by Dean Baird
Bachelor of Science in Education, The University of Michigan at
Ann Arbor, 1986
A Paper Presented to the Faculty of National University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Instructional
Leadership
with an Emphasis in Curriculum and Instruction
February 1997
© 1997 Dean Baird. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
IS THE PHYSICS CLASSROOM ANY PLACE FOR GIRLS?
THE GENDER IMBALANCE IN PHYSICS EDUCATION:
HOW IT CAME ABOUT AND WHAT TEACHERS CAN DO ABOUT IT
by
Dean Baird
Purpose. The purpose of this study is to determine why females
are underrepresented in physics and what can and should be done
to address this imbalance. Specifically, what action can be taken
by physics teachers to increase the likelihood of greater gender
balance in the population of physical science professionals in
the future? And what strategies are physics teachers employing
at present to reduce the gender gap?
Findings. Females are underrepresented in physics classes. The
reasons for this imbalance are not fully understood, although
conjecture is abundant. High school and college teachers are generally
aware of the gender imbalance in physics course enrollment and
the growth of this imbalance at higher levels of study. Their
assessment of the causes of the imbalance reveals differences
between male and female physics teachers. Male teachers are more
likely to cite society, culture, lack of role models, and differences
in ability or aptitude while female teachers cite lack of interest
among girls caused by male-oriented instruction and the abundance
of applications of physics devoted to male-oriented topics.
Conclusions. There are no compelling reasons for the continuing
underrepresentation of females in physics. Most of the reasons
cited in the literature and in the field research are obstacles
that have been overcome by women in every other field of academic
work. However, physics teachers can change their pedagogy to provide
encouragement for greater female participation. The literature
abounds with suggestions of strategies to be used for encouraging
female participation, but it stands empty of research to support
any of the suggestions. In a similar vein, the field research
shows that teachers use a variety of strategies, none of which
seems more popular that the others.
Recommendations. In the grand scheme of achieving gender balance
in physical science, teachers play a small role. But they do play
a role. It falls upon parents to encourage their daughters in
the exploration of things mechanical and electrical. And it falls
upon counselors to encourage girls to engage in physical science
coursework. But it falls upon teachers in physical science to
provide an environment in which female students can learn and
achieve. To this end, physics teachers can begin or continue along
a number of courses of action. Physics teachers must never ignore,
belittle, or harass female students. They must instead demonstrate
a belief that female students have an appropriate and legitimate
place in the physics classroom and hold high expectations for
their female students. They should use examples and applications
familiar to both females and males instead of drawing mainly on
sports and military applications familiar in greater part to males.
They should encourage more collaborative than competitive work
in class. They should place greater emphasis on written and verbal
assessments rather than relying primarily on numerical and analytical
assessments. Future research on gender equity in physics education
must focus on measuring the efficacy of these and other classroom
strategies intended to bring about gender balance.
I would like to thank my mother, Jean Baird, for instilling
in me the sense that girls can do anything as well or as poorly
as boys, and that there is no such thing as "women's work."
She planted in my mind the seed of gender equity. I now look for
it wherever I go and am concerned about the places in which it
cannot be found.
I would like to thank my father, Robert Baird, for nurturing that
seed by not burdening me with an upbringing laden with chauvinistic
examples or sexist expectations.
I would like to thank my significant other, Linsey Marr, for her
support and the use of her student I.D. card during the review
of literature research phase. I did manage to return the books
checked out from the Education-Psychology Library at The University
of California at Berkeley on time.
I would like to extend a special acknowledgement to my thesis
advisors, Dr. Watkins and Dr. O'Brien, for their patience with
all members of the classes and the high expectations they place
on each of their students.
This paper is for the young women that I have taught and those
I will teach who continue in science and engineering. I thank
them for the contributions they will make toward making my world
a better place in which to live.
1. Introduction
Purpose Statement
Definitions of Terms
Delimitations
Organization of the Remainder of the Paper
2. Review of the Literature
The Loss of Women's Contributions
The Masculinization of Physical Science
Female Biology: Is the Problem All in Her Brain?
Female Psychology: Is the Problem All in Her Mind?
Female Socialization: Sugar and Spice and Everything
Nice
Did She Drop or Was She Pushed? Scaring Women Away
from Physical Science
Strategies for Encouraging Gender Equity in Science
What Parents and Schools Can Do
What Science Teachers Can Do
Conclusions
3. Methodology
Research
Procedures
Participants
Opinionnaire
Analysis
Summary
4. Analysis of Data
Demographics of the Respondents
Females in the Physics Pipeline
General Factors Leading to Female Attrition
Structure, Content, or Pedagogy of Physics as a
Reason for Female Attrition
Strategies For Encouraging Female Participation
Teachers' Personal Assessments of the Gender Equity
Issue
Summary
5. Findings and Conclusions
Findings
Conclusions
6. Recommendations
Recommendations for Parents and Counselors
Recommendations for Physics Teachers
Recommendations for Future Research
Final Recommendations
Appendix A. Opinionnaire
References
Related Resources
1. Demographic Profile of Respondents
2. Estimated Female Participation in Physics
by Level
3. Female High School to College Transition
4. Why are fewer females than males found
in physics classes?
5. Is there anything in the structure, content,
or pedagogy of physics that discourages females from greater participation?
1. Gender and Teaching Level of Respondents
2. Age Distribution of Respondents by Gender
3. Teaching Experience of Respondents by
Gender
4. Estimated Female Participation in Physics
by Level
5. Female High School to College Physics
Transition
6. Why are fewer females than males found
in physics classes?
7. Is there anything in the structure,
content, or pedagogy of physics that discourages females from
greater participation? Male responses
8. Is there anything in the structure,
content, or pedagogy of physics that discourages females from
greater participation? Female responses
The professional studies of physics, astronomy, and engineering
are dramatically underpopulated by women. While women represent
over half the general population, they represent only a tiny minority
of professionals in physical science.
Historically, this imbalance was thought to be the result of differing
brain structures and functions between men and women. Indeed,
some theorists still hold to that view. However, explanations
based on gender-specific socialization have largely displaced
the brain difference models. Socialization theories hold that
girls are directed away from physical science by parents, teachers,
and peers (male and female) because such studies are considered
to be unfeminine. Such theories further suggest that girls themselves
select out of physical science because the issues involved in
those fields do not match the issues with which girls are encouraged
to be concerned.
Furthermore, the road to a career as a physical scientist is paved
with courses dominated by male students and male instructors.
Sexual harassment directed toward women in physical science courses
is not uncommon.
Taken together, these factors leave us with an underrepresentation
of women in physical science. The problems encountered by physicists,
astronomers, and engineers go unsolved, and we face a critical
shortfall of scientists and engineers in the near future. Yet
we allow ourselves to continue without the perspective of the
majority gender in our search for solutions.
