78
|
2.00
|
|
Std. Deviation
|
0.87
|
2.03
|
1.33
|
1.66
|
1.48
|
1.22
|
Qualitative Results
When asked to rank their interest in the subject
matter of physics on a scale from 1 to 10 with 10 indicating the
largest interest male students responded with a mean of 8 with standard
deviation of 1.47. The female students responded with a mean of 6.33
with a standard deviation of 1.80. A p-value of 0.037, p < 0.05,
indicating that there is a significant difference in how the students
report their own interest in the course. According to their own
reporting of their interest the male students claim to be more interest
in the content and subject matter than the female students.
When asked to rank their ability to achieve and
master physics content on a scale from 1 to 10 with 10 indicating the
largest achievement male students responded with a mean of 8.38 with
standard deviation of 0.96. The female students responded with a mean
of 8.32 with a standard deviation of 1.31. A t-test gives a p-value of
0.77, p > 0.05, indicating that there is no significant
difference in how the students report their ability to achieve and
master physics content. There is no significant difference between how
the male students in the class and the female students in the class see
their own abilities to do well in physics.
Students completed questionnaires that contained
several Likert scaled questions, checklists and open ended questions.
Responses to the 8 – point Likert scaled questions regarding
most effective instructional technologies have been compiled for the
male and female sub groups. The number of students responding and their
percentage of their subgroup are listed in appendices
Student Comments
Students identified factors that would cause
them to be less successful as having bad study habits, not spending
enough time studying, difficult course loads, weak math ability, and
extra-curricular activities. When asked about study habits the number
of hours a week students report spend on physics related work ranged
from thirty minutes a week to fourteen hours a week. The average was
only four hours a week. Fifteen out of the twenty two students report
spending four hours or less on homework every week. The range of time
spent on homework per week for male was from half and hour per week to
nine hours a week while the range for the females was from two hours a
week to fifteen hour a week. The average for the males was three hours
a week while for the females it was about five hours and twenty minutes
a week.
Student comments regarding instructional methods
and their ranking of the various methods currently being employed in
the classroom reveal nothing conclusive; however, many student comment
were focused on more passive activities where the teacher gives notes
or explains, “specific quiz and test questions in
advance.” Other students suggested that the teacher should
provide them with note in advance of class. Only one student suggested
that more was being done in this course than he was accustom to in
other classes. He made specific reference to online concepts
simulations which are JAVA applets that allow students to interact with
physical situations and manipulate various properties on situations
they would otherwise be unable to observe or manipulate. Students'
comments were brief and not very descriptive when students provided
comments.
When asked about whether they thought they
learned better from a male or female teacher responses were
interesting. Fourteen student, male and female, responded that they
thought they learned better from male teachers, seven students said it
did not matter and only one student said female teacher. Sixty four
percent of students believe that they learn better from male teachers.
This was the only question asked to the students where gender seemed to
play a role; although it was not the gender of the students that
mattered (See appendix J). This was especially interesting from the
standpoint of the female students. None of the female had indicated
that their own gender had anything to do with their own ability to
learn yet 63% of female students believe they learn better from male
teachers. Other than their perception of the gender of teacher they
learn from best there were no noticeable trends or differences in the
responses of male and female students to other questions.
Discussion
The t-test of the pre and post test data
revealed no significant difference between the scores of the male and
female students. These results are consistent with what I expected
regarding my own instructional methods and strategies. Given the
necessary and varied learning opportunities all students regardless of
gender should be able to achieve in a physics classroom. Using
instructional strategies that focus on a variety of learning styles and
implementing the use of a wide variety of technology, it appears at
least with in this class of physics students, to provide all students
with meaningful learning opportunities.
