1
Underrepresentation of Women in the U.S. Physics
Secondary and Post-Secondary Classroom
Angela Burke
Texas A&M Commerce
PHYS 595 – Research Literature
Summer I 2016
Abstract. The gender gap is a systemic and cyclical issue in the United States, particularly as it
pertains to women in physical science. The number of physics degrees being awarded to women
is disproportionately low for science, even considering the gender gap. Within that gender gap is
a further achievement gap for minority women who are underrepresented drastically in the
physics classroom and in physics careers. This paper will examine the causes of and potential
solutions to the gender gap in physics classes, both at the secondary and post-secondary level.
The main trends discovered include underqualified physics teachers at the high school level, lowsocioeconomic schools offering fewer and less-advanced physics classes, and subtle negative
messaging about women in science through the media and in schools. Solutions include creating
a network of mentors and mentees in high school and at the university level, offering more
opportunities to take physics, and encouraging positive and strong role models for young women
in the field of physics. Closing these gaps is important for the future economic security of the
United States.
Diversity in the workplace has been shown to increase productivity and provide valuable
insights from different perspectives.1 Unfortunately women, particularly women of color, are
being left out of physics classrooms and research labs across the United States. In fact, this year
marks the first year that a university in the US graduated more female engineering students than
male student.2 This milestone shows that progress is being made, but much more work needs to
be done, particularly in physics. While a dramatic gap appears between male and female
enrollment in many STEM fields, one of the biggest gender gaps exists specifically in physics.
B. Nelson, “The Data on Diversity”. Comm. Of The ACM, 57 (11), 86-95 (2014).
F. Macdonald, “For the first time, a US college had more female engineering graduates than men,” Science
Alert, 24 Jun 2016, http://www.sciencealert.com/for-the-first-time-a-us-college-just-graduated-more-womenin-engineering-than-men (26 Jun 2016).
1
2
2
Even though more than half of bachelor’s degrees in science are awarded to women, only 21% of
bachelor’s degrees in physics were awarded to women in 2009, and the statistics remain about as
bleak today.3
Physics, more than any other science, applies math, critical thinking, and analytical
reasoning skills to real-world situations which are necessary skills for students to compete in a
competitive global economy. The National Academy of Science describes in a 2007 report that
the U.S. needs to “enhance the science and technology enterprise so that the United States can
successfully compete, prosper, and be secure in the global community of the 21st century.”4
Bridging the gender gap is not only ethically necessary, it is one way to make the U.S. stand out
in the world once more. This paper will compile the research done about potential reasons for the
underrepresentation of women and minority women in physics as well as examine suggested
solutions to increasing gender and racial diversity among physics students.
GLOBAL COMPARISONS
In the 2015 Global Gender Gap Report, the United States was ranked 28 out of 145
countries in an overall comparison of gender equality in the economy, politics, education, and
health & survival.5 This is down from just five years prior, when in 2010 the U.S. ranked 19 out
of 134 countries. Interestingly, the educational gender gap (or lack thereof) put the U.S. at the #1
spot for educational equity from 2008 to 2013, until the U.S. took a nosedive to 39th and 40th place
3
L. Kost-Smith, S. Pollock and N. Finkelstein, Gender disparities in second-semester college physics: The
incremental effects of a smog of bias, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., 6 (020112), 1-3 (2010).
4 National Academies of Science, Rising Above the Gatherings Storm: Energizing and Employing America for
a Brighter Economic Future, (Washington, D.C., 2007), pp. 109.
5 World Economic Forum, The Global Gender Gap Report 2015 (Geneva, Switzerland, 2015), pp. 306-307.
3
in 2014 and 2015, respectively. Curiously, although the U.S. was ranked well among other
countries with respect to educational equity, the number of women in physics still remains low.6
Numerous studies cite the disparity between men and women in physics, both at an educational
level and in careers.7 In fact, a 2013 Global Survey of Physicists found that women across the
world have “fewer resources and opportunities and are more affected by cultural expectations”.8
This indicates that the gender gap prevails globally, however this paper focuses specifically on the
United States.
CAUSES OF UNDERREPRESENTATION
Socioeconomic Factors & Race. One study carried out at the University of Colorado from fall
2004 to spring 2009 records enrollment in an introductory electricity and magnetism course. See
Table 1 for a breakdown of the student population enrolled in that course over the given timeframe,
and what seems to stand out is the disparity between the different recorded races, with a full 81.4%
of enrolled students as white, but only 8% enrolled students identified as African American,
Hispanic, or Native American combined.3 Interestingly, the gender gap is only observed among
white students in this case. Slightly more females than males enrolled identified as African
American, Asian, and Foreign, as well as equal amounts of males and females enrolled who
identified as Native American and Hispanic. However, the gender and racial gap is clear: female
underrepresented minorities only account for 2% of the program.
6
L. Kost-Smith, S. Pollock and N. Finkelstein, Characterizing the gender gap in introductory physics, Phys.
Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., 5, 010101 (2009).
7 K. Niss, B. Nordtrom, I. Bearden and M. Grage, Gender in physics in Denmark, AIP Conf. Proc. 1517, 94-95
(2013); M. Remskar et al., Women in physics in Slovenia, AIP Conf. Proc. 1517, 148-149 (2013); J. Arenzon,
P. Duarte, S. Calvalcanti and M. Barbosa, Women and physics in Brazil: publications, citations and H index,
AIP Conf. Proc. 1517, 78-79 (2013); K. El-Sayed, H. Hosny and S. Helmy, Women in physics in Egypt:
challenges and progress, AIP Conf. Proc. 1517, 98-99 (2013).
8 R. Ivie, C. Tesfaye, R. Czujko and R. Chu, The Global Survey of Physicists: A collaborative effort
illuminates the situation of women in physics, AIP Conf. Proc. 1517, 53 (2013).
4
This highlights a much bigger issue because the population of non-Asian racial minorities
in the US in 2009 was estimated to be about 30.2%, and approximately 15% of the 2009 population
were women of color,9 a ratio clearly not present in this program.
TABLE 1. University of Colorado enrollment in second semester introductory physics from Fall 2004 to
Spring 20093
While this is merely one university study, the research can be used as a snapshot of college
demographics across the U.S. (Note: Asian populations are not taken into account as an
underrepresented minority.)
According to the Physics Teacher Education Coalition at Cornell University, “women are
underrepresented by a factor of 2” while “African Americans and Latinos are underrepresented by
a factor of 4 or more”.10 Intersecting both of these identities can lead to some dynamic internal
United States Census Bureau, “Vintage 2009: National Tables,” Census.gov, 1 Jul 2009,
https://www.census.gov/popest/data/historical/2000s/vintage_2009/ (17 Jun 2016).
10 Cornell University, “The Crisis in Physics Education,” Cornell University Physics Teacher Education
Coalition, 2011, https://phystec.physics.cornell.edu/content/crisis-physics-education (18 Jun 2016).
9
5
conflicts because of the (mostly negative) messages that underrepresented minorities have been
given throughout the “educational pipeline”11. This conflict is known as the double bind effect, as
minority women experience both racism and sexism at a personal and systemic level, hindering
their path to the STEM career of choice. More will be discussed about these negative messages
later.