The purpose of this study is to determine why females are underrepresented
in physics and what can and should be done to address this imbalance.
Specifically, what action can be taken by physics teachers to
increase the likelihood of greater gender balance in the population
of physical science professionals in the future? And what strategies
are physics teachers employing at present to reduce the gender
gap?
Bias - A set of assumptions made regarding the abilities
and/or handicaps of a group or groups. In this study the groups
are males and females and the assumptions are that it is appropriate
for males and inappropriate for females to study physical science.
Feminine science - An approach to the study of science
that emphasizes values and experiences considered to be feminine
over those considered to be masculine. Cooperation and collaboration
are valued over competition; applications for helping humans are
valued over applications involving weaponry or sports.
Gender - Sexual identity, male or female, as it relates
to culture and society.
Gender balance - Representation of females in a course
or degree program at a level equal to their representation in
the population of the corresponding institution.
Gender equity - Fair treatment and equal opportunity for
males and females.
High school physics - A laboratory course offered to students
in grades 9-12 in which topics in mechanics, heat, electricity,
magnetism, waves, and light are studied.
Hostile environment - A classroom, course of study, or
degree program in which female students are ignored, belittled,
slighted, or harassed.
Lab group - A small group of three to five (usually four)
students assigned to work with each other during in-class laboratory
activities.
Physical science - Physics, astronomy, and engineering.
Chemistry is also a physical science, but is considered less important
in this paper since it enjoys a better gender balance than the
other fields.
Sexual harassment - Unwanted and unwelcome sexual behavior
which interferes with an individual's life; sexual harassment
is not behaviors that an individual likes or wants (e.g. wanted
kissing, touching, or flirting).
Socialization - The effects that interaction with peers,
parents, teachers, and others in society have on a school student.
Gender bias is an expansive topic. It manifests itself in many
aspects of daily life in our society. Examples of gender bias
can be found literally from the cradle to the grave. The field
research presented in this paper will be limited to consideration
of gender bias in schools. Specifically, it will focus on the
issues of gender bias and gender equity in high school physics.
There are several issues of peripheral importance to this topic.
For example, by the time students arrive at high school physics,
they have already been subject to socialization and gender bias
that affect their course selections and define their role in lab
group interaction. While these will be discussed in the review
of literature, they will not be explored in the field research.
This writer wishes to focus on what can be done once these preliminary
effects are already in place.
The issue of gender bias in textbooks has become a topic of widespread
discussion in recent years. Publishers and textbook adoption committees
consider this when writing and selecting books for use in schools.
This paper will not address gender bias in textbooks.
Gender bias after high school also plays an important role in
limiting females' access to careers in physical science. Again,
this will be outlined to provide context but is not the focus
of the research.
Sex-based differences in brain function is a controversial topic
with potential implications that will be considered in this paper.
While this was once thought to be the key to alleged differences
in intelligence, the theoretical and research work in this area
has been largely abandoned. Sex-based brain differences will be
explored only to provide a historical context for the larger issue
of gender bias.
The issue of sexual harassment has become increasingly significant
in recent years. It will be discussed only to the extent of its
implications in physics instruction and its effects on the underrepresentation
of women in physical science.
This underrepresentation is well-documented for the United States.
There is some data to suggest that the underrepresentation is
not as dramatic in several other industrialized nations.This study
involves gender equity in physical science in the US only.
This writer's goal is not to dwell on problems that begin before
girls encounter high school physics or arise (or persist) thereafter.
It is rather to explore relevant obstacles to and strategies for
promotion of gender equity in physical science, with an emphasis
on what should and should not be done at the high school physics
level. In addition, an evaluation of what is currently being done
in high school physics classrooms will be made.
Organization of the Remainder of the Paper
Chapter 2 is a review of historical and recent literature relating
to gender and physical science. It addresses the statistical parameters
of the underrepresentation of females in physics, astronomy, and
engineering. It outlines the biology-based theories, socialization-based
theories, and hostile environment issues that attempt to account
for the numbers. The relative merits of these explanations are
considered. Chapter 2 continues with suggestions for improving
the gender balance in physical science. Strategies emphasizing
"feminine science," or science based on feminine sensibilities
and values, are considered. One widely discussed remedy that is
given close scrutiny is that of single gender learning environments.
Chapter 3 is a discussion of the methodology for the research
carried out for this study. The development and implementation
of an opinionnaire is described, as is the selection of the participants
for the study. There is also a discussion of the means by which
the results are represented.
Chapter 4 is the analysis of data collected through the research.
It describes the collected data, explains the graphical representations
of the numerical data, and summarizes of the descriptive responses
of the opinionnaire.
Chapter 5 is a presentation of findings and conclusions based
on the data collected in the research. Particular attention is
paid to the level of gender equity awareness among opinionnaire
respondents and any consensus found on effective strategies that
teachers can use to promote gender equity.
Chapter 6 includes recommendations for all groups capable of addressing
the issue of gender imbalance in physical science. The core of
the chapter is the set of recommendations for physics teachers.
Also included are recommendations for future research in this
area.
The Loss of Females' Contributions
The studies of physical science are among the most challenging,
rewarding, and-in our increasingly technological society-pivotal
fields of human endeavor. They have a significant impact on our
way of life and our standard of living. And whatever the future
holds, there will be a need for scientists and engineers. The
US Department of Education estimated that one in four of the projected
25 million new jobs that have been or will be created between
1990 and 2000 will be technical positions (Mann, 1995). But there
are signs we will not be able to meet future demand. "There
are proportionally less science and engineering majors at both
the undergraduate and graduate levels than there were in the 1960s
and 1970s" (Office of Technology Assessment, 1986, as found
in Leach, 1995, p. 1). Added to the fact that the number of college-age
individuals in the general population is declining and will continue
to do so into the next century (National Science Foundation [NSF],
1990, as found in Leach, 1995), a 700,000-person shortfall of
scientist and engineers is expected by the year 2010 (NSF, undated,
as found in Mann, 1995).
Yet we find that historically and presently, these fields are
dominated by males. Women represent only 12% of working scientists
in the United States (National Research Council, 1994, as found
in Rosser, 1995a). The discoveries and advances made in physical
science empower-or endanger-all members of society. Yet for a
variety of reasons, we allow ourselves to benefit only from the
contributions made by males. The damage done to society in terms
of discoveries either delayed or never made is difficult to assess.
One is left to ponder what Shakespeare considered the saddest
words in the English language ("what might have been")
when imagining what our standard of living would be had our forefathers
welcomed the contributions of women. While that exercise might
be considered academic, this one is not: We face a shortfall of
scientists and engineers in the not-so-distant future and will
need the contributions of individuals from the entire population.
Continued exclusion of the majority gender from science can only
lead to negative consequences for the standard of living we can
expect in the twenty-first century.
