Author: Efrat Eilam
Author: Fiachra Barry
Year of publication: 2016
Source: Show
Pages: 40-51
DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.2016.44.2.03
PDF: tner/201602/tner20160203.pdf

Females’ low participation in post-compulsory physics education has been a major concern for researchers over the past five decades. The present study focuses attention on two major deterring factors, the female pedagogy-sensitivity effect and the stereotype effect. The objectives of this study are to uncover the constituents and meanings of these factors by (a) analyzing the perspectives of female university science students and, (b) evaluating differences in their impacts among females choosing to major in biology compared to females choosing to major in physics. The study contributes to our understanding of how these deterring effects impact on females along their educational path and particularly in their tertiary education.

REFERENCES:

  • Ambady, N., Shih, M., Kim, A., & Pittinsky, T. (2001). Stereotype susceptibility in children: effects of identity activation on quantitative performance. Psychological Science, 12(5), 385-90.
  • Bleeker, M.M., & Jacobs, J.e. (2004). Achievement in math and science: do mothers’ beliefs matter 12 years later?” Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 97-109.
  • DEST: The Australian Government, department of education, Science and Training Committee for the review of Teaching and Teacher education. (2003). Australia’s teachers: Australia’s future. Advancing innovation, science, technology and mathematics. Canberra: DEST, Commonwealth of Australia.
  • enman, M., & Lupart, J. (2000). Talented female students’ resistance to science: An exploratory study of post-secondary achievement motivation, persistence, and epistemological characteristics. High Ability Studies, 11(2), 161-178.
  • Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59-82.
  • Haussler, P., & Hoffmann, L. (2002). An intervention study to enhance girls’ interest, self-concept, and achievement in physics classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 870-888.
  • Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St. rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women educational Foundation (AAUW).
  • Hoffmann, L. (2002). Promoting girls’ interest and achievement in physics classes for beginners. Learning and Instruction, 12(4), 447-465.
  • Institute of Physics. (2013). Closing doors: Exploring gender and subject choice in schools. London: Institute of Physics.
  • International Council for Science (ICSU). (2011). Report of the ICSU ad-hoc review panel on science education. Paris: ICSU.
  • Kanahara, S. (2006). A review of the definitions of stereotype and a proposal for a progressional model. Individual Differences Research, 4(5), 306-321.
  • Kelly, A. (1988). option choice for girls and boys. Research in Science & Technological Education, 6(1), 5-23.
  • Krogh, L.B., & Thomsen, P. (2005). Studying students’ attitudes towards science from a cultural perspective but with a quantitative methodology: Border crossing into the physics classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 27(3), 281-302.
  • Murphy, P. (2000). equity, assessment and gender. In J. Salisbury and S. riddell (eds.), Gender, policy and educational change: Shifting agendas in the UK and Europe (134-152). London/New york: routledge.
  • Murphy, P., & Whitelegg, e. (2006). Girls in the physics classroom: A review of the research on the participation of girls in physics. London: Institute of Physics.
  • National research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a conceptual framework for new K-12 science education standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, dC: The National Academies Press.
  • National Science Foundation. (2009). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2009 (NSF 09-305). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. retrieved on december 22, 2009, from www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd.
  • Nguyen, H.-H.H., & ryan, A.M.M. (2008). does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1314-34.
  • Nosek, B.A., Banaji, M.r., & Greenwald, A.G. (2002). Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠ me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 44-59.
  • osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2000). Pupils’ and parents’ views of the school science curriculum. London: Wellcome Trust.
  • Pajares, F. (2005). Gender differences in mathematics self-efficacy beliefs. In A.M. Gallagher & J.C. Kaufman (eds.), Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psychological approach (pp. 294-315). Boston: Cambridge University Press.
  • Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Revised and expanded from Case study research in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Tytler, r. (2007). Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in science for Australia’s future. Victoria, Australia: Australian Council for educational research Press..
  • U.S. department of education. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher education. Washington, dC: U.S. department of education.
  • Valian, V. (1998). Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Walton, G.M., & Spencer, S.J. (2009). Latent ability: Grades and test scores systematically underestimate the intellectual ability of negatively stereotyped students. Psychological Science, 20(9), 1132-39.

Wiadomość do:

 

 

© 2017 Adam Marszałek Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Projekt i wykonanie Pollyart