A gender gap in achievement has been known to persist well into university level courses,
however the gap in achievement can be attributed to physics and math preparedness coming into
post-secondary physics courses and the attitudes and beliefs of incoming students.12 While some
of the preparedness (or lack thereof) can be attributed to teacher unpreparedness (see the next
section), the picture becomes clear when examining math and science courses offered at lower vs.
higher socioeconomic secondary schools.
The American Institute of Physics Statistical Research Center looked at the number of
students enrolled in physics classes by socioeconomic status and difficulty of class for U.S. public
high schools for the 2012-2013 school year and found that not only are “better off” schools
enrolling more students in physics, these types of schools are enrolling students in more advanced
physics classes, as compared to their “worse off” peers13 (see Figure 1).
The results of this disparity can be seen in Figures 2 & 3. The disproportion between
students attending better off vs. worse off schools in underrepresented minorities is obvious.
While the percentage of Black and Hispanic students enrolled in a physics class is increasing, a
clear gap persists between these underrepresented minorities and their fellow non-minority
11
L. Charleston, R. Adserias, N. Lang and J. Jackson, Intersectionality and STEM: the role of race and gender
in the academic pursuits of African American women in STEM, J. Prog. Policy Prac. 2 (3), 275-282 (2014).
12 L. Kost, S. Pollock and N. Finkelstein, The persistence of the gender gap in introductory physics, AIP Conf.
Proc. 1064, 139 (2008).
13 S. White, And the survey says…High school physics enrollments by socioeconomic status and type of class,
Phys. Teach. 54, 17 (2016)
6
students. While the reason underrepresented minorities are often found in lower socioeconomic
areas could fill libraries, it is sufficient here to note that there is a correlation.
FIGURE 1. Number of
students enrolled in
physics classes by type of
class and socioeconomic
status in U.S. public high
schools13
FIGURE 2.
Percent of
student by race
or ethnicity and
socioeconomic
profile of the
school for U.S.
public high
schools14
14
S. White, Socioeconomic factors affecting minority physics taking in U.S. high schools, Phys. Teach. 49,
472 (2011)
7
FIGURE 3. Proportion of students in each racial or ethnic group taking physics in U.S. high schools 15
Teacher Qualifications in Secondary Schools. While the availability of course offerings might
be a contributing factor to the underrepresentation of women and minority women enrolled in
secondary and post-secondary physics classes, perhaps even more jarring is the lack of
qualification of some teachers in secondary physics and physical science classes. US News cited
a 2008 study by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) which shows that “fewer than
half of chemistry and physics teachers majored in those subjects” as compared to English, art, and
music teachers who hold degrees in their subject 82%, 90% and 95% of the time, respectively.16
The article continues to explain that a 2007 report by the National Academies exposes the lack of
qualifications at the middle school level: only about 10% of middle school physical science
teachers hold a degree in their field or are even certified to teach their subject. Tom Luce, CEO
15
S. White, Black and Hispanic participation in high school physics still low, Phys. Teach. 49, 356 (2011)
J. Koebler, “Many STEM Teachers Don’t Hold Certifications,” US News, 8 Jun 2011,
http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/high-school-notes/2011/06/08/many-stem-teachers-dont-holdcertifications (17 Jun 2016).
16
8
of the National Math and Science Initiative sums up the significance of this finding, “That's when
you lose a kid's interest. They don't even want to try in high school because they think, ‘I didn't
like this in middle school.’” While both of these studies were conducted over a decade ago, these
results do not show an improvement over the previous decade in teacher preparation, and have
only minimally improved in the years since.
The NCES revealed in a 2003 report that in the 1999-2000 school year, a whopping 93%
of middle school physical science teachers held no major or certification in their subject and it
only drops to 63% for high school teachers.17 Physics was the science with the highest number of
unqualified teachers at 67% with no major or certification in their field. Fast-forward to the 2015
study by the NCES and the same rings true for the 2011-2012 year: only 7.1% of middle school
physical science teachers held a degree in their subject area and were certified to teach physical
science.18 At least by 2011-2012 the percent of teachers who were unqualified (no major or
certification) dropped from 67% to 63% from the previous decade,19 but the numbers are still
nothing of which to be proud.
A strong correlation seems to be forming between unqualified teachers and a lack of
students enrolling in post-secondary physics courses. The lack of qualified teachers at the high
school level leads to students who may be “science-capable” but not confident in their ability10 to
pursue physics at the college level. Indeed, students who came from an underwhelming high
school physics program tend to struggle more at the college level, particularly women.3 More
17
National Academies of Science, Rising Above the Gatherings Storm: Energizing and Employing America for
a Brighter Economic Future, (Washington, D.C., 2007), pp. 114.
18 S. Baldi, C. Warner-Griffin and C. Tadler, Education and Certification Qualifications of Departmentalized
Public Middle Grades Teachers of Selected Subjects: Evidence from the 2011-12 Schools and Staffing Survey,
National Center for Educational Statistics, (Alexandria, VA, 2015), pp. 29.
19 J. Hill and C. Stearns, Education and Certification Qualifications of Departmentalized Public High SchoolLevel Teachers of Selected Subjects: Evidence from the 2011-12 Schools and Staffing Survey, National Center
for Educational Statistics, (Alexandria, VA, 2015), pp. 29.
9
research needs to be done examining the strength of the correlation between students who are
successful in post-secondary courses and whether they had a qualified physics teacher or not.
Unintended Messages about Math and Science. Oftentimes, rhetoric that attempts to sound
understanding ends up unintentionally displaying sexist and racist messages.20 One instance is the
late Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Antonin Scalia verbalizing the mismatch theory (the
idea that disadvantaged students should have lower expectations) in December 2015 when he said,
“There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to get them into the
University of Texas, where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less advanced
school… a slower-track school where they do well.”21
Ask any woman and she will probably be able to give an example of when someone told
her she could not achieve a goal simply because she was a woman. One example is when professor
and self-proclaimed physicist Eileen Pollack tried to take physics and calculus in high school, and
she was simply not allowed because she was told by her principal that “girls never go in science
and math.”22 M. Bordanaro et al. conducted a survey as referenced by G. May and D. Chubin
(2003) which noted that almost 70% of American adults claim to be interested in technology and
science.23 However, this has not seemed to permeate into the media, as Pollack goes on to explain.
Even one of the most popular television shows on primetime, The Big Bang Theory, portrays
scientists poorly. The characters are mostly white (with the exception of Koothrappali who is an
Indian male, but who does not escape negative racial comments on the show), and the two female
20
A. Johnson, Unintended consequences: how science professors discourage women of color, Sci. Ed. 91, 805
- 821 (2007).
21 D. MacIsaac, U.S. Supreme Court justices weigh in (ham-handedly) on race and equity in physics learning,
Phys. Teach. 54, 126 (2016).
22 E. Pollack, “Why are there still so few women in science?”, The New York Times Magazine, 3 Oct 2013,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/magazine/why-are-there-still-so-few-women-in-science.html?_r=1 (17
Jun 2016)
23 G. May and D. Chubin, A Retrospective on Undergraduate Engineering Success for Underrepresented
Minority Students, J. Eng. Educ., 92 (1), 27 (2003).