The Masculinization of Physical Science
Fifty percent of the US student-age population is female. But
only 43% of students enrolled in high school physics and less
than 25% of students enrolled in introductory college physics
are female (Neuschatz and Alpert, 1996; Fehrs and Czujko, 1992).
Only 15% of recent bachelor degrees and 12% of recent PhDs in
physics were earned by women, and women represent only 3% of the
nation's college and university physics faculty members (Neuschatz
and Alpert, 1996). Women fare slightly better in the study of
astronomy but do worse in engineering, where they are awarded
8% of the PhDs granted (Holloway, 1993).
Why is physical science dominated by males? A number of theories
have been advanced (A. Kelly, 1987a). Some hold that females have
a biological predisposition that limits their ability to achieve
in physical science (Fausto-Sterling, 1985; Gray, 1981; Kimura,
1992). Others suggest that the problems, models, and approaches
presented in physical science do not match the interests and experiences
of girls and are at odds with the characteristics society values
and encourages in girls (American Association of University Women
[AAUW], 1989; Bentley & Watts, 1987; Beyer & Reich, 1987;
Erickson & Erickson, 1984; Fehrs & Czujko, 1992; Galton,
1981; Holloway, 1993; Kahle & Lakes, 1983; A. Kelly, 1987a;
A. Kelly, 1987b; E. Kelly, 1981; Leach, 1994; Leach 1995; Lockwood,
1994; McMurdy, 1992; Parsons-Chatman, 1987; Peltz, 1990; Pollina,
1995; Rosser, 1995a; Taber, 1991; Vedelsby, 1987; Weinreich-Haste,
1981). Additionally, male domination of physical science often
results in hostile environments for females in physical science
classes and degree programs (AAUW, 1989; Fehrs & Czujko, 1992;
Geisel, 1996; Leach, 1995).
It is important to note that women do better in other areas of
science. In the so-called "soft sciences" women have
made outstanding contributions. In the fields of anthropology,
sociology, and psychology, consider the accomplishments of Jane
Goodall, Margaret Mead, and Anna Freud (Standish, 1982). It would
be incorrect to conclude that women are not capable of achieving
in science. Nor can we conclude that women cannot achieve in the
"hard sciences." In chemistry, women earn 35% of the
PhDs and in biology, women earn 40% of the PhDs (Holloway, 1993).
Nevertheless, physics, astronomy, and engineering continue to
suffer as almost exclusively male enterprises.
Interestingly, one researcher suggests that the exclusion of females
in math and science began with the Greek mathematician Pythagoras
(National Public Radio [NPR], 1995). Margaret Wertheim, author
of Pythagoras' Trousers: God, Physics, and the Gender Wars, recalls
that the male mathematicians of Pythagoras' era associated masculine
and feminine qualities with numbers. "...Odd numbers were
considered male and good and even numbers were considered female
and bad" (p. 2). Pythagoras formed a combination scientific
society and religious order know as The Brotherhood. This established
math and science as priestly studies. This status was preserved
when the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages began establishing
the world's first universities. The purpose of these institutions
was to educate men wishing to become clergy. But these universities
were the only place to study math and physical science. So again,
women were excluded from those studies. Wertheim goes on to suggest
that "mathematical science is this transcendent activity,
this priestly activity that is not suitable for girls and women.
When you consider the number of physicists who've been writing
books in [the past] few years with titles like, The Mind of God,
or Physicists Talking About the Mind of God there's this enormously
strong association in our culture of mathematical science as the
priestly science. And I think that represents a very powerful
cultural barrier in our society that is not overt but is very
deep. And girls absorb [it] in a very strong way" (NPR, 1995,
p. 3).
Wertheim's view on this matter is unique in the literature and
is not, as of this writing, supported by research. It is offered
to show that there is no shortage of thoughtful explanations for
why females are underrepresented in physical science.
Female Biology: Is the Problem All in Her Brain?
In 1903 Columbia professor James Cattell, editor of the journal
of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, compiled
a list of the most important scientists of all time. He found
only thirty-two of the top thousand were female (Fausto-Sterling,
1985). "From his standpoint, 'there [did] not appear to be
any social prejudice against women engaging in scientific work,'
hence he found it 'difficult to avoid the conclusion that there
is an innate sexual disqualification'" (Rossiter, 1982, as
found in Fausto-Sterling, 1985, p. 15). Three years later educator
W. L. Felter argued that, "girls should not be taught physical
science except at the most elementary level, because the expenditure
of nervous energy involved in the mastery of analytic concepts
would be injurious to their health" (A. Kelly, 1981a, p.
1). Biological explanations for the underrepresentation or underachievement
of women in physical science date back more than one hundred years.
These theories have evolved over the time, but the underlying
rationale remains the same. Brain-based sex difference models
assert that male and female brains function differently and thus
give rise to varying levels of success for males and females in
a variety of pursuits.
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, western scientists
began to develop biological theories to explain the superiority
of the male intellect. One early theory was that males were more
variable than females (Shields, 1975, as found in Fausto-Sterling,
1985). This meant that while males and females might have the
same average intelligence, males were given to a broader range
of intelligence while females remained huddled around some average
value. As a result, the most intelligent males were far superior
to the most intelligent females and the least intelligent males
were far inferior to the least intelligent females (Shields, 1975,
as found in Fausto-Sterling, 1985). Interestingly, the theory
of greater male variability arose after Darwin's findings that
variability is an asset in the process of evolution. Previous
theorists had concluded that females had greater variability while
males stabilized the species (Shields, 1975, as found in Fausto-Sterling,
1985). The theoretical work moved from the abstraction of variability
to the physical characteristics of brain.
Fausto-Sterling (1985) offers a brief historical analysis of brain
research and its connection to theories of intelligence. Early
researchers asserted that males were more intelligent than females
due to their greater brain size. This argument was abandoned when
it was determined that animals with larger brains (elephants and
whales, for example) should have greater intelligence than humans
of either gender (p. 37). The brain size theory was then modified
to place importance on the ratio of brain mass to body mass; this
was abandoned when it was found that females came out with a higher
ratio (p. 37).
As brain research became more sophisticated, so did the arguments
for the superiority of male intelligence. First, the frontal lobe
was thought to be the seat of intelligence, and researchers observed
that the frontal lobe was larger and better developed in males
while the parietal lobe was larger and better developed in females
(p. 37). But later research suggested that the parietal lobe was
a better indicator of intelligence, and around that time researchers
observed that the parietal lobe was larger and better developed
in males while the frontal lobe was larger and better developed
in females (p. 38). Eventually, the theories revolving around
the physical size or characteristics of the brain died out; none
are considered valid in modern brain research (Restak, 1984).
They were replaced by a host of theories revolving around the
genetic differences between males and females. Genes are the cellular
material known to determine a number of traits and characteristics
passed from parents to offspring via chromosomes (Barnhart, 1986).
