Gender gap on concept inventories in physics: what is consistent, what is inconsistent,and what factors influence the gap?

We review the literature on the gender gap on concept inventories in physics. Across studies of the most commonly used mechanics concept inventories, the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) and Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE), mens average pretest scores are always higher than womens, and in most cases mens posttest scores are higher as well. The weighted average gender difference on these tests is 13% for pretest scores, 12% for posttest scores, and 6% for normalized gain. This difference is much smaller than the average difference in normalized gain between traditional lecture and interactive engagement (25%), but it is large enough that it could impact the results of studies comparing the effectiveness of different teaching methods. There is sometimes a gender gap on commonly used electromagnetism concept inventories, but it is usually much smaller and sometimes is zero or favors women. The weighted average gender difference on these tests is 3.7% for pretest scores, 8.5% for posttest scores, and 6% for normalized gain. Based on our analysis of 26 published articles, no single factor is sufficient to explain the gap. Several high-profile studies that have claimed to account for or reduce the gender gap have failed to be replicated in subsequent studies, suggesting that isolated claims of explanations of the gender gap should be interpreted with caution. Other factors, such as gender differences in background preparation, scores on different kinds of assessment, and splits between how students respond to test questions when answering for themselves or for a scientist do contribute to a difference between male and female responses, but the size of these differences is smaller than the size of the overall gender gap, suggesting that the gender gap is most likely due to the combination of many small factors rather than any one factor that can easily be modified.

[1]  Jenessa R. Shapiro,et al.  The Role of Stereotype Threats in Undermining Girls’ and Women’s Performance and Interest in STEM Fields , 2012 .

[2]  Unpacking Gender Differences in Students’ Perceived Experiences in Introductory Physics , 2009 .

[3]  E. Mazur,et al.  Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results , 2001 .

[4]  D. Hestenes,et al.  Force concept inventory , 1992 .

[5]  C. Richardson,et al.  Assessing gender differences in response system questions for an introductory physics course , 2013 .

[6]  R. Hake.  Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses , 1998 .

[7]  Nai Chi Jonathan Yeung,et al.  Stereotype threat increases the likelihood that female drivers in a simulator run over jaywalkers. , 2008, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[8]  Jennifer L. Momsen,et al.  Stereotyped: Investigating Gender in Introductory Science Courses , 2013, CBE life sciences education.

[9]  Patrick B. Kohl,et al.  Introductory Physics Gender Gaps: Pre- and Post-Studio Transition , 2009 .

[10]  David P Maloney,et al.  Surveying students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism , 2001 .

[11]  A. Boudreaux,et al.  Preliminary investigation of instructor effects on gender gap in introductory physics , 2012 .

[12]  A. Russell,et al.  Reducing the Gender Achievement Gap in College Science: A Classroom Study of Values Affirmation , 2010 .

[13]  Timothy L. McCaskey,et al.  Effects on assessment caused by splits between belief and understanding , 2004 .

[14]  Lauren E. Kost,et al.  Characterizing the gender gap in introductory physics , 2009 .

[15]  Robert J. Beichner,et al.  Evaluating an electricity and magnetism assessment tool: Brief electricity and magnetism assessment , 2006 .

[16]  Ronald K. Thornton,et al.  Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Evaluation of Active Learning Laboratory and Lecture Curricula , 1998 .

[17]  Geoffrey L. Cohen,et al.  Replicating a self-affirmation intervention to address gender differences: Successes and challenges , 2012 .

[18]  Jeffery A. Phillips,et al.  FCI normalized gain, scientific reasoning ability, thinking in physics, and gender effects , 2012 .

[19]  Paula V. Engelhardt,et al.  Gender bias in the force concept inventory , 2012 .

[20]  C. MacPhee,et al.  Gender differences in conceptual understanding of Newtonian mechanics: a UK cross-institution comparison , 2012, 1211.3888.

[21]  Steven J. Pollock,et al.  Comparing student learning with multiple research-based conceptual surveys: CSEM and BEMA. , 2008 .

[22]  C. Crandall,et al.  Stereotype Threat in Applied Settings Re‐Examined , 2008 .

[23]  Timothy L. McCaskey,et al.  Probing Students’ Epistemologies Using Split Tasks , 2005 .

[24]  Ken Heller,et al.  Does PER-based Instruction Help Underrepresented Groups Succeed, and How Can It Do So Better? Gender Differences in both Force Concept Inventory and Introductory Physics Performance , 2008 .

[25]  Eric Brewe,et al.  Toward equity through participation in Modeling Instruction in introductory university physics , 2010 .

[26]  Lauren E. Kost,et al.  Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom: How sufficient is interactive engagement? , 2007 .

[27]  Catherine H. Crouch,et al.  Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom , 2006 .

[28]  Catherine Good,et al.  When White Men Can't Do Math: Necessary and Sufficient Factors in Stereotype Threat , 1999 .

[29]  C. Steele,et al.  Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. , 1995, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[30]  Wendy K. Adams,et al.  Development and Validation of Instruments to Measure Learning of Expert‐Like Thinking , 2011 .

[31]  Noah S. Podolefsky,et al.  New Instrument for Measuring Student Beliefs about Physics and Learning Physics: The Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey. , 2006 .