10
scientists are also subjected to stereotyping. For example, Penny is pretty but not-so-brainy, and
the character Amy is socially awkward and dresses frumpily but, hey, she has her PhD!
Because success in physics is often intrinsically tied to success in math, one of the possible
reasons for the gender gap in physics is because math is “uncool.”24 One study by the American
Mathematical Society concluded that the gender gap in mathematics “is not due to a lack of girls
with profound intrinsic aptitude for mathematics; rather, it is due to their choosing to spend their
free time on nonmathematical pursuits” because of the cultural implication that math is for “nerds”.
This often alienates females who are naturally gifted in math because of the fear of having a lower
social status.
Within the realm of middle- and high-school physics, implicit biases sneak into the
curriculum. As one physics teacher explains, when teachers discuss topics scientists responsible
for those discoveries are also discussed. “The downside to this is that, whether we realize it or
not, most of us implicitly communicate to students that scientists come from one demographic
group—white male Europeans—and, crucially, not from others. Our students internalize that
lesson.”25 Perhaps these unintended micro-messages add up in a short period of time, because one
study shows that by the time students are in sixth grade, a gender gap in physical science already
exists.26 Ultimately, the more a girl believes the stereotype that “women are less apt at physics
than men”, the less her sense of belonging in physics.27 Simply acknowledging the fact that
24
T. Andreescu, J. Gallian, J. Kane and J. Mertz, Cross-cultural analysis of students with exceptional talent in
mathematical problem solving, Not. AMS, 55 (10), 1256 (2008).
25 M. Rifkin, Addressing underrepresentation: physics teaching for all, Phys. Teach. 54, 72 (2016).
26 Z. Hazari, P. Sadler and G. Sonnert, The science identity of college students: exploring the intersection of
gender, race, and ethnicity, J. College Sci. Teach. 42 (5), 83 (2013).
27 U. Kessels, A. Heyder, M. Latsch and B. Hannover, How gender differences in academic engagement relate
to students’ gender identity, Ed. Res. 56 (2), 220-229 (2014); J. Stout, T. Ito, N. Finkelstein and S. Pollock,
How a gender gap in belonging contributes to the gender gap in physics participation, AIP Conf. Proc. 1513,
404-405 (2013).
11
implicit bias exists about women and minorities in physics can actually reduce the effects of
negative micro-messages.25
Further research should be conducted to examine minority women specifically and how
the double bind effect might affect their perception of belonging in physics-related careers.
POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
Recruitment & Retention in the Secondary Level. “Most leakage from the STEM career
‘pipeline’ occurs in high school and in the transition from high school to college”10 which is why
recruiting young scientific minds is so important at the middle school and high school level.
Unfortunately, effectively engaging young women in physics is significantly more challenging due
to the drastically low number of teachers who are qualified to teach physics. One of the first steps
that can be made to close the gender gap is to train and educate science teachers specifically in the
area of physics. Pedagogical skills are also important in maintaining engagement, as not everyone
learns the same way. Lecturing in the science class is no longer considered a best practice in any
science class28, but specifically in the physics classroom evidence suggests that one way to close
the gender gap is to allow more “active engagement” and structured discussions so that female
students can process their thoughts more effectively.29 Providing real-world applications is not
only an effective teaching strategy for high school students,28 but it can also be useful in retention
of women in physics classes at the university level.2
Beyond the classroom, extra-curricular opportunities such as conferences and summer
camps are important in encouraging young girls to pursue physics and other sciences.30
D. Baker, What works: using curriculum and pedagogy to increase girls’ interest and participation in
science, Theory Pract. 52, 14-20 (2013).
29 M. Lorenzo, Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom, Am. J. Phys. 74, 118 (2006)
30 C. Spencer, Expanding girls’ horizons in physics and other sciences: a successful strategy since 1976, AIP
Conf. Proc. 1697, 120015 (2015).
28
12
Mentorship and social networking opportunities for young girls in middle and high school would
appear to be helpful in the retention of girls in STEM classes, but more research needs to be done
on the effectiveness of such programs.31 Mentors can also be parents, so by educating parents
about the benefits of enrolling in physics and other STEM classes, parents can better inform their
children of their options. Indeed, a female student’s achievement in math was higher on average
if the girl’s mother positively viewed her child’s math abilities.32
Recruitment & Retention at the Post-Secondary Level. While many of the issues in retaining
females in science, particularly physics, can begin to be solved at the middle school and high
school level, the efforts to maintain a strong female and minority population in physics programs
must continue into post-secondary level. Because underrepresented minorities are often in a lower
socioeconomic bracket (and the gender-based wage gap has been widely documented33), providing
financial aid for college programs is not only intuitive, but it has shown to be effective in helping
to increase minority participation in STEM programs.23, 34 It should be noted, however, that loans
are not as effective as grants and scholarships as a recruitment tool.
Once the student body population of females and women of color has increased at the postsecondary level, more issues need to be tackled. A recent study of African American (or otherwise
identified as Black) women between the ages of 18-35 years old enrolled full-time in college
exposed the factors which caused a student to consider withdrawing from the STEM program.
These reasons included the consistent feeling of isolation compounded with seemingly little
31
S. Klein-Gardner, STEM summer institute increases student and parent understanding of engineering, ASEE
Annual Conf. Exp., Paper ID #8493 (2014).
32 C. Leaper, T. Farkas and C. Brown, Adolescent girls’ experiences and gender-related beliefs in relation to
the motivation in math/science and English, J. Youth Adol. 42, 268-282 (2012).
33 N. Caley, “Women and the Persisting Pay Gap,” ColoradoBiz, 43 (4) 50-55 (2016).
34 J. Tanaka and L. Gladney, Strategies for recruiting and retaining minorities in physics and biophysics,
Biophys. J. 65, 552-558 (1993).
13
support from faculty.11 Clearly programs and departments promoting multiculturalism at the
university level need to not only be present but be advertised and easily accessible. Said programs
must also address the specific needs of the constituents, perhaps by being available in each
discipline so students can feel connected with others leading to self-empowerment. Creating a
network of support (see Figure 4) is an important solution to what is known as the “leaky
pipeline.”35
Yet another possible solution for retaining females at the post-secondary level is to take
into consideration the societal construct of parenting being the mother’s job and to anticipate that
constraint as a possible reason why women withdraw from university programs.8, 11, 36 Offering
childcare at the university level could alleviate some home life/work life strain allowing women
to choose both career and family.
FIGURE4. “Students create the weft of an inclusive female-friendly department culture”35
The Impact of Positive Role Models. The graduating class of Dartmouth produced more females
than males in their engineering program, the first university in the U.S. known to have
35
B. Whitten, S. Foster and M. Duncombe, What works for women in undergraduate physics?, Phys. Today.
56 (9), 48-49 (2003).
36 L. Ko, R. Kachchaf, M. Ong and A. Hodari, Narratives of the double bind: intersectionality in life stories of
women of color in physics, astrophysics and astronomy, AIP Conf. Proc. 1513 (1) 222-225 (2013).