Even with no significant difference in test
scores male and female students did show a significant difference in
their self ascribed interest levels in physics. While 100% of female
students stated that one of the reasons they enrolled in the course was
because of how it appears on a college transcript only 69% of male
students responded in the same manner. 85% of male students identified
interest in physics as a reason for enrolling in the class while only
56% of female students stated the same. These finding only serve to
reinforce that motivation is a very complex behavior. It appears from
their responses that male and female students were motivated to take
the course for different reasons; however, these various reasons can
not be seen to affect their performance to a significant degree. At
least with these students, the nature of the motivation appears to have
less with the achievement than the motivation itself. Overall, the
motivation of the male students was more intrinsic while the motivation
of the female students was more extrinsic. Ultimately, according the
data for the pre and post test indicate that the source of the
motivation did not result in a significant difference in scores.
When asked if there were any factors that were
likely to make them more or less successful than other students to be
successful, no students answered that their gender would affect them in
either a positive or negative manner. These statements are supported
further from student responses when asked to rank their ability to
succeed in physics. The belief of these students that their own gender
is not relevant to their ability to achieve is contrary to the findings
of DeBacker and Nelson (2000) whose study found girls believed they had
lower ability then their male counterparts. A larger percentage of
female students responded that the suggestion of a guidance counselor
and recommendation of previous science teacher played a part in their
decision to enroll. This trend is also contrary to previous findings of
Zohar and Bronshtien (2005).
Based on their responses, students overwhelming
believe that videos, demonstrations, and teacher led problem solving
are the most effective in helping them learn. A common factor in these
activities is there passivity. These are the activities that the
students believe are most effective. I think that these responses
display an intellectual laziness among many students. Many students do
not want to be engaged in their own learning perhaps as a result of
many years of not being involved. There seems to be a reluctance to go
out on a limb, experiment, and take and active role in learning. This
is trouble especially because student engagement is key to high levels
of learning and achievement. While students claim that videos are
effective, observation of students during a video shown during this
unit indicated that fewer that 25% of students were able to stay
focused during the 25 minutes clip. Three students who responded that
videos were a highly effective instructional technique fell asleep at
least one time during the video. Two students who also stated that
videos were highly effective instructional techniques were reading a
book for another course during the video clip. This type of behavior
leads to the question of whether students have the ability to determine
what instructional methods really help them learn the most and which
one they, “like.” The comment was made many time
regarding video about how much, “I really like
them.” No one student was able or willing to articulate how
or why they thought videos were an effective instructional technique.
Physics education research indicates that many
students can go through the motion of use equations and often have
little idea about what these equations mean (O'Kuma, Maloney, &
Hieggelke, 1999). The literature on gender difference also indicated
that the manner in which content is approached is just as important as
the content itself (Tai & Sadler, 2001; Zohar &
Bronshtien 2005; Zohar & Sela, 2003). Online concept
simulations and task ranking problems are incorporated into every unit
throughout the year in the physics courses I teach. They allow student
to think about physical concept more abstractly and address their
preconceived notions about the nature of the physical world. Female
students indicated that they believe these two activities helped them
more than their male counterparts indicated. Both activities are very
active and require students to be actively engaged in the process of
learning. Even though female students thought that these activities
were more helpful then male student, both group thought they were less
effective than the traditional more passive activities of videos,
demonstrations, problems solving, and power point presentations. What
students believe to be most effective and what current physics
education research says aids most in increasing understanding appear,
at least with these students, to be different. This disparity suggests
that more information is needed about how students' perceptions of
effective instructional methods and what current research says are
related to their actual performance. That is to say, do students really
know how they learn best? Maybe they do and maybe they don't. As
professional educators, it is our job to provide all students with as
many varied opportunities using as many methods and technologies as are
available. This way, students will be engaged in many ways they believe
help them but are also exposed to and required to go thought other
processes that enhance their understand of content and their learning
styles.
Conclusions
The findings of this study are relevant only to
the students and teacher involved. The lack of a significant difference
between the scores of male and female students suggests that every
student is being provided with the necessary opportunities and
instruction to learn and achieve. The varied instructional techniques
and technology implemented with these students has been done purposely
with the forethought of meeting every student's learning style in as
many ways as possible. The focus of all instruction has been to
increase conceptual understanding and problem solving ability. To meet
this end, technology and instructional methods that require students to
engage to the concepts and their preconceived notions about physics
have been employed. While the issue of gender equality needs to be
looked at greater with respect to female students and their performance
in the physics classroom this study hints at and suggests that when
students are taught and engaged in a wide variety of ways in provided
different groups of students with different learning styles
opportunities to succeed. All teachers should evaluate the achievement
of their students to ensure that there are no gaps in achievement
between sub groups and that all students are being provided with
equitable learning experiences. In conclusion, more research is
required at all levels of education to address the issues of gender
equality in physics enrollment and performance.