Since males and females have different chromosomal make-ups, it
seemed natural for researchers to look for a genetic rationale
for male superiority. Since the 1960s, many theories linking male
superiority in math and visual-spatial skills to genetics have
come and gone (Fausto-Sterling, 1985).
A relatively recent, high profile example is the work of Benbow
and Stanley (1980, as found in AAUW, 1989) who claimed to have
found the male math gene. They administered the math portion of
the Scholastic Aptitude Test to mathematically precocious junior
high school students. Males consistently outperformed females.
Since males and females are exposed to the same level of instruction
in math from elementary school through junior high, Benbow and
Stanley concluded that the difference was due to genetically inherited
ability (Benbow & Stanley, 1980, as found in AAUW, 1989).
Critics were quick to point out that girls and boys undergo different
experiences with math in the classroom and are given different
kinds of encouragement outside the classroom. The parents of the
children in the study were found to have given boys more math
and science toys (AAUW, 1989). The parents also had higher educational
expectations for their boys than they did for their girls (Fox,
1984, as found in Fausto-Sterling, 1985).
A critical reader of the literature is left to wonder why nearly
all of the brain and genetic research was directed toward scientifically
proving male superiority. Students of sociology and Western civilization
might suggest it is a result of the male-dominated society in
which we live. To this day, mass-media is highly receptive to
scientific studies "proving" the biological basis of
gender differences. Fausto-Sterling (1985) characterizes the meteoric
rise and peer-review induced fall of each new biologically based
sex difference theory. "The popular press fanfares each entry
with brilliant brass, bright ribbons, and lots of column space,
but fails to note when each one in its turn falls into disrepute"
(pp. 38-39).
Arguments supporting brain-based sex differences remain relevant
in the current literature. Kimura's (1992) research suggests that
hormones affect brain function and lead to differences in ways
males and females go about solving problems. And many respected
scientists are adamant. According to Elliot S. Gershon, chief
of the section on psychogenetics, Biology Psychiatry Branch, National
Institute of Mental Health, "Sex differences are well established.
It is the ideology of feminism, not the evidence, that leads to
calling this area of investigation science fiction." (Restak,
1984, p. 245).
Female Psychology: Is the Problem All in Her Mind?
Maccoby and Jacklin's 1974 book, The Psychology of Sex Differences
remains a cornerstone of theory and research on the cognitive
differences between males and females. Upon reviewing previous
studies, the authors concluded the following were well-established
sex differences:
1. Girls have better verbal ability.
2. Boys excel in visual-spatial abilities
3. Boys excel in math.
4. Boys are more aggressive (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974, as found
in Fausto-Sterling, 1985, p. 25).
Fausto-Sterling (1985) makes thorough, compelling arguments against
the validity and conclusiveness of these findings (pp. 25-36).
One important detail is often forgotten in discussions of these
ostensibly well-established sex differences.
A 1981 study by Janet Hyde pointed out that although those differences
were present in the studies reviewed, their magnitude was very
small. Sex accounted for only five percent of the differences
between boys and girls in verbal, quantitative, and spatial-visualization
abilities. In other words, the variation between individuals of
either sex is greater than that between the sexes [emphasis added]
(AAUW, 1989).
Yet these findings continue to appear in teacher education textbooks
(Biehler & Snowman, 1982, ch. 3). Thus teachers enter the
classroom believing them to be significant. Teachers of math and
physical science often hold lower expectations for the girls in
their classes. Physical science teachers are more likely to (a)
ask girls lower-order questions; (b) ask boys higher-order questions;
(c) call on boys to answer specific questions; (d) respond to
boys with precise praise, criticism, or remediation; and (e) respond
to girls with simple acceptances, such as "okay" and
"uh-huh" (Crossman, 1987; Leach, 1994; Jones & Wheatley,
1990). Such teacher behaviors could be justified by the findings
of Maccoby and Jacklin. It should be noted that Hacker's (1991)
research contradicts some of the findings of Crossman, et al.
Female Socialization: Sugar and Spice and Everything Nice
A wide body of research supports the idea that the problems,
models, and approaches presented in physical science do not match
the interests and experiences of girls and are at odds with the
characteristics society values and encourages in girls (AAUW,
1989; Bentley & Watts, 1987; Beyer & Reich, 1987; Erickson
& Erickson, 1984; Fehrs & Czujko, 1992; Galton, 1981;
Holloway, 1993; Kahle & Lakes, 1983; A. Kelly, 1987a; A. Kelly,
1987b; E. Kelly, 1981; Leach, 1994; Leach 1995; Lockwood, 1994;
McMurdy, 1992; Parsons-Chatman, 1987; Peltz, 1990; Pollina, 1995;
Rosser, 1995a; Taber, 1991; Vedelsby, 1987; Weinreich-Haste, 1981).
This work also shows that parents, teachers, counselors, and peers
communicate to girls that physical science is unfeminine and an
inappropriate field of study for women.
Researchers have found that gender role socialization begins when
children are still in the womb (Fausto-Sterling, 1985; E. Kelly,
1981). Directly or by means of role models, girls are taught that
their life's work is to tend to the home and children (E. Kelly,
1981). Schools, curriculum, and teachers reinforce traditional
gender roles as well as sexist stereotypes from kindergarten through
graduate school (AAUW, 1989; E. Kelly, 1981; Fausto-Sterling,
1985; Fehrs & Czujko, 1992; Holloway, 1993; Kahle & Lakes,
1983; Leach, 1994; Leach 1995; Rosser, 1995a).
Childhood experiences are important as a foundation for learning
and applying physical principles. Toys marketed for girls are
usually passive, simple, and relate to nurturing while toys marketed
for boys are active, more complex, and often relate to sports
or things mechanical or electrical (AAUW, 1989; Beyer & Reich,
1987; E. Kelly, 1981; Fausto-Sterling, 1985; Parsons-Chatman,
1987; Peltz, 1990; Reynolds, 1994). Perhaps the best example of
a toy that delivered the wrong message to girls was the Talking
Barbie that complained, "math class is tough" (McMurdy,
1992, p. 3).
High school physics curriculum makes frequent reference to military
and sports applications (Baird 1996a; Baird 1996b; Hecht, 1994;
PSSC, 1960). The inclusion of military applications can be traced
to the historical development of physics. The inclusion of sports
applications is the result of the physics education community
seeking out real world applications to gain and hold student interest.
But in this attempt to build historical context and real world
application into the curriculum, the male-dominated physics teaching
community (Neuschatz & Alpert, 1996) seemed to be unaware
of-if not uninterested in-the off-putting effects that military
and sports applications have on girls (A. Kelly, 1987b; McMurdy,
1992; Pollina, 1995).
The commonly-held image of the professional physicist is similarly
off-putting to girls and young women rising through the educational
ranks. If asked to draw a physicist, many school children draw
an unattractive (usually balding) male in a white lab coat surrounded
by laboratory equipment and working alone (Weinreich-Haste, 1981).