14
accomplished such an achievement. The Dean of the Thayer School of Engineering at Dartmouth
Joseph Helble explains that the change in enrollment the program came after “purposefully hiring
female role models in engineering”2 and structuring the courses that female students do not feel so
isolated. Helble says the school changed the program structure based off research that students
who perceive themselves to be in the minority can become easily discouraged to continue
participation in science and math programs.23
A sense of isolation by women in science fields, particularly male-dominated physics,
could be curbed by introducing mentor programs.37 These mentor programs could be beneficial
not only for the mentee but also the mentor. One study stemming from a National Science
Foundation project discovered that participants, who are minority women in physics, astrophysics
and astronomy, found a sense of belonging in being activists for increased diversity in STEM
fields. The women “expressed the importance of seeing more scientists with a racial background
similar to their own, and worked towards this ideal to encourage, and to improve conditions for,
future generations.”36
One way that strong female role models in physics education can improve is simply within
the demographics of most physics departments. The American Institute of Physics tracked the
number of women in physics and astronomy departments across the U.S. from 2008 to 2012 and
the results were astonishing (see Figure 5). Women only make up about 12% of the faculty in
astronomy and physics departments, but there are only 73 non-Asian women of color employed as
a faculty member in physics or astronomy departments in the entire United States.38 Without
tangible results of women and minority women succeeding in academia, girls in middle and high
37
A. Borg and M. Sui, Attracting girls to physics, AIP Conf. Proc. 1517 (1) 35-37 (2013).
R. Ivie, G. Anderson and S. White, “African Americans & Hispanics among Physics & Astronomy Faculty:
Results from the 2012 Survey of Physics & Astronomy Degree-Granting Departments. Focus On,” Statistical
Research Center of the American Institute of Physics, 1 Jul 2014.
38
15
school may find little inspiration in the lack of role models and may turn to other subjects where
women are more accepted.
One of the perhaps most obvious but rather vague solutions to the gender gap is to develop
social and cultural norms in schools and in the media which present physics learning as attainable
by males and females equally.3 Classroom support can go a long way in encouraging students to
pursue physics in college and as a career.
FIGURE 5. Number of women in physics and astronomy departments by highest degree awarded, in
201238
CONCLUSION
Unfortunately, many of the contributing factors to why females, specifically women of
color, are consistently left out of physics programs in secondary and post-secondary levels seem
to be part of a cyclical and systemic problem. Because there are so few women and minority
16
women in physics, others are dissuaded to join the profession. The disproportion of women and
women of color in science fields, specifically physical sciences, as compared to the rest of the
working force leaves much untapped potential waiting to help the U.S. compete in an increasingly
multicultural global economy.
Lack of teacher qualifications, lack of educational opportunities at a middle and high
school level, and lack of support in the post-secondary level as well as in mainstream media are
all contributing factors to why the U.S. has so few women and women of color enrolling in (or
remaining enrolled in) physics classes. In order to access the vast reservoir of potential that is the
diverse population of women interested in but not yet pursuing science, certain steps must be taken.
Qualified teachers at the secondary level need to be recruited to start students’ interest in physics
earlier, and more physics classes should be available to all socioeconomic levels. Simply making
physics more available is not sufficient enough to engage young learners. Supportive programs at
the university level should be developed which address the unique needs of women in a maledominated field, and positive role models and mentorships should be developed at all educational
levels. Many questions remain, and these are but a few spokes of the wheel, but these cornerstones
can perhaps allow the U.S. to close the gender gap allowing more women to make a mark on the
field of physics.
17
REFERENCES
1.
B. Nelson, “The Data on Diversity”. Comm. Of The ACM, 57 (11), 86-95 (2014).
2.
F. Macdonald, “For the first time, a US college had more female engineering graduates than
men,” Science Alert, 24 Jun 2016, http://www.sciencealert.com/for-the-first-time-a-us-collegejust-graduated-more-women-in-engineering-than-men (26 Jun 2016).
3.
L. Kost-Smith, S. Pollock and N. Finkelstein, Gender disparities in second-semester college
physics: The incremental effects of a smog of bias, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., 6 (020112),
1-3 (2010).
4.
National Academies of Science, Rising Above the Gatherings Storm: Energizing and
Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, (Washington, D.C., 2007), pp. 109.
5.
World Economic Forum, The Global Gender Gap Report 2015 (Geneva, Switzerland,
2015), pp. 306-307.
6.
L. Kost-Smith, S. Pollock and N. Finkelstein, Characterizing the gender gap in introductory
physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., 5, 010101 (2009).
7.
K. Niss, B. Nordtrom, I. Bearden and M. Grage, Gender in physics in Denmark, AIP Conf.
Proc. 1517, 94-95 (2013); M. Remskar et al., Women in physics in Slovenia, AIP Conf. Proc.
1517, 148-149 (2013); J. Arenzon, P. Duarte, S. Calvalcanti and M. Barbosa, Women and
physics in Brazil: publications, citations and H index, AIP Conf. Proc. 1517, 78-79 (2013); K.
El-Sayed, H. Hosny and S. Helmy, Women in physics in Egypt: challenges and progress, AIP
Conf. Proc. 1517, 98-99 (2013).
8.
R. Ivie, C. Tesfaye, R. Czujko and R. Chu, The Global Survey of Physicists: A collaborative
effort illuminates the situation of women in physics, AIP Conf. Proc. 1517, 53 (2013).
9.
United States Census Bureau, “Vintage 2009: National Tables,” Census.gov, 1 Jul 2009,
https://www.census.gov/popest/data/historical/2000s/vintage_2009/ (17 Jun 2016).
18
10. Cornell University, “The Crisis in Physics Education,” Cornell University Physics Teacher
Education Coalition, 2011, https://phystec.physics.cornell.edu/content/crisis-physics-education
(18 Jun 2016).
11. L. Charleston, R. Adserias, N. Lang and J. Jackson, Intersectionality and STEM: the role of
race and gender in the academic pursuits of African American women in STEM, J. Prog. Policy
Prac. 2 (3), 275-282 (2014).
12. L. Kost, S. Pollock and N. Finkelstein, The persistence of the gender gap in introductory
physics, AIP Conf. Proc. 1064, 139 (2008).
13. S. White, And the survey says…High school physics enrollments by socioeconomic status
and type of class, Phys. Teach. 54, 17 (2016)
14. S. White, Socioeconomic factors affecting minority physics taking in U.S. high schools,
Phys. Teach. 49, 472 (2011)
15. S. White, Black and Hispanic participation in high school physics still low, Phys. Teach. 49,
356 (2011)
16. J. Koebler, “Many STEM Teachers Don’t Hold Certifications,” US News, 8 Jun 2011,
http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/high-school-notes/2011/06/08/many-stem-teachersdont-hold-certifications (17 Jun 2016).
17. National Academies of Science, Rising Above the Gatherings Storm: Energizing and
Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, (Washington, D.C., 2007), pp. 114.
18. S. Baldi, C. Warner-Griffin and C. Tadler, Education and Certification Qualifications of
Departmentalized Public Middle Grades Teachers of Selected Subjects: Evidence from the 201112 Schools and Staffing Survey, National Center for Educational Statistics, (Alexandria, VA,
2015), pp. 29.