References
Bacharach, V., Baumeister, A., & Furr,
M. (2003). Racial and gender science achievement gaps in science
education. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 164, 115-126.
DeBacker, T. K., & Nelson, M. R. (2000).
Motivation to learn science: Differences Related to gender, class type,
and ability. The Journal of Educational Research, 93,
245-254.
Greenfield , T. A. (1997). Gender and grade
level differences in science interest and
participation. Science Education, 81,
259-276.
Kessels, U. (2005) Fitting into the stereotype:
How gender-stereotyped perceptions of prototypic peers relate to liking
for school subjects. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 20, 309-323.
Klein, J. (2004). Who is responsible for gender
differences in scholastic achievement: pupils or teachers? Educational
Research 46, 183-193.
Labuddle, P., Herzog, W., Neuenschwander, M.,
Violi, E., & Gerber, C. (2000). Girls and physics: teaching and
learning strategies tested by classroom interventions in grade 11. International
Journal of Science Education, 22, 143-157.
O'Kuma, T. L, Maloney, D. P, Hieggelke, C. J
(1999). Ranking Task Exercises in Physics. New
Jersey : Prentice Hall
Reid, N., & Skryabina, E. A. (2002).
Attitudes towards physics. Research in Science &
Technological Education, 20, 67-81.
Reid, N., & Skryabina, E. A. (2003).
Gender and Physics. International Journal of Science
Education, 25, 509-536.
Tai, R. H., & Sadler, P. M. (2001).
Gender Differences in introductory undergraduate physics performance:
university physics versus college physics in the USA . International
Journal of Science Education, 23, 1017-1038.
Zohar, A., & Sela, D. (2003). Her
physics, his physics: gender issues in Israeli advances placement
physics classes. International Journal of Science Education,
25, 245-268
Zohar, A., & Bronshtien, B. (2005).
Physics teachers' knowledge and beliefs regarding girls' low
participation rates in advanced physics classes. International
Journal of Science Education. 27 , 61-77.
Appendix A
ID # __________
Unit 3
– Pre-Test / Post – Test
AP Prep
Physics
Choose the best answer to
each question and write the answer in the space provided.
_____1. In which one of the following situations
is zero net work done?
(a) A ball rolls down an inclined plane.
(b) A physics student stretches a spring.
© A projectile falls toward the surface
of Earth.
(d) A box is pulled across a rough floor at
constant velocity.
(e) A child pulls a wagon across a rough surface
causing it to accelerate.
_____2. Which one of the following situations is
an example of an object with a non-zero kinetic energy?
(a) a drum of diesel fuel on a parked truck
(b) a stationary pendulum
© a satellite in geosynchronous orbit
(d) a car parked at the top of a hill
(e) a boulder resting at the bottom of a cliff
_____3. In which one of the following systems is
there a decrease in gravitational potential
energy?
(a) a boy stretches a horizontal spring (d) a
car ascends a steep hill
(b) a girl jumps down from a bed (e) water is
forced upward through a pipe
© a crate rests at the bottom of an
inclined plane
_____4. An elevator supported by a single cable
descends a shaft at a constant speed. The only forces acting on the
elevator are the tension in the cable and the gravitational force.
Which one of the following statements is true?
(a) The magnitude of the work done by the
tension force is larger than that done by the gravitational force.
(b) The magnitude of the work done by the
gravitational force is larger than that done by the tension force.
© The work done by the tension force is
zero joules.
(d) The work done by the gravitational force is
zero joules.
(e) The net work done by the two forces is zero
joules.