If they do not see a physicist as being a woman, it may be because
of the lack of such images in textbooks (Balzer & Simonis,
1990). Physics is seen by school children as a field in which
solitary work and competition are key. This message is conveyed
by popular media and by the stories of prominent, early scientists
such as Galileo, Newton, Cavendish, Faraday, and Einstein, to
name only a few. Girls, for reasons of biology or socialization,
prefer communication, collaboration, and working as part of a
team (Beyer & Reich, 1987; Pollina, 1995; Vedelsby, 1987).
Of course, this is exactly how all of modern science and engineering
works. Professional engineers of either gender readily point out
that they spend most of their time communicating and collaborating.
Girls are unaware of that, however, and typically drop out of
the math and science career path before they have a chance to
find out (AAUW, 1989).
Did She Drop or Was She Pushed? Scaring Females Away from Science
For female students, the factors listed above make the physical
science classroom a somewhat alien place. Other factors often
make it a hostile environment.
From grammar school onward, boys in the classroom have negative
effects on girls' education. For a variety of reasons, boys dominate
the educational resources of space, apparatus, and the teacher's
attention (AAUW, 1989).
While many teachers make a conscientious effort to be aware of
and correct these tendencies within their own classrooms, many
do not. Some treat females like invisible objects, some treat
them as a waste of resources, and some treat them as potential
sexual partners.
As discussed above, teachers often have lower expectations for
their female students. Some teachers are unaware of this situation
or how it manifests itself in the classroom. Others offer the
facade of ignorance to the situation but work to maintain it.
Consider the case of Jennifer's chemistry teacher (Leach, 1995).
Jennifer was a bright, eager chemistry student whose attempts
to engage the teacher with questions or answers were ignored.
"During a five-day class period, she raised her hand to answer
or ask a question 32 times. She was never once acknowledged"
(p. 5). During labs, the teacher would check the progress of each
lab pair. Even if Jennifer asked a question, the teacher looked
at her male partner as he answered. A colleague spoke to the teacher
at Jennifer's behest, telling him about the differential treatment
of boys and girls in his classroom. The situation continued with
no noticeable change after that conversation.
Many teachers are quite open about their bias against girls in
math and science (Fausto-Sterling, 1985; Geisel, 1996; Leach,
1995). Consider the math teacher who wrote a letter to the editor
following Benbow and Stanley's 1980 male math gene study.
As a mathematics instructor with over 25 years of experience in
dealing with female pupils and female mathematics teachers, I
do have direct evidencemathematics is the water in which all intellectual
creativity must mix to survive. Females, by their very nature,
are oleaginous in this regard. Oras the song says: 'Girls just
wanna have fun' (Fausto-Sterling, 1985).
Or consider Stephanie's chemistry teacher (Leach, 1995). "When
he called the name [on the first day of class] of a girl in the
front row who was the head varsity cheerleader, he said, 'What
are you doing in chemistry? Shouldn't you be out jumping up and
down or something?'" (p. 5). When a student asked him why
he always seemed to ignore female students in class, he replied,
"Most women do not become scientists, so why should I waste
my time?" (p. 6).
Sometimes it is not merely discouragement or pejorative remarks
offered by teachers. In some cases, it is outright sexual harassment.
In 1993, the American Association of University Women published
Hostile Hallways: The AAUW Survey on Sexual Harassment in America's
Schools. In it, they used a fairly restrictive definition for
sexual harassment. "Sexual harassment is unwanted and unwelcome
sexual behavior which interferes with your life. Sexual harassment
is not behaviors that you like or want (e.g. wanted kissing, touching,
or flirting)" (AAUW, 1993, as found in Leach, 1995, p. 3).
Despite this limited definition, "Of 1,632 public school
students in grades 8-11, from 79 schools across the continental
United States, 25% of females indicated they have been sexually
harassed by a school employee" (AAUW, 1993, as found in Leach,
1995, p. 3).
For example, consider Kimberly's chemistry teacher (Leach, 1995).
He told Kimberly to sit in the front of the room because he "liked
to look at her" (p. 6). When Kimberly missed a quiz, he asked
her if she would like to make it up on the upcoming Friday night.
During a discussion of extra credit, he said that if you were
blonde (as Kimberly was), "you could just come in and sit
cross-legged on his desk and that you would earn all the extra
credit you ever needed" (p. 6). One day, he leaned over Kimberly's
desk and said, "'I guess you won't kiss me because you think
I look like the elephant man.' she remained silent butpoint[ed]
to [his] wedding ring" (p. 6). Later, he asked if she would
ever consider having an affair with a married man. Then he began
belittling Kimberly and another blonde, female student by calling
on them for answers and replying with a dumb blonde joke if they
struggled or answered incorrectly. Later, when he heard Kimberly
telling another student about the pressure she felt with cheerleading
and her academic load, he interrupted by saying, "You know
how to get an A in this class? one big smack. Then you can concentrate
on [your other subjects]" (p. 6).
Girls who make it through high school with an interest in science
intact are not in the clear yet. Sexism and harassment are often
more overt at colleges and universities. "The student engineering
newspaper of the Universite de Montrealpublished a special 'sex'
issue that included pornographic drawings and other overtly sexist
material. One week before, at Ottawa's Carleton University, the
photographs of 22 female physics students were stolen from its
files; that theft was followed by anonymous telephone calls that
threatened that 10 students would be killed" (McMurdy, 1992).
Similar stories can be told of student experiences in other physical
sciences (AAUW, 1993, as found in Leach, 1995; Fehrs & Czujko,
1992; Kelly, 1981c). Every day, women in science are exposed to
hostile environments and sexual harassment in high schools and
universities across the nation (AAUW, 1993, as found in Leach,
1995).
It is a vicious cycle in the worst sense. Because physical science
is dominated by males, those in physical science do not readily
see the problems of hostile environments or sexual harassment.
But hostile environments and sexual harassment, added to the factors
of gender role socialization, are effective in keeping women out
of physical science. Each factor is a leak in the pipeline leading
girls toward a career as physical science professional. And a
leaky pipeline perpetuates male dominance in physical science.
Strategies for Encouraging Gender Equity in Science
A wealth of strategies is offered in the literature for keeping
females in pipeline (AAUW, 1989; Beyer & Reich, 1987; Fehrs
& Czujko, 1992; Lockwood, 1994; Kelly, 1981b & 1987b;
McMurdy, 1992; Ormerod, 1979; Peltz, 1990; Pollina, 1995; Rosser,
1995a; Smail, 1987; Taber, 1991; Vedelsby, 1987). Some focus on
what parents should do. Some focus on what schools should do.
Some focus on what teachers should do. Of the latter, some address
the organization, environment, and structure of the classroom
and coursework while others address the content and presentation
of the material taught in the classroom.