19. J. Hill and C. Stearns, Education and Certification Qualifications of Departmentalized
Public High School-Level Teachers of Selected Subjects: Evidence from the 2011-12 Schools and
Staffing Survey, National Center for Educational Statistics, (Alexandria, VA, 2015), pp. 29.
19
20. A. Johnson, Unintended consequences: how science professors discourage women of color,
Sci. Ed. 91, 805 - 821 (2007).
21. D. MacIsaac, U.S. Supreme Court justices weigh in (ham-handedly) on race and equity in
physics learning, Phys. Teach. 54, 126 (2016).
22. E. Pollack, “Why are there still so few women in science?”, The New York Times Magazine,
3 Oct 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/magazine/why-are-there-still-so-few-womenin-science.html?_r=1 (17 Jun 2016)
23. G. May and D. Chubin, A Retrospective on Undergraduate Engineering Success for
Underrepresented Minority Students, J. Eng. Educ., 92 (1), 27 (2003).
24. T. Andreescu, J. Gallian, J. Kane and J. Mertz, Cross-cultural analysis of students with
exceptional talent in mathematical problem solving, Not. AMS, 55 (10), 1256 (2008).
25. M. Rifkin, Addressing underrepresentation: physics teaching for all, Phys. Teach. 54, 72
(2016).
26. Z. Hazari, P. Sadler and G. Sonnert, The science identity of college students: exploring the
intersection of gender, race, and ethnicity, J. College Sci. Teach. 42 (5), 83 (2013).
27. U. Kessels, A. Heyder, M. Latsch and B. Hannover, How gender differences in academic
engagement relate to students’ gender identity, Ed. Res. 56 (2), 220-229 (2014); J. Stout, T. Ito,
N. Finkelstein and S. Pollock, How a gender gap in belonging contributes to the gender gap in
physics participation, AIP Conf. Proc. 1513, 404-405 (2013).
28. D. Baker, What works: using curriculum and pedagogy to increase girls’ interest and
participation in science, Theory Pract. 52, 14-20 (2013).
29. M. Lorenzo, Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom, Am. J. Phys. 74, 118 (2006)
30. C. Spencer, Expanding girls’ horizons in physics and other sciences: a successful strategy
since 1976, AIP Conf. Proc. 1697, 120015 (2015).
20
31. S. Klein-Gardner, STEM summer institute increases student and parent understanding of
engineering, ASEE Annual Conf. Exp., Paper ID #8493 (2014).
32. C. Leaper, T. Farkas and C. Brown, Adolescent girls’ experiences and gender-related beliefs
in relation to the motivation in math/science and English, J. Youth Adol. 42, 268-282 (2012).
33. N. Caley, “Women and the Persisting Pay Gap,” ColoradoBiz, 43 (4) 50-55 (2016).
34. J. Tanaka and L. Gladney, Strategies for recruiting and retaining minorities in physics and
biophysics, Biophys. J. 65, 552-558 (1993).
35. B. Whitten, S. Foster and M. Duncombe, What works for women in undergraduate physics?,
Phys. Today. 56 (9), 48-49 (2003).
36. L. Ko, R. Kachchaf, M. Ong and A. Hodari, Narratives of the double bind: intersectionality
in life stories of women of color in physics, astrophysics and astronomy, AIP Conf. Proc. 1513
(1) 222-225 (2013).
37. A. Borg and M. Sui, Attracting girls to physics, AIP Conf. Proc. 1517 (1) 35-37 (2013).
38. R. Ivie, G. Anderson and S. White, “African Americans & Hispanics among Physics &
Astronomy Faculty: Results from the 2012 Survey of Physics & Astronomy Degree-Granting
Departments. Focus On,” Statistical Research Center of the American Institute of Physics, 1 Jul
2014.
SCHOOL PHYSICS TEACHER CLASS MANAGEMENT, LABORATORY
PRACTICE, STUDENT ENGAGEMENT, CRITICAL THINKING,
COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND USE OF SIMULATIONS EFFECTS ON
STUDENT PERFORMANCE
W
A dissertation submitted by
PR
EV
IE
Muhammad Riaz
Submitted in partial fulfillment o f the requirements for the degree o f
Doctor o f Education at Dowling College, School o f Education,
Department o f Educational Administration, Leadership, and Technology
Dowling College
Oakdale, New York
2015
ProQuest Number: 10140013
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
W
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
PR
EV
IE
ProQuest
Que
ProQuest 10140013
Published by ProQuest LLC(2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
for (lie degree of Doctor of Education
is approved
W
mhmiiUmti, Ed.D.
IE
Robert Manley, Ph.D.
Design Specialist
PR
EV
F«nasn\f nmschwig, Ph.D..
Committee Member (
Stephanie, L, Tatum, Ph.D
Reader
Richard J. M iter. PhD
Dowling College
Oakdale, New York
2015
ABSTRACT
The purpose o f this study was to examine how simulations in physics class, class
management, laboratory practice, student engagement, critical thinking, cooperative
learning, and use o f simulations predicted the percentage o f students achieving a grade
point average o f B or higher and their academic performance as reported by teachers in
secondary school physics classes. The target population consisted o f secondary school
physics teachers who were members o f Science Technology, Engineeering
and,Mathematics Teachers o f New York City (STEMteachersNYC) and American
W
Modeling Teachers Association (AMTA). They used simulations in their physics
IE
classes in the 2013 and 2014 school years. Subjects for this study were volunteers. A
survey was constructed based on a literature review. Eighty-two physics teachers
PR
EV
completed the survey about instructional practice in physics. All respondents were
anonymous.
Classroom management was the only predictor o f the percent o f students
achieving a grade point average o f B or higher in high school physics class.
Cooperative learning, use o f simulations, and student engagement were predictors o f
teacher’s views o f student academic performance in high school physics class. All
other variables - class management, laboratory practice, critical thinking, and teacher
self-efficacy - were not predictors o f teacher’s views o f student academic performance
in high school physics class.
The implications o f these findings were discussed and recommendations for
physics teachers to improve student learning were presented.
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my mother, Bashira Bibi, who left her school in
class one because o f her mother’s death. She supported my education throughout her
life. Thank you, Mother, for the many sacrifices you made to ensure that I received the
best education in the United States. I dedicate this dissertation to my late father,
Muhammad Din, brother Muhammad Shahbaz, and three jewels in my crown, my
lovely daughter, Tayyba, and sons, Talha and Salam.
I also dedicate this dissertation to my teachers: Mr. Ghulam Abbas, my class one
W
teacher who changed my life from a shepherd to an educator. Mr. Fiqar Ahmed who
IE
taught me mathematics in high school, James Wile who encouraged me to apply for a
scholarship in doctoral studies, and Frances Schauss, who supported me for academic
PR
EV
writing throughout my doctoral studies.
V
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My thanks go to the professors who assisted me throughout the dissertation
process. Dr. Elsa-Sofia Morote, my dissertation chair, helped to move this study
forward. Her unwavering commitment to both this study and to me helped to make this
dissertation possible. Without her patience, guidance, and support this work might not
have been possible. Dr. Robert Manley, my design specialist, helped to design a survey
tool and ensured that the statistical analysis conducted in this paper was on point. Dr.