_____5. A physics student
shoves a 0.50-kg block from the bottom of a frictionless 30.0°
inclined plane. The student performs 4.0 J of work and the block slides
a distance s along the incline before it stops.
Determine the value of s .
(a) 8.0 cm (c) 82 cm (e) 330 cm
(b) 16 cm (d) 160 cm
_____6. Which one of the following statements
concerning momentum is true?
(a) Momentum is a force.
(b) Momentum is a scalar quantity.
© The SI unit of momentum is kg
× m 2 /s.
(d) The momentum of an object is always
positive.
(e) Momentum and impulse are measured in the
same units.
_____7. A rock is dropped from a high tower and
falls freely under the influence of gravity. Which one of the following
statements concerning the rock as it falls is true? Neglect the effects
of air resistance.
(a) The rock will gain an equal amount of
momentum during each second.
(b) The rock will gain an equal amount of
kinetic energy during each second.
© The rock will gain an equal amount of
speed for each meter through which it falls.
(d) The rock will gain an equal amount of
momentum for each meter through which it falls.
(e) The amount of momentum the rock gains will
be proportional to the amount of potential energy that it loses.
_____8. A stationary bomb explodes in space
breaking into a number of small fragments. At the location of the
explosion, the net force due to gravity is zero newtons. Which one of
the following statements concerning this event is true?
(a) Kinetic energy is conserved in this process.
(b) The fragments must have equal kinetic
energies.
© The sum of the kinetic energies of
the fragments must be zero.
(d) The vector sum of the linear momenta of the
fragments must be zero.
(e) The velocity of any one fragment must be
equal to the velocity of any other fragment.
_____9. An object of mass 3 m ,
initially at rest, explodes breaking into two fragments of mass m
and 2 m,
respectively. Which one of the following statements concerning the
fragments after the explosion is true?
(a) They will fly off at right angles.
(b) They will fly off in the same direction.
© The smaller fragment will have twice
the speed of the larger fragment.
(d) The larger fragment will have twice the
speed of the smaller fragment.
(e) The smaller fragment will have four times
the speed of the larger fragment.
_____10. Two objects of equal mass traveling
toward each other with equal speeds undergo a head on collision. Which
one of the following statements concerning their velocities after
the collision is necessarily true?
(a) They will exchange velocities. (d) Their
velocities will be zero.
(b) Their velocities will be reduced. (e) Their
velocities may be zero.
© Their velocities will be unchanged.
Appendix B
Students Questionnaire
Questions
ID #
1. Age
2. Gender
3. Mother's occupation and highest degree
earned:
4. Father's occupations and highest degree
earned
5. What science courses had you taken in high
school prior to this course and what grades did you earn?
Freshman year –
Sophomore year –
Junior year –
6. What math courses had you taken in high
school prior to this course and what grades did you earn?
Freshman year –
Sophomore year –
Junior year –
7. PSAT Scores- MATH: VERBAL: _____
8. SAT Scores - MATH: _____ VERBAL: _____
WRITING: ____
9. Do you think a student's gender affects their
ability to achieve in physics? Explain.
10. Do you think you learn better from male or
female teachers? Explain.
11. What factors do you think make you more
likely to be successful in this course than other students?
12. What factors do you think make you less
likely to be successful in this course than other students?
13. What factors do you think make you more
likely to be successful in this course than other courses?
14. What factors do you think make you less
likely to be successful in this course than other courses?
15. How would you rate you interest in physics
and the subject matter being studied?
|
Least
|
Circle the number
the best reflects your answer
|
Greatest
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
16. How would you rate your ability to achieve
and master physics content?
|
Least
|
Circle the number
the best reflects your answer
|
Greatest
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
17. Since the course began, how would you rate
your interest in the course?
|
Least
|
Circle the number
the best reflects your answer
|
Greatest
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
18. Before you began the course, how would rate
your parents desire for you to take the course?
|
Least
|
Circle the number
the best reflects your answer
|
Greatest
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
19. How would you rate you mother's interest in
physics?
|
Least
|
Circle the number
the best reflects your answer
|
Greatest
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
20. How would you rate you father's interest in
physics?
|
Least
|
Circle the number
the best reflects your answer
|
Greatest
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
21. Approximately how many hours a week to spend
working for this course? __________
22. What were your reasons for enrolling in this
course? Mark as many choices as applicable and rank the choices from
most to least influential factor.
