首页> 外文期刊>Physical Review Physics Education Research >Partitioning the gender gap in physics conceptual inventories: Force Concept Inventory, Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation, and Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism
【24h】

Partitioning the gender gap in physics conceptual inventories: Force Concept Inventory, Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation, and Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism

机译:在物理概念清单中划分性别差距:力概念清单,力和运动概念评估以及电和磁的概念调查

获取原文
       

摘要

Over the last decade, the “gender gap” in physics conceptual inventory scores has been extensively studied by the physics education research community. Researchers have identified many factors that influence the overall differences in post-test scores between men and women. More recently, it has been shown that the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) contains eight items that are substantially unfair; six are unfair to women, two are unfair to men. The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE) and the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism (CSEM), however, contain fewer unfair items. In this work, results from prior studies are used to further explore the gender gap in five large samples of conceptual inventory data: the FCI ( N 1 = 3663 ), the FMCE ( N 2 = 2551 , N 3 = 3719 ), and the CSEM ( N 4 = 1767 , N 5 = 2439 ). The gender gap in these samples is partitioned into four components: the gender gap resulting from the student’s academic performance, the gender gap resulting from prior preparation in physics, the gender gap resulting from instrumental fairness, and the gender gap of students with equal academic performance and physics preparation on the fair instrument. For all samples, very little of the gender gap was explained by differences in academic performance between men and women, measured by ACT or SAT math percentile scores or physics test average. The percentage of the gender gap resulting from instrumental fairness varied across samples from 30% in the FCI to 2% to 6% in the CSEM. A substantial part of the gender gap in four of the five samples (30%–40%) was explained by differences in prior physics preparation, measured by pretest scores on the conceptual inventories. Further correcting for conceptual physics prior preparation using the post-test score in the previous class reduced gender differences substantially.
机译:在过去的十年中,物理教育研究界已广泛研究了物理概念清单分数中的“性别差距”。研究人员已经确定了许多因素,这些因素会影响男女在测验分数上的总体差异。最近,事实表明,部队概念清单(FCI)包含8个实质上不公平的物品;六个对女人不公平,两个对男人不公平。但是,“力和运动概念评估(FMCE)”和“电磁学概念调查”(CSEM)包含的不公平项目较少。在这项工作中,以前的研究结果被用于进一步探索概念清单数据的五个大型样本中的性别差距:FCI(N 1 = 3663),FMCE(N 2 = 2551,N 3 = 3719)和CSEM(N 4 = 1767,N 5 = 2439)。这些样本中的性别鸿沟分为四个部分:学生的学习成绩所致的性别鸿沟,由于事先进行物理准备而产生的性别鸿沟,仪器公平性所产生的性别鸿沟以及学习成绩相同的学生中的性别鸿沟公平仪器上的物理准备。对于所有样本,很少有性别差异是由男女在学业成绩上的差异所解释的,该差异是由ACT或SAT数学百分位数或物理测试平均值测得的。在所有样本中,由工具公平引起的性别差距的百分比从FCI的30%到CSEM的2%到6%不等。在五个样本中的四个样本中,性别差异的很大一部分(30%至40%)是由先验物理准备的差异所解释的,该差异是通过概念清单上的预测分数测得的。使用上一课的测试后分数进一步纠正概念物理学的预备工作,从而大大减少了性别差异。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号