Manley always made himself available in dissertation seminar writing and offered much
W
support for this scholarship. Dr. Richard Walter and Dr. Stephanie L. Tatum served as
IE
readers and offered helpful comments and suggestions throughout this process. Dr.
Fernand Brunnchwig, Chairman, STEM Teachers New York affiliated with American
PR
EV
Modeling Teachers Association, supported me in my data collection and offered helpful
comments and suggestion
TABLE OF CONTENTS
D E D IC A T IO N ........................................................................................................................................ iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................................................................v
TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ xiii
CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................................ 1
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................1
W
Computer Simulations...................................................................................................4
IE
Student Engagement...................................................................................................... 5
Cooperative Learning.....................................................................................................5
PR
EV
Classroom Management................................................................................................ 6
Critical Thinking............................................................................................................ 6
Teaching Efficacy.......................................................................................................... 7
Purpose o f the Study...................................................................................................... 7
Statement o f the Problem.............................................................................................. 8
Research Questions........................................................................................................ 8
Research Question One.................................................................................... 8
Research Question T w o................................................................................... 8
Research Question Three................................................................................. 9
Research Question Four................................................................................... 9
Research Question F iv e................................................................................... 9
Definition o f Major Variables and Terms...................................................................9
vii
Class Management.......................................................................................... 10
Student Engagement.......................................................................................10
Critical Thinking............................................................................................. 10
Cooperative Learning......................................................................................11
Teachers’ View o f Student Achievement....................................................11
Physics Laboratory Practice...........................................................................11
Simulations in Physics C lass.........................................................................12
Use o f Simulations.......................................................................................... 12
W
Teacher Self-Efficacy.....................................................................................12
IE
Conceptual Rationale...................................................................................................13
Significance o f the Study............................................................................................ 15
PR
EV
Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitation............................................................16
Limitations....................................................................................................... 16
Delimitations....................................................................................................16
CHAPTER II.............................................................................................................................. 17
REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH LITERATURE.................................................................17
Computer Simulations.................................................................................................18
Simulations in Physics Classroom............................................................................. 19
Use o f Simulations.......................................................................................................20
Presentation Methods in Simulations........................................................................ 24
Classroom Management.............................................................................................. 31
Student Engagement....................................................................................................33
Cooperative Learning...................................................................................................34
viii
Critical Thinking.......................................................................................................... 38
Laboratory Practice......................................................................................................43
Teacher Self-Efficacy..................................................................................................51
Student Academic Achievement................................................................................ 54
Summary....................................................................................................................... 58
CHAPTER III............................................................................................................................60
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY............................................................... 60
Introduction................................................................................................................... 60
W
Setting............................................................................................................................60
IE
Selection o f Subjects....................................................................................................60
Instrumentation............................................................................................................ 61
PR
EV
Content Validity.............................................................................................. 63
Construct Validity...........................................................................................63
Reliability......................................................................................................... 63
Data Gathering Techniques.........................................................................................64
Data Analysis................................................................................................................65
Research Questions.........................................................................................65
Research Question One................................................................... 65
Research Question T w o.................................................................. 65
Research Question Three................................................................ 65
Research Question Four.................................................................. 66
Research Question F iv e .................................................................. 66
CHAPTER IV ............................................................................................................................67
ix
DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS.................................................................................. 67
Introduction................................................................................................................... 67
Research Question One............................................................................................... 69
Research Question T w o.............................................................................................. 70
Research Question Three............................................................................................ 73
Research Question Four.............................................................................................. 75
Research Question F ive.............................................................................................. 77
Step One........................................................................................................... 77
W
Step T w o.......................................................................................................... 79
IE
Summary........................................................................................................................81
CHAPTER V .............................................................................................................................83
PR
EV
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................... 83
Introduction................................................................................................................... 83
Summary........................................................................................................................84
Research Question One.................................................................................. 84
Research Question T w o................................................................................. 87
Research Question Three...............................................................................89
Research Question Four................................................................................. 90
Research Question F iv e................................................................................. 91
Recommendations........................................................................................................ 93
Recommendations for Future Research....................................................................97
REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................99
Appendix A .............................................................................................................................. I l l
X
Survey Form............................................................................................................................111
Appendix B .............................................................................................................................. 121
invitation to participate...........................................................................................................121
Appendix C .............................................................................................................................. 122
Reliability: Simulations effects on students Physics Class.............................................. 122
Appendix D .............................................................................................................................. 123
Reliability: Use o f simulation................................................................................................123
Appendix E .............................................................................................................................. 124
W
Reliability: Classroom Management.....................................................................................124
IE
Appendix F................................................................................................................................126
Reliability: Laboratory Practice............................................................................................ 126
PR
EV
Appendix G .............................................................................................................................. 127
Reliability: Student Engagement.......................................................................................... 127
Appendix H .............................................................................................................................. 128
Reliability Statistics: Critical Thinking Minus 38 Minus 3 6 ............................................ 128
Appendix 1 ................................................................................................................................129
Reliability: Cooperative Learning Minus 4 3 .......................................................................129
Appendix J ................................................................................................................................131
Student Performance............................................................................................................... 131
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2 .1 ....................................................................................................................................... 49
Laboratory Instructional Styles..................................................................................................49
Table 3 .1 .......................................................................................................................................62
Survey Instrument Dimensions and Items............................................................................... 62
Table 3 .2 .......................................................................................................................................64
Revised Survey Dimensions - Reliability Coefficients......................................................... 64
Table 4 .1 ....................................................................................................................................... 68
W
Number o f Years Using Simulations in C lass.........................................................................68
IE
Table 4 .2 ....................................................................................................................................... 68
Use o f Simulation in Physics C lass.......................................................................................... 68
PR
EV
Table 4 .3 ....................................................................................................................................... 69
Gender o f STEMteachersNYC andAMTA Respondents.....................................................69
Table 4 .4 ....................................................................................................................................... 69
Physics Teachers Mean Scores..................................................................................................69
Table 4 .5 ....................................................................................................................................... 71
Distribution o f Correlation Coefficients (Hemphill, 2 0 0 3 ).................................................. 71
Table 4 .6 ....................................................................................................................................... 72
Correlations with Student Academic Performance and Variables........................................72
Table 4 .7 ....................................................................................................................................... 74
Correlations with students GPA greater than B....................................................................... 74
Table 4 .8 ....................................................................................................................................... 78
Regression Model: Percentage o f Students Achieving a Grade Point Average o f B or
Higher............................................................................................................................................78
Table 4 .9 ....................................................................................................................................... 78
ANOVA: Percentage o f Students Achieving a Grade Point Average o f B or Higher
78
Table 4 .1 0 ..................................................................................................................................... 78
Regression Coefficient: Percentage o f Students Achieving a Grade Point Average o f B or
Better..............................................................................................................................................78
Table 4 .1 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 79
Regression Model: Student Performance in High School Physics Class............................. 79
W
Table 4 .1 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 80
IE
ANOVA: Student performance in high school physics class................................................ 80
Table 4 .1 3 ..................................................................................................................................... 80
PR
EV
Regression Coefficient: Performance in high school physics class......................................80
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1.1. Conceptual framework for academic performance......................................15
FIGURE 2.1. Student attitude toward practical work..........................................................44
FIGURE 2.2. Information processing model o f learning................................................... 47
PR
EV
IE
W
FIGURE 4.1. Structural equation model for teacher views o f student performance
75
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Physics education was a national priority o f many countries because their future
economic prosperity was closely linked with student success in science and technology.