Least influential
1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-most influential
_____ Looks good on transcript for college
admission
_____ Prerequisite to taking AP Physics
_____Recommended for it and didn't give it a
second thought
_____ Interested in physics
_____ Parents wanted you to take it
_____ Guidance counselor suggestion
_____ Guidance counselor placement
_____ Other – Please explain:
23. Rank the following instructional techniques
from least to most effective with respect to how you think they help
you learn: least effective 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-most effective
_____ Concept simulations
_____ Power Point presentations
_____ Hand on laboratory activities
_____ Videos
_____ Task ranking problems
_____ Student presented solutions to problems
_____ Teacher presented solutions to problems
_____ Demonstrations
24. Are there any instructional techniques or
technology that you think have helped you learn in the past that are
currently not being implemented in this course? Please be as specific
as possible.
25. What material did you find easiest to master
this past unit? Explain.
26. What material did you find hardest to master
this past unit Explain?
Appendix C
Table 2
Number of Male Responses and
Percentage of Males responding to Which Instructional Methods are
believed to be most effective
|
|
Most Effective
8-7
|
6-5
|
4-3
|
Least Effective
2-1
|
|
Concept simulations
|
4 – 31%
|
1 – 8%
|
6 – 46%
|
2 – 15 %
|
|
Power point presentations
|
2 – 15 %
|
6 – 46%
|
2 – 15 %
|
3 – 23%
|
|
Hands on laboratory activities
|
4 – 31%
|
5 – 38%
|
4 – 31%
|
1 – 8%
|
|
Videos
|
8 – 62%
|
3 – 23%
|
1– 8%
|
1 – 8%
|
|
Task ranking problems
|
2 – 15 %
|
5 – 38%
|
1– 8%
|
5 – 38%
|
|
Students presented solutions to problems
|
2 – 15 %
|
4 – 31%
|
4 – 31%
|
3 – 23%
|
|
Teacher presented solutions to problems
|
6 – 46%
|
3 – 23%
|
3 – 23%
|
1 – 8%
|
|
Demonstrations
|
4 – 31%
|
9 – 69%
|
|
1 – 8%
|
Appendix D
Table 3
Number of Female Responses and
Percentage of Females responding to Which Instructional Methods are
believed to be most effective
|
|
Most Effective
8-7
|
6-5
|
4-3
|
Least Effective
2-1
|
|
Concept simulations
|
2 – 22%
|
3 – 33%
|
3 – 33%
|
1 – 11%
|
|
Power point presentations
|
3 – 33%
|
3 – 33%
|
2 – 22%
|
1 – 11%
|
|
Hands on laboratory activities
|
1 – 11%
|
4 - 44%
|
1 – 11%
|
3 – 33%
|
|
Videos
|
3 – 33%
|
5 – 56%
|
1 – 11%
|
|
|
Task ranking problems
|
2 – 22%
|
4 - 44%
|
1 – 11%
|
2 – 22%
|
|
Students presented solutions to problems
|
3 – 33%
|
4 - 44%
|
1 – 11%
|
1 – 11%
|
|
Teacher presented solutions to problems
|
3 – 33%
|
5 – 56%
|
1 – 11%
|
|
|
Demonstrations
|
6 – 67%
|
1 – 11%
|
2 – 22%
|
|
Appendix E
Table 4
Percentage of Male (M) Students versus
the Percentage of Female (F) Students Responding as to the Level of
Effectiveness of Various Instructional Methods
|
|
Most Effective
8-7
|
6-5
|
4-3
|
Least Effective
2-1
|
|
|
M
|
F
|
M
|
F
|
M
|
F
|
M
|
F
|
|
Concept simulations
|
31%
|
22%
|
8%
|
33%
|
46%
|
33%
|
15%
|
11%
|
|