Before such strategies can be implemented, though, there must
be an understanding of the problem of underrepresentation of women
in physical science and an admission that the current structure
and pedagogy perpetuate the problem. While few deny the wide body
of research presented above, a "not in my backyard"
attitude is apparent when school officials are asked about the
local situation (Sorgen, 1994). The psychological force at work
here may the same one that allows people to deride the public
educational system while insisting that the public school their
own child attends is doing a good job, or to overwhelmingly pass
a term limits initiative while overwhelmingly re-electing incumbent
politicians.
But assume a community knows there is a problem and wishes to
make the effort to ameliorate it. What can be done? There is no
shortage of suggested strategies available in the literature.
Just as there are many angles and facets to the problem, so there
are many angles and facets to the solution. If we are to succeed
in encouraging girls in careers as professional physical scientists,
action must be taken by parents in the home, by administrators
at the school, and by teachers in the classroom. Especially science
and math teachers.
What Parents and Schools Can Do
The most important actions parents can take for their daughters
are those that build self-confidence and provide experiences in
tinkering that are traditionally provided only for boys (AAUW,
1989; Parsons-Chapman, 1987). Parents must "encourage their
daughters to be independent, to explore, and to experiment-even
if it means they will get dirty or hurt" (AAUW, 1989, p.
6). In addition to traditional girls' toys, "girls need to
be provided with toys such as building blocks, erector sets, and
chemistry sets, which encourage facility with spatial relationships
and mechanics" (AAUW, 1989, p. 6). They must value the education
of their daughters as they do the education of their sons (AAUW,
1989).
Schools must not initiate or reinforce gender stereotypes. Kindergarten
classes should not have a girls' play corner with cooking utilities
and a boys play corner with blocks and cars (AAUW, 1989). Schools
should provide "a variety of role models in everything from
faculty and staff hiring to textbook selection to designation
of speakers at assemblies" (AAUW, 1989). Counselors must
be open to encouraging girls in math and science instead of steering
them away from it (AAUW, 1989). And through the counseling program,
schools should provide special programs-such as alliances with
organizations like Women in Science and Engineering, the Society
of Women Engineers, and the American Association of University
Women-to help girls make wise career choices (AAUW, 1989).
While Peltz (1990) and others listed below suggest inclusion of
prominent female scientists in the curriculum, some teachers find
this strategy dubious. They consider it disingenuous to force
inclusion of females who may have made lesser discoveries merely
to show that females have made important contributions. Kahle
and Lakes (1983) offer a compelling suggestion along the lines
of the alliances mentioned above that gets around this problem.
Perhaps the role models should not be from women successful in
science, but girls who are only a few stages ahead of elementary
girls. Girls might form science clubs at both the elementary and
junior high levels to encourage those in the lower grades. Social
perceptions of acceptance and "belonging" could be fostered,
and perhaps the negative attitudes developed between ages 9 and
13 could be ameliorated. During the early high school years, girls
should have the opportunity to speak with both collegiate undergraduate
and graduate women in science as well as professional females
scientists and engineers (p. 140).
The following are suggested strategies for science teachers
interested in keeping girls in the science career path pipeline.
Some seem to be obvious techniques of effective teaching for students
of either gender while others seem surprising or disconnected.
Strategies specifically designed to appeal to girls' talents,
interests, and needs are often referred to as "feminine science."
Peltz (1990), a teacher at an all-girl preparatory school, offers
1. Maintain well-equipped, well-organized, and stimulating classrooms.
2. Use non-sexist language, avoid practices that reinforce gender
stereotypes, and confront bias in texts when they find it.
3. Provide information on woman scientists and technologists in
the classroom.
4. Value creativity.
5. Present a clear sense of direction in lessons, stress the use
of math and encourage students to take further coursework.
6. Help girls develop spatial abilities (p. 49).
Pollina (1995) reports the findings of three symposia on girls'
education sponsored by the National Coalition of Girls' Schools.
She suggests the following:
1. Connect mathematics, science, and technology to the real world.
2. Choose metaphors carefully, and have students develop their
own. Presenting imagesthat are comfortable and meaningful for
girls.
3. Foster an atmosphere of true collaboration.
4. Encourage girls to act as experts[with] the teacher refusing
to act as an expert.
5. Give girls the opportunity to be in control of technology.
6. Portray technology as a way to solve problems as well as a
plaything.
7. Capitalize on girls' verbal strengths.
8. Experiment with testing and evaluation.
9. Give frequent feedback, and keep expectations high.
10. Experiment with note-taking techniques (p. 2-4).
Smail (1987) offers the following strategies.
1. Set experiments in context by providing background information
about the possible uses and applications of scientific principals.
Do this, if possible, before ideas are derived by experiment-tell
the pupils where they are going and why.
2. Link physical science principals to the human body.
3. Stress safety precautions rather than dangers.
4. Discuss scientific issuesaiming at a balanced view of the benefits
and disadvantages of scientific developments.
5. Make esthetically appealing exhibitions.
6. Use imaginative writing as an aid to assimilating scientific
principles and ideas (pp. 87-88).
Doherty (1987, as found in Taber, 1991) and Taber (1991) offer
specific advice to physics teachers. Some of their strategies
echo the work of other authors.
1. Change the way topics are taught to capitalize on girls' interests.
2. Stress the relevance of science by relating it to social and
environmental issues.
3. Regular testing on short course units with assessments designed
to show positive achievement.
4. Career advice relating to science.
5. Talks to parents.
6. Visits from working scientists and engineers.
7. Gradual transition to examination level work.
8. Involving students in putting on displays for primary pupils.
9. Don't allow boys to dominate teacher's attention.
10. Don't allow stereotypical gender role behavior in class (boys
work with apparatus; girls record and clean up).
11. Don't allow boys to dominate lab equipment.
12. Don't allow boys to put down girls' abilities in physics.
13. Don't allow boys to disrupt girls' work.
14. Don't make comments that support gender stereotypes and don't
allow others to make such comments unchallenged.
15. Don't employ teaching or assessment strategies that predominantly
relate to the learning styles of males (for example, girls have
been reported to do less well on multiple choice test but better
on essay questions) (p. 226).
While all the strategies listed above were developed and publicized
by respected authors and researchers interested in narrowing the
gender gap in physical science, there appears to be little or
no research available on the reliability or efficacy of any of
them.
The strategy that has been best studied is one that appears on
none of the lists above. It is the controversial strategy of single-gender
learning environments. Some coeducational schools have created
single-gender sections of physics (Gierl, 1994; Stowe, 1991).
And a common practice among physical science teachers is to create
single-gender lab groups.
