1. The Persistence of the Gender Gap in Introductory Physics Lauren Kost Steven Pollock, Noah Finkelstein Department of Physics, University of Colorado at Boulder July 21, 2008

2. Acknowledgments Physics faculty: Michael Dubson Noah Finkelstein Kathy Perkins Steven Pollock Carl Wieman Ph. D. students: Charles Baily Lauren Kost Benjamin Spike Chandra Turpen Postdocs: Stephanie Chasteen Steven Goldhaber Laurel Mayhew Sam McKagan Archie Paulson Noah Podolefsky School of Ed members: Valerie Otero Kara Gray Bud Talbott III This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. REC 0448176, CAREER: Physics Education and Contexts of Student Learning. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF

3. Motivation AIP Statistics: 50% of physics students in HS are female 22% of bachelors in physics go to females 10% of faculty in physics are female Lorenzo et. al. Am. J. Phys. 74, 118 (2006) Harvard Claim: Fully interactive courses eliminate the gender gap. Interactive Engagement techniques better than Traditional Lecture Hake, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998)

4. Gender Gaps at CU Boulder

7. Conclusions (I) Despite fully interactive techniques, gender gap persists at our institution Harvard claims results independent of instructor, we see otherwise Where does the gender gap come from? Why does it exist? –Do gender differences exist in other aspects of the introductory course?

8. Gender Gaps in Course Grades

9. Gender Gaps in CLASS Shifts

10. Gender Gaps in Background Effect Size HS GPA * 0.47 SAT – Math * 0.33 ACT – Math * 0.14 FemalesMales 1 year HS Physics * 80%89% 1 year HS Calculus 70%67% * = statistically significant difference

11. Impact of Pretest on Post Test r pre,post = 0.56 37% 19% 8% 22% 21% 16% 14% 22% 20% 21%

12. Regression Analyses Control for prior physics and math knowledge and incoming attitudes and beliefs Multiple Regression –The average posttest gender difference is 3% (reduced from the observed difference of 10%). –70% of the gender gap is accounted for by background differences.

13. Conclusions Gender differences exist in several aspects Males and females are differently prepared Differences in male and female backgrounds account for about 70% of the gender gap

14. Thank You Find more info at: http://per.colorado.edu Pollock, et al, PRST PER 3, 010107 (2007) Kost, et al, PERC Proceedings 2007, p. 137 PRST PER paper in review Poster at PST4 from 5 – 6 PM on Tuesday

17. Courses, Student Population, and Data 7 semesters introductory, calculus-based mechanics –3 semesters Partially Interactive (without Tutorials) –4 semesters Fully Interactive (with Tutorials) Student population –25% female –50% engineering majors (6% physics majors) –80% white Data sources –Matched FMCE pre/post data (N ~ 2100) –Matched CLASS pre/post data (N ~ 1900) –Course grades (N ~ 3600) –Demographic and background data (N ~ 3600)

18. Gender Gaps at CU Boulder Pollock, et. al. Phys. Rev. ST PER, 3, 010107 (2007)

19. Multiple Regression What is the difference between a male’s and a female’s scores, after controlling for several important factors? Sample of 1027 students (30% of population)

20. Building the Model Dependent Variable:FMCE Posttest Independent Variables:Gender FMCE Pretest Math Score CLASS Pre Overall Fav Other Independent Variables: HS GPA HS Physics HS Calculus Ethnicity

21. Regression Model

22. Interaction: gender & pretest Females Males

23. Regression Model

24. Gender Effect

25. Regression Results

27. Gender Effect

28. Conclusions Even when controlling for physics background, math skills, and attitudes and beliefs, gender is still a significant factor in posttest score. Accounted for only 43% of variation in post test scores, other factors to consider

29. Normalized Gain

30. Normalized Gain by semester

31. Multiple Regression

32. Gender Gaps in Physics 2

34. Matched Analysis – 1110 Gain r pre,gain = 0.281