(Miller, Michalski, & Stevens, 2012). Carl (1980) stated that:
IE
W
It [science] is not perfect. It is only a tool. But it is by far the best tool. We
have, self-correcting, ongoing, [and] applicable to everything. It has two
rules. First: there are no sacred truths; all assumptions must be critically
examined; arguments from authority are worthless. Second: whatever is
inconsistent with the facts must be discarded or revised, (p. 333)
Knapp (1997) urged researchers to explore the contexts and processes intervening
PR
EV
between reform initiatives and actual practice in school physics classrooms. How could
the physics class become a place where students were encouraged to find their answers
and draw their conclusions? Collis and Moonen (2001) suggested [that] engaged
students in physics classroom shared ideas where learning on the spot took place, where
self-confidence was built and exercised, and where personal interactions with others were
nurtured and developed.
In 2009, Carpenter argued that science was a reality and must be taught in the
concrete world. In the teaching system in 2015, the physics classroom was one o f the
most underutilized resources in teaching and learning instead o f being the engine o f
conceptual understanding o f physics. This trend led to rote learning and a majority o f
students did not have the deep understanding o f foundational physics. Mazur (2014)
argued that a classroom was a place where learning was actually accomplished and time
2
was not misused. Class time was a valuable asset for future knowledge and skills, but
how often did we stop to think about it and how was it being used? He posed the
following questions: Should class activities merely transmit information that was already
printed in the student’s textbook and electronic media? Did our students actually learn
during class, or did they simply record everything we said, hoping somehow to
understand the material later? Are large lectures stimulating inactiveness, sleep-inducing
or both in the physics teaching classroom?
The most important single indicator influencing learning was what the learner
W
already knew (Ausubel, 1963). West and Frensham (1974) suggested that meaningful
IE
learning occured when the learner's appropriate existing knowledge interacted with the
new learning. Rote learning occured when no such interaction took place. Robinson
PR
EV
(1969) pointed out a number o f causes o f rote learning: (a) thoughts which were not clear
in the human brain, resulted in rote learning, (b) the material to be learned lacked logical
meaning, (c) the learner lacked the relevant ideas in his own cognitive structure, (d) the
individual lacked a meaningful learning disposition to link new concepts, and
propositions, and examples, to prior knowledge and experience. Kelly, Bradley, and
Gratch (2008) stated that “learning is often reduced to students’ passivity while the
teachers become the content messenger, pouring knowledge into the empty vessel” (p. 2).
In 2015, the focal issue for educators and policymakers was that students had lost
interest in physics as a major subject (Osborne, Simon, & Collins, 2003). Wieman and
Perkins (2005) commented that educators and policymakers needed to ask themselves
how they were educating all students in science and especially in physics class. Wieman
(2008) indicated that traditional science teaching was almost ineffective in developing
3
expert thinking about physics laboratory work. After recieving 17 years o f successful
science education, physics graduate students came into the laboratory clueless about the
experimental work o f physics and after conducting research for two to four years, they
worked as practiced physicists (Wieman, 2008). Perkins, Beale, Pollock, and Wieman
(2011) asked three questions for educators and policy makers: (a) what should students
leam, (b) what were they learning, and (c) how could teaching be changed to improve
student learning?
To change instruction in physics class, Brown (2006) suggested a number o f
W
powerful instruments and simulation models that could be remotely accessed by learning
IE
communities, both in and out o f the classroom under the guidance o f the teacher. Three
main objectives o f integrating computer simulations into physics education were: (a)
PR
EV
becoming familiar with when, how, and why computer simulations had been used, (b)
exploring different ways o f using them in teaching; and (c) using research findings
around simulations to guide that use in class.
Computer simulations were effective for teaching and learning physics because
they gave students the opportunity to observe a real world experience and interactions
between teachers and students. A large and growing body o f literature supported the
effectiveness o f simulations in teaching and learning. Computer simulations were o f
special importance in physics teaching and learning. Simulations were new educational
environments which aimed to enhance teachers' instructional potentialities and to
facilitate students' active engagement (Jimoyiannis & Komis, 2001). Simulations
contributed to conceptual change (Zietsman, 1986; Stieff, 2003); provided open-ended
experiences for students (Sadler et al. 1999); provided tools for scientific inquiry (Mintz,
4
1993; White & Frederiksen, 2000; Windschitl, 2000; Dwyer & Lopez, 2001) and
problem-solving experiences (Woodward et al., 133 1988;Howse, 1998). Computer
simulations were developed and used to support and promote conceptual understanding
o f physics phenomena (Kelly, Bradley, & Gratch, 2008).
Computer Simulations
Choi and Gennnaro (1987) found that computer simulations were more effective
than hands-on experiments. The computer simulations replaced hands-on experiments
such as the relationship between volume and displacement in an experiment.
W
Combinations o f simulations with experimental work reduced the time o f laboratory
IE
practice and provided slightly better knowledge to students (Kennepohl, 2001). Gorrell
and Downing (1989) found that computer simulations were best at helping students learn
PR
EV
to analyze classroom behaviors for solving problems. They divided the students in four
groups: computer simulation group, extended-instruction group, problem solving group,
and control group.The computer simulation group was the only group to show
significantly higher level o f performance on the total measure over the control group.
Hsu and Thomas (2002) conducted the mountain simulation experiment in which
students analyzed the effects o f a mountain lifting the air on the windward side and
lowering the air on the leeward side for different dimensions o f the air. They found that
computer simulations were best for student understanding o f the phenomenon. Sahin
(2006) stated that computer simulations could be supportive tools for classroom
instruction and laboratory practice because students interacted and watched a real world
experience through them. For highly interesting laboratory experiments, computer
simulation could be used in 2 or 3-dimensional shapes (Sahin, 2006). Sahin (2006) asked
5
can simulations be as actual as a schematic laboratory or exchange it? Can greater
classroom management, student engagement, cooperative learning, critical thinking, selfefficacy, and laboratory expriences result in higher levels o f student achievement?
Numerous researchers attempted to find relationships among class management,
laboratory practice, student engagement, critical thinking, cooperative learning, teacher
self efficacy, and high student achievement in high school physics teachers' classes.
Student Engagement
Student engagement was an important component to motivate students in learning
W
experiences and willingness to attempt continuous effort (Blumenfeld, Kempler, &
IE
Krajcik, 2006; Rotgans & Schmidt, 2011). Walker, Green, and Mansel (2006) suggested
that students’ engagement was a predictor o f students’ achievement and performance in a
PR
EV
number o f environments. The teacher engaged students to work as scientists as they
analyzed data and created a theory and hypotheses. For this, the teachers adopted a
specific form o f teaching, thinking via web-based computer simulation which were
available and approachable through internet access (Abdullah & Shariff, 2008).
Cooperative Learning
Cooperative learning was an instructional technique in which students worked
together in designed small groups to achieve shared goals (Johnson & Johnson, 1989).