Research on the interactions in mixed-gender classes and groups
offers compelling evidence in support of single-gender learning
environments (AAUW, 1989; Kelly, A. 1981a; Lockwood, 1995; Peltz,
1990; Stowe, 1991), and some have been found to be successful
(Pollina, 1995). But the findings from single-gender classrooms
indicate that there are pitfalls (Stowe, 1991) and paradoxes:
Boys learn best in coeducation classrooms with girls learn best
in girls-only classrooms (Ormerod, 1979). Gierl (1994) reports
that while high school girls found a single-gender physics course
to have a better environment than a mixed-gender course, they
were ambivalent when asked which type of course (single- or mixed-gender)
they preferred. Geisel (1996) offers a heated philosophical argument
in opposition to segregating the genders: "The problem is
not with women's abilities. In fact the problem is not with women
at all. The problem is sexist attitudes which are held mostly
be men. Segregation of classes will not solve anything, it will
only isolate the problem instead of exposing it" (p. 2).
Fehrs and Czujko (1992) state that college and university women
in science find single-gender lab groups denigrating.
It does not appear that underrepresentation of women in physical
science is due to a gender-based brain difference. Nor does it
appear that the underrepresentation is the result of compelling
or obstinate gender-based psychological differences. Rather, it
appears that the underrepresentation is the result of gender role
socialization and the creation and maintenance of hostile environments
in physical science courses and departments.
While it is a daunting task, these things can be changed. But
it will require changes in the behaviors of parents and teachers,
and changes in the structure and involvement of schools.
The purpose of this study is to determine why females are underrepresented
in physics and what can and should be done to address this imbalance.
Specifically, what action can be taken by physics teachers to
increase the likelihood of greater gender balance in the population
of physical science professionals in the future? And what strategies
are physics teachers employing at present to reduce the gender
gap?
The literature suggests that the problem has roots in early ill-conceived
(and subsequently disproven) theories of male brain superiority
and more recent psychosocial models of brain function. While the
more recent theories remain contested, their conclusions have
become part of the accepted foundation of current educational
psychology. And so differential treatment and expectations for
male and female students appear in math and science classes on
many scales. Some may be justifiable by certain accepted tenets
of educational psychology and others merely the result of teachers'
own conscious or unconscious gender bias. Regardless of the cause,
the apparent effect is an underrepresentation of females in physical
science. To address this problem, many researchers have suggested
many strategies to address gender bias in the science classroom.
The research presented here was designed to assess two aspects
of the issue. First, to determine the level of awareness of the
problem among physics teachers. Second, to find out which strategies
physics teachers are actually using in the field to address the
problem of gender imbalance. An opinionnaire was constructed to
serve this purpose (Appendix A). It was designed to be completed
by working physics teachers. The opinionnaire establishes the
demographic profile of the respondent, assesses the respondent's
school and course gender make-up, and asks for the respondent's
estimate of the gender make-up of physics students and professionals
at several levels. It continues with questions designed to elicit
the respondent's opinions relating to the gender issue and strategies
they have employed to address the issue.
The data was collected by means of an opinionnaire (Appendix
A). The opinionnaire was distributed to high school and college
physics teachers at a semi-annual meeting of the American Association
of Physics Teachers on Saturday, November 2, 1996. The day-long
meeting included long- and short-form presentations of papers
on physics research and teaching techniques. It also included
a series of short "show and tell" demonstrations that
teachers have developed. This writer distributed the opinionnaire
during the "show and tell" session and asked that interested
meeting participants complete it and return it before leaving
the meeting. The writer indicated to meeting participants that
the data would be used in this thesis. A box labeled "Return
Gender Surveys Here" was placed in a location convenient
and visible to meeting participants.
All respondents to the opinionnaire were active physics teachers.
Attendance of the meeting is not required by any of the attendees'
employers and is generally not usable toward attendees' salary
increments, so respondents were in attendance based on personal
interest in professional development. More high school teachers
than college or university physics teachers attend such meetings.
(An informal survey of participants at a previous meeting revealed
this.) Male attendees greatly outnumber female attendees. While
race was not considered an issue for this study, the attendees
are mostly European-American.
This sample was used for a number of reasons. It had great potential
to reveal the awareness of gender imbalance in physics classes
among working physics teachers. It also held great potential to
reveal strategies being used in the field to address the issue.
It was also convenient: this writer knew there would be about
100 well-informed, professionally active physics teachers in one
place at one time.
The opinionnaire consists of three sections: one to determine
the demographic profile of the respondent, one to determine the
respondent's school and course gender make-up and the respondent's
estimate of the gender make-up of physics students and professionals
at several levels, and one that elicits the respondent's opinions
relating to the gender issue and strategies they have employed
to address the issue.
Question 1 asks respondents to identify their gender. Since issues
being investigated here relate to gender equity and balance, knowing
a respondent's gender may help in interpreting their response.
Question 2 asks respondents to identify their age group. The writer
felt that age may play a part in a respondent's opinions regarding
gender balance, so establishing age categories seemed justifiable.
Grouping ages was seen as a means to avoid perception of this
question as an invasion of privacy and a means by which the data
could be easily grouped for analysis.
Question 3 asks respondents to identify the number of years they
have been teaching physics. Some teachers come from other professions.
So a 50 year old teacher may have only four years of classroom
experience. The writer wished to see if a pattern existed between
a teacher's level of experience and that teacher's understanding
and opinions relating to the issues surrounding gender equity
in physics instruction. Grouping years of experience was seen
as a means to avoid perception of this question as an invasion
of privacy and a means by which the data could be easily grouped
for analysis.
Question 4 asks respondents to identify the level at which they
teach physics. The physics educational "pipeline"-as
discussed in the review of literature-shows evidence of leaking
in female participation. The percentage of female participation
in physics drops from 51% of the general population to 46% of
high school physics students to 25% of college students to 15%
of bachelors of science to 10% of doctorates to 5% of university
faculty. So the level at which a respondent teaches is likely
to have an influence on their understanding and assessment of
the issues.
Question 5 asks respondents to estimate the percentage of females
a. Attending their school.
b. Enrolled in their course.
c. Enrolled in all high school physics courses
d. Enrolled in all first-year physics courses.
e. Earning undergraduate degrees in physics.
f. Earning doctoral degrees in physics.
g. On faculty at colleges and universities.
If no gender imbalance existed, the actual answer to each of these
questions would be 51%. That is, these questions ask for the percent
of each group (high school physics students or doctoral degree
earners) that is female. They do not seek to determine the percentage
of all females that are high school physics students or doctoral
degree earners. This question is similar to one offered by Leach
(1994) in her "Sexism in the Classroom Self-Quiz for Teachers."
The purpose of question 5a was to identify any respondents teaching
in single-gender school settings. It would be surprising to find
a teacher at a coeducational school with 100% female enrollment.
But a teacher at an all-girl Catholic school, for example, would
have to have 100% female enrollment.
The purpose of question 5b was to establish the female enrollment
percentage in respondents' own courses. These values could be
compared to national values found in the literature and to the
respondents' estimate of nationwide female enrollment at their
level.
