Why female science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors do not identify with physics: They do not think others see them that way

Abstract

Gender differences in students' physics identity in introductory physics courses can influence students' interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and their career decisions. Exploring the components that influence these identities is critical to developing a better understanding of the underrepresentation of women in physics courses and physics-related majors. We used a revised version of the physics identity framework developed by Hazari et al. [J. Res. Sci. Teach. 47, 978 (2010)] to investigate whether the relation between gender and physics identity was mediated by motivational factors, such as competency belief, interest, and perceived recognition by others. We surveyed approximately 500 students in introductory level calculus-based physics courses in which 30% of the students are women. Analysis revealed that the relation between gender and physics identity was mediated by students' selfreported motivation at the end of the semester. The model showed that perceived recognition by others played a major role in students' endorsement of physics identity with female students less likely to endorse statements that others perceived them as a "physics person."

The context dependence of physics identity: Examining the role of performance/competence, recognition, interest, and sense of belonging for lower and upper female physics undergraduates

“…This is in contrast with earlier studies for broader student populations (with many different disciplinary interests and aspirations) which found interest to have a direct effect on physics identity while performance/competence had an indirect effect mediated by both recognition and interest (Figure 1; Godwin et al, 2016; Lock et al, 2019; Potvin & Hazari, 2013). Another recent model of students in introductory calculus‐based physics courses at one institution found that all three constructs had a direct effect on physics identity, although both interest and performance/competence had smaller effects than recognition (Kalender et al, 2019). In addition, the effect of interest was mediated by performance/competence, similar to our model, but not by recognition.…”

Gendered patterns in the construction of physics identity from motivational factors

“…MANOVA is appropriate when multiple correlated dependent measures are being examined in parallel. Based upon prior research, we selected the first question for physics identity-"I see myself as a physics person"-as a separate physics person construct which pertains to internal identity as discussed in the background [59]. Then we obtained an average score for three other identity questions that form students' external identity by labeling it as perceived recognition by others (i.e., by family, friends, and TA or instructor), based on work by Hazari et al [33].…”

“…The survey response rate was 73% of students enrolled in the course. We have used the current dataset in a previous study to examine the attitudes that mediate the relation between gender and students' views of the extent to which they see themselves as a physics person [59]. In this study, we used the same dataset to carry out an in-depth analysis of the factors that influence the formation of female and male students' views of the extent to which they see themselves as a physics person as well as their perception about the extent to which others view them as a physics person.…”

“…In a learning environment, a variety of motivational beliefs and attitudes, such as students' goal orientations [52][53][54], expectations for success, and beliefs and attitudes in the classroom, have been linked to academic outcomes [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]36,40,51,[54][55][56][57][58][59][60]. Students with positive motivational beliefs and attitudes exhibit better use of self-regulated learning strategies, participate more in class activities, and show higher-level cognitive processing of the course material [60].…”

“…The survey instruments were part of a larger survey that included other motivational constructs (see Appendix B). The development and validation of these surveys is reported in prior work [18][19][20][21][22]59]. The surveys were based upon previous instruments [24,[102][103][104][105][106] and validation of the revised instruments involved iterative use of exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), inter-item reliability to check consistency of the items, and one-on-one student interviews both with introductory undergraduate and graduate students [18,59].…”