Slavin (1995) argued that the achievement effects o f cooperative learning had taken place
in all major subjects, at all grade levels, in all types o f schools in many countries. Both
field studies and laboratory studies had produced a great deal o f knowledge about the
effects o f many types o f cooperative interventions and the mechanisms responsible for
these effects. Slavin (1983) found that cooperative learning affected student achievement
6
when students worked in small groups and read academic materials in classrooms.
Johnsen (2009) explored cooperative learning groups and whether working in groups
changed students’ individual achievement.He found that there was no real change in
students’ individual achievement.
Classroom Management
Allen (1986) investigated classroom management from the perspective o f high
school students and found that from the student's perspective, effective classroom
management involved clear communication o f behavioral and academic expectations, as
W
well as a cooperative learning environment. Taylor (2009) stated that classroom
IE
management was one o f the greatest concerns o f teachers and administrators when
addressing the safety and well-being o f students. Classroom management ranked at or
PR
EV
near the top for beginning teachers as a general concern. Classroom instruction affected
student achievement more than anything else, and one could not have quality classroom
instruction without quality classroom management skills (Taylor,2009).
Critical Thinking
Critical thinking was defined many ways by many different scholars (Aretz,
Bolen, & Debereux, 1997; Burbach, Matkin, & Fritz, 2004). However, it was universally
accepted that critical thinking was the process o f purposeful thinking, which
encompassed interpreting and understanding, analyzing, drawing inferences, evaluating,
explaining, and self-regulation o f and pertaining to concepts, issues, questions, and
problems (Facione, 1998; Scriven & Paul, 2003). The ability to think critically
influenced one’s worldview and approach to life and learning. McPeck (1981) described
critical thinking as the tendency and skill to engage in an activity with reflective
7
skepticism. “Critical thinking is a technique in which students are encouraged to find
their own answers and draw their own conclusions” (McPeck, p. 170).
Teaching Efficacy
As defined by Bandura (1977), self-efficacy was “the conviction that one can
successfully execute the behavior required to produce outcomes” (p. 193). Teacher
efficacy was a simple idea with major implications. A teacher’s efficacy belief was a
judgment o f his or her capabilities to bring about the desired outcomes o f student
engagement and learning, even among those students who were difficult or unmotivated
W
(Armor et al., 1976; Bandura, 1977). This judgment had powerful effects. Teacher’s
IE
sense o f efficacy was related to student outcomes such as achievement (Armor et al.,
1976; Ashton & Webb, 1986; Moore & Esselman, 1992; Ross, 1992), students’ own
PR
EV
sense o f efficacy (Anderson, Greene, & Loewen, 1988). In addition, teachers' selfefficacy beliefs related to their behavior in the classroom. Efficacy affected the efforts
they invested in teaching, the goals they set, and their levels o f aspiration. Teachers with
a strong sense o f efficacy tended to exhibit greater levels o f planning and organization
(Allinder, 1994). They were more open to new ideas and were more willing to
experiment with new methods to meet the needs o f their students better (Berman,
McLaughlin, Bass, Pauly, & Zellman, 1977; Guskey, 1988; Stein & Wang, 1988).
Purpose o f the Study
The purpose o f this study was to examine how simulations in physics class,
classroom management, laboratory practice, student engagement, critical thinking,
cooperative learning, and use o f simulations predicted student academic performance as
reported by teachers in secondary school physics classes.
8
Additionaly, how simulations in physics class, class management, laboratory
practice, student engagement, critical thinking, and cooperative learning, teacher selfefficacy predicted the percent o f students achieving a grade point average o f B or higher
as reported by teachers in secondary school physics classes.
The target population consisted o f members o f the Science Technology,
Engineeering and,Mathematics Teachers o f New York City (STEMteachersNYC) and
American Modeling Teachers Association (AMTA) who used simulations from 2013 to
2014 in their physics classes.
W
Statement o f the Problem
IE
How did simulations in physics class, class management, laboratory practice,
student engagement, critical thinking, cooperative learning moderated by teacher self-
PR
EV
efficacy and mediated by uses o f simulations predict student academic performance and
percent o f students achieving a grade point average o f B or higher in high school physics
class as reported by the teachers in secondary school physics classes?
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study.
Research Question One
How do high school physics teachers describe the use o f simulations in physics
class, classroom management, laboratory practice, students’ engagement, critical
thinking, cooperative learning, teacher efficacy, teacher views o f student performance
and percentage o f students with a grade point average o f B or higher?
Research Question Two
What relationships exist among high school physics teachers' descriptions o f their
9
students academic performance and uses o f simulations in physics class, classroom
management, laboratory practice, student engagement, critical thinking, cooperative
learning, and teachers’ efficacy and teachers’ view o f student academic performance?
Research Question Three
What relationships exist among high school physics teachers’ descriptions o f their
uses o f simulations in physics class, class management, laboratory practice, student
engagement, critical thinking, cooperative learning, and teacher self-efficacy, the use o f
simulation in class, and the percentage o f students achieving a grade point average o f B
W
or higher?
IE
Research Question Four
How do the use o f simulation mediate the effects o f simulations in physics class,
PR
EV
class management, laboratory practice, student engagement, critical thinking, cooperative
learning, and teacher self-efficacy on student academic performance?
Research Question Five
How do high school physics teachers’ descriptions o f their uses o f simulations in
physics class, class management, laboratory practice, student engagement, critical
thinking, cooperative learning, and teacher self-efficacy predict teachers’ views o f
student performance and percentage o f students achieving a grade point average o f B or
higher?
Definition o f Major Variables and Terms
For the purpose o f this research study, the following terms and meanings were
used throughout this dissertation.
10
Class Management
While a variety o f definitions o f the term classroom management were suggested,
the definition first suggested by Evertson and Weinstein (2006) was used by this study
who recognized it as “the actions teachers take to create an environment that supports and
facilitates both academic and social-emotional learning” (p. 4). Evertson and Weinstein
suggested three actions for classroom management: (a) actions taken before students’
arrival to prepare the physical, social, and instructional space students would enter, (b)
preparation for interactions with students once they arrived considered the emerging
W
relationships with and instruction o f a class o f students; (c) anticipating reactions to
emerging difficulties.
IE
students’ misbehavior by preparing consistent, productive, and instructional responses to
PR
EV
Student Engagement
Students’ engagement was an important element to motivate students in learning
experiences and willingness to endeavor continuous effort (Blumenfeld, Kempler, &
Krajcik, 2006; Rotgans & Schmidt, 2011). Walker et al. (2006) suggested that student
engagement was a predictor o f students’ performance in a number o f environments.
The engagement premise is straightforward and easily understood: the more
students study a subject, the more they know about it, and the more students
practice and get feedback from faculty and staff members on their writing
and collaborative problem solving, the deeper they come to understand what
they are learning and the more adept they become at managing complexity,
tolerating ambiguity, and working with people from different backgrounds
or with different views. (Kuh, 2009, p. 5)
Critical Thinking
Critical thinking was the process o f purposeful thinking that encompassed
interpreting and understanding, analyzing, drawing inferences, evaluating, explaining,
Purchase answer to see full
attachment