The purpose of question 5c was to elicit the respondents' estimate
of the percentage of high school physics students that is female.
High school physics enrollment is the first "leak" in
the pipeline-the first place female participation in physics drops
off-for which reliable data exists. It will be useful to compare
high school physics teachers' reported female enrollment to their
estimate of national female enrollment.
The purpose of question 5d was to elicit the respondents' estimate
of the percentage of first-year college physics students that
is female. First-year college physics enrollment is the second
documented leak in the physics pipeline. It will be useful to
compare college physics teachers' reported female enrollment to
their estimate of national female enrollment.
The purpose of question 5e was to elicit the respondents' estimate
of the percentage of bachelor's degrees in physics are awarded
to females. Awarding of bachelor's degrees in physics is the third
documented leak in the physics pipeline.
The purpose of question 5f was to elicit the respondents' estimate
of the percentage of doctoral degrees in physics are awarded to
females. Awarding of doctoral degrees in physics is the fourth
documented leak in the physics pipeline.
The purpose of question 5g was to elicit the respondents' estimate
of the percentage of university physics faculty that is female.
At this level, the physics pipeline has trickled to a few percent
for females.
Questions 5c through 5g are designed to assess the respondents'
understanding of the gender imbalance in the physics pipeline.
Question 6 asks respondents to list reasons they feel are responsible
for the gender imbalance in physics classes. This question was
also derived from Leach's self-quiz. But whereas the self-quiz
offered a multiple choice of possible answers, the question used
in this study was left open-ended to avoid suggestion. Respondents
were forced to offer answers they could think of on their own
while completing the opinionnaire.
While question 6 allows respondents to offer any reason for female
underrepresentation in physics classes, question 7 asks respondents
to list reasons specifically involving the structure, content,
or pedagogy of physics instruction.
Comparing respondents' reasons to those offered in the literature
will allow an assessment of respondents' understanding of the
reasons for female underrepresentation in physics classes.
Question 8 asks respondents to list strategies they have tried
or they have known others to try in an attempt to address female
underrepresentation in physics. Again, this question was left
open-ended as opposed to offering a checklist of strategies listed
in the literature. Respondents' were thereby left to list only
strategies they could recall directly.
Question 9 asks respondents for their personal opinions of the
gender issue. This is the most open-ended question in the opinionnaire.
It allows respondents to address and gender-related issues in
whatever manner they choose; it allows each respondent to answer
freely.
Question 10 asks respondents to list people they felt someone
researching gender equity in physics instruction should contact
for further information, insights, and opinions. The purpose of
this question was to supply the researcher with a list of potential
contacts for structured interviews for possible future research.
The data collected in the completed opinionnaires was analyzed
and displayed in a variety of ways. Some of the data, such as
demographic profiles and "pipeline" estimates, lend
themselves to tables and charts. Other responses, such as those
to the open-ended questions, are more appropriate for characterization
and summarization.
The demographic profile data was used and displayed in a number
of ways. A table shows the actual responses. A pie chart was drawn
to show the relative proportion of male and female respondents
at each level of instruction. Bar charts were plotted to show
the number of males and females in each age group and in each
years-of-experience group.
The series of estimated percentages of female participation at
several levels (the respondents' estimate of females in the physics
pipeline) is analyzed. A table and three-dimensional area chart
shows a comparison of the female respondents' estimates, the male
respondents' estimates, and the actual national values.
The respondents' report of the gender make-up of their own class
and estimates of the average national gender make-up for their
level of course was also analyzed. A three-dimensional area graph
was plotted to show a comparison of the respondents' reported
percentage of female enrollment with the respondents' estimate
of the national percentage of female enrollment at their level.
This chart covers high school and introductory college physics.
The responses to question 6 (Why do you believe fewer females
than males are found in physics classes? Offer as many reasons
as you think are applicable) were characterized into seven categories.
Male and female responses were plotted side by side on a bar chart.
A final pair of charts were drawn to show the respondents' general
response to question 7 (Are you aware of anything in the structure,
content, or pedagogy of physics instruction that discourages female
students from greater participation?). The responses were characterized
as either, "yes," "no," or no response. One
pie chart was drawn to show how the female respondents answered,
another was drawn to show how male respondents answered.
Responses to each of the open-ended questions 6, 7, 8, and 9 were
summarized.
The research in this study has two purposes. One is to determine
the level of awareness among physics teachers of the problem of
the underrepresentation of females in physical science. This establishes
the extent to which working physics teachers perceive that a problem
exists for which a solution should be sought. The other is to
determine the strategies being used by working physics teachers
to encourage greater female participation in physics. Together,
these findings are used to determine what can and should be done
to address the problem of underrepresentation of females in physical
science.
The purpose of this study is to determine why females are underrepresented
in physics and what can and should be done to address this imbalance.
Specifically, what action can be taken by physics teachers to
increase the likelihood of greater gender balance in the population
of physical science professionals in the future? And what strategies
are physics teachers employing at present to reduce the gender
gap?
The literature suggests that the problem has roots in early ill-conceived
(and subsequently disproven) theories of male brain superiority
and more recent psychosocial models of brain function. While the
more recent theories remain contested, their conclusions have
become part of the accepted foundation of current educational
psychology. And so differential treatment and expectations for
male and female students appear in math and science classes on
many scales. Some may be justifiable by certain accepted tenets
of educational psychology and others merely the result of teachers'
own conscious or unconscious gender bias. Regardless of the cause,
the apparent effect is an underrepresentation of females in physical
science. To address this problem, many researchers have suggested
many strategies to address gender bias in the science classroom.
The research presented here was designed to assess two aspects
of the issue. First, to determine the level of awareness of the
problem among physics teachers. Second, to find out which strategies
physics teachers are actually using in the classroom to address
the problem of gender imbalance. An opinionnaire was constructed
to serve this purpose (Appendix A). It was distributed to about
80 working physics teachers at the high school and college level
at a regional physics teachers' meeting. Twenty two teachers returned
completed or partially completed opinionnaires. Of these respondents,
14 were male and 8 were female. The opinionnaire responses established
the demographic profile of the respondents and assessed the respondents'
school and course gender make-up and the respondents' estimate
of the gender make-up of physics students and professionals at
several levels. The opinionnaire also included questions designed
to elicit the respondents' opinions relating to the gender issue
and strategies they have employed to address the issue.
Demographics of the Respondents
The data indicating the demographic make-up of the respondents
is shown in Table 1. Question 1 asked
for the gender of the respondent (1 denotes males, 2 denotes females).
Question 2 asked for the age group of the respondent (1 denotes
ages 18-29, 2 denotes ages 30-39, 3 denotes ages 40-49, 4 denotes
ages 50-59, 5 denotes ages 60-69). Question 3 asked for the number
of years of teaching experience of the respondent (1 denotes 0-5
years, 2 denotes 6-10 years, 3 denotes 11-15 