Stereotyped: Investigating Gender in Introductory Science Courses

Lauer, Shanda; Momsen, Jennifer L.; Offerdahl, Erika G.; Kryjevskaia, Mila; Christensen, Warren M.; Montplaisir, Lisa

doi:10.1187/cbe.12-08-0133

Cited by 61 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Few genetics studies have considered potential biases in measures of understanding, and none of those that we reviewed (see Table 1) have provided a cross-cultural or multi-level perspective as a source of generalization validity. Notably, our findings differ from other American studies documenting a male advantage in biology at the undergraduate level (Eddy et al 2014;Stanger-Hall 2012;Wright et al 2016), but are similar to Dogru-Atay and Tekkaya's (2008) study of middle schoolers, which also showed no gender advantage on multiple-choice inheritance items, and several other studies finding no gender bias (Dimitrov 1999;Huppert et al 2002;Lauer et al 2013;Schroeders et al 2013;Shepardson and Pizzini 1994;Willoughby and Metz 2009). While few studies have examined racial or ethnic differences in biology achievement, those that have (Creech and Sweeder 2012;Dimitrov 1999) found no impact, which is in alignment with our findings.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 57%

“…In biology education, the roles of gender and ethnicity on domain-specific performance remain unsettled. Some studies, for example, have documented the absence of significant gender effects on biology performance (e.g., Dimitrov 1999;Huppert et al 2002;Lauer et al 2013;Schroeders et al 2013;Shepardson and Pizzini 1994;Willoughby and Metz 2009). Dimitrov (1999) and Creech and Sweeder (2012) found no impact of ethnicity on biology performance, and Nehm and Schonfeld (2008) found similar types of alternative conceptions in underrepresented students as documented in other demographic groups.…”

Section: Demographic Factors and Genetics Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessment of Genetics Understanding

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding how situational features of assessment tasks impact reasoning is important for many educational pursuits, notably the selection of curricular examples to illustrate phenomena, the design of formative and summative assessment items, and determination of whether instruction has fostered the development of abstract schemas divorced from particular instances. The goal of our study was to employ an experimental research design to quantify the degree to which situational features impact inferences about participants' understanding of Mendelian genetics. Two participant samples from different educational levels and cultural backgrounds (high school, n = 480; university, n = 444; Germany and USA) were used to test for context effects. A multi-matrix test design was employed, and item packets differing in situational features (e.g., plant, animal, human, fictitious) were randomly distributed to participants in the two samples. Rasch analyses of participant scores from both samples produced good item fit, person reliability, and item reliability and indicated that the university sample displayed stronger performance on the items compared to the high school sample. We found, surprisingly, that in both samples, no significant differences in performance occurred among the animal, plant, and human item contexts, or between the fictitious and Breal^item contexts. In the university sample, we were also able to test for differences in performance between genders, among ethnic groups, and by prior biology coursework. None of these factors had a meaningful impact upon performance or context effects. Thus some, but not all, types of genetics problem solving or item formats are impacted by situational features.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 57%

Section: Demographic Factors and Genetics Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Genetics Understanding

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the studies that do not control for ability, there is either no achievement gap or one in favor of females (Table I). This pattern holds true even within a discipline: in biology, the one study of introductory biology classes that did not use a control for student ability did not find an achievement gap [24], but our own work in introductory biology courses that controlled for student performance in their prior college classes found an achievement gap that favored males [14].…”

Section: A Academic Performancementioning

confidence: 67%

Beneath the numbers: A review of gender disparities in undergraduate education across science, technology, engineering, and math disciplines

Eddy

Brownell²

2016

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.

167

155

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Gender in Physics.] This focused collection explores inequalities in the experiences of women in physics. Yet, it is important for researchers to also be aware of and draw insights from common patterns in the experiences of women across science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. Here, we review studies on gender disparities across college STEM on measures that have been correlated with retention. These include disparities in academic performance, engagement, self-efficacy, belonging, and identity. We argue that observable factors such as persistence, performance, and engagement can inform researchers about what populations are disadvantaged in a STEM classroom or program, but we need to measure underlying mechanisms to understand how these inequalities arise. We present a framework that helps connect larger sociocultural factors, including stereotypes and gendered socialization, to student affect and observable behaviors in STEM contexts. We highlight four mechanisms that demonstrate how sociocultural factors could impact women in STEM classrooms and majors. We end with a set of recommendations for how we can more holistically evaluate the experiences of women in STEM to help mitigate the underlying inequities instead of applying a quick fix.

show abstract

“…Research may also focus on underlying mechanisms that lead to observed gaps in participation. In the United States, one common explanation is stereotype threat, or the fear of conforming to a negative stereotype associated with one's social, racial, ethnic, or gender group (6,(39)(40)(41). For example, females tend to underestimate their math ability and overestimate how much ability is required to succeed at higher levels (42).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Norway’s gender gap: classroom participation in undergraduate introductory science

Ballen

Danielsen

Jørgensen

et al. 2017

NJSTEME

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To assess the extent that gender disparities exist at the undergraduate level in STEM, we analyzed participation in three large introductory biology classes in Norway, a country with one of the highest ratings of gender equality in the world. Biology 100 is a traditionally taught lecture course for first year students that has one instructor, and employs diverse pedagogical techniques to increase engagement. Biology 102A and 102B are two immersive field courses for second year students; classes often take place in atypical teaching venues both indoors and outside. In Biology 100 and Biology 102B, we discovered that women participate less than would be expected given their numerical dominance, matching results from similar research conducted in the United States. In Biology 102A women participate the amount that would be expected given their numbers, and in no instances did we observe women speaking significantly more than would be expected. We discuss our results in the context of female success in STEM. If gender gaps in participation and performance are mutually reinforcing, educators seeking to promote women should address both factors simultaneously to maximize student achievement. Effective interventions are of critical importance for women in science, and have strong implications for the achievement of equity in STEM disciplines.Keywords: Biology; gender; participation; STEM equity INTRODUCTIONGender differences in performance and perceptions within STEM continue to be widespread globally, influencing the retention and success of women across disciplines. Increasing evidence suggests social conditioning and 'chilly' classroom environments have a larger influence on women than do traditional biologically-based explanations, which hold little support (1-3). Still others point to 'a lack of enlightened policies' and gender-equal cultures contributing to the gender gap (4-6). In the United States, where the majority of STEM equity research has occurred, women enter STEM fields as undergraduates with lower academic confidence (7, 8), weaker identities as scientists (9-12), and generally, lower numeric representation in the classroom (13,14). At the undergraduate level, measures of success typically include grades and retention within STEM majors. Another measure worthy of attention is in-class participation, because students who participate in lecture exert an influence on their peers, and communicate their understanding of class materials (15,16). Throughout the undergraduate experience, women in STEM are more likely to face subtle bias from their peers and faculty that may have lasting negative impacts on academic performance and measures of active inclass participation (15-17). The outcome is female attrition along the STEM pathway, such that at the faculty level, only one third across geoscience and life science disciplines are women (18). This further disadvantages female undergraduates, who disproportionately benefit by having women in positions of authority within their discipline; female facul...

show abstract

Stereotyped: Investigating Gender in Introductory Science Courses

Cited by 61 publications

References 54 publications

Assessment of Genetics Understanding

Assessment of Genetics Understanding

Beneath the numbers: A review of gender disparities in undergraduate education across science, technology, engineering, and math disciplines

Norway’s gender gap: classroom participation in undergraduate introductory science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About