Power point presentations
|
15%
|
33%
|
46%
|
33%
|
15%
|
22%
|
23%
|
11%
|
|
Hands on laboratory activities
|
31%
|
11%
|
38%
|
44%
|
31%
|
11%
|
8%
|
33%
|
|
Videos
|
62%
|
33%
|
23%
|
56%
|
8%
|
11%
|
8%
|
NA
|
|
Task ranking problems
|
15%
|
22%
|
38%
|
44%
|
8%
|
11%
|
38%
|
22%
|
|
Students presented solutions to problems
|
15%
|
33%
|
31%
|
44%
|
31%
|
11%
|
23%
|
11%
|
|
Teacher presented solutions to problems
|
46%
|
33%
|
23%
|
56%
|
23%
|
11%
|
8%
|
NA
|
|
Demonstrations
|
31%
|
67%
|
69%
|
11%
|
NA
|
22%
|
8%
|
NA
|
Appendix F
Table 5
Percentage of Male (M) Students versus
the Percentage of Female (F) Students Responding as to the Level of
Effectiveness of Various Instructional Methods
|
|
Most Effective
8-7-6-5
|
Least Effective
4-3-2-1
|
|
|
M
|
F
|
M
|
F
|
|
Concept simulations
|
38%
|
55%
|
61%
|
44%
|
|
Power point presentations
|
61%
|
66%
|
38%
|
33%
|
|
Hands on laboratory activities
|
69%
|
55%
|
39%
|
44%
|
|
Videos
|
85%
|
89%
|
16%
|
11%
|
|
Task ranking problems
|
53%
|
66%
|
46%
|
33%
|
|
Students presented solutions to problems
|
46%
|
77%
|
54%
|
22%
|
|
Teacher presented solutions to problems
|
69%
|
89%
|
31%
|
22%
|
|
Demonstrations
|
100%
|
78%
|
8%
|
22%
|
Appendix G
Table 6
Reasons for enrolling in the course as
given by number of male students and percentage of male students
responding.
|
|
Number of Male Students Responding
|
|
Looks good on transcript for college
admission
|
9 – 69%
|
|
Prerequisite to taking AP Physics
|
8 – 62%
|
|
Recommending by previous teacher
|
4 – 31%
|
|
Interest in Physics
|
11 – 85%
|
|
Parents wanted you to take it
|
5 – 38%
|
|
Guidance counselor suggestion
|
3 - 23 %
|
|
Guidance counselor placement
|
|
|
Other – Please Explain
|
3 – 23%
|
Appendix H
Table 7
Reasons for enrolling in the course as
given by number of female students and percentage of female students
responding
|
|
Number of Female Students Responding
|
|
Looks good on transcript for college
admission
|
9 – 100%
|
|
Prerequisite to taking AP Physics
|
6 – 67%
|
|
Recommending by previous teacher
|
4 – 44%
|
|
Interest in Physics
|
5 – 56%
|
|
Parents wanted you to take it
|
4 – 44%
|
|
Guidance counselor suggestion
|
2 – 22%
|
|
Guidance counselor placement
|
1 – 11%
|
|
Other – Please Explain
|
4 – 44%
|
Appendix I
Table 8
Reasons for enrolling in the course as
given by percentage of male students compared to the percentage of
female students
|
|
Percent Males Responding
|
Percent Females Responding
|
|
Looks good on transcript for college
admission
|
69%
|
100%
|
|
Prerequisite to taking AP Physics
|
62%
|
67%
|
|
Recommending by previous teacher
|
31%
|
44%
|
|
Interest in Physics
|
85%
|
56%
|
|
Parents wanted you to take it
|
38%
|
44%
|
|
Guidance counselor suggestion
|
3 %
|
22%
|
|
Guidance counselor placement
|
|
11%
|
|
Other – Please Explain
|
23%
|
44%
|
Appendix J
Table 9
Gender Preference of Teacher from Number of Male
and Female Students Responding
|
|
Male Teachers
|
Female Teachers
|
No Preference
|
|
Male Students
|
9
|
0
|
4
|
|
Female Students
|
5
|
1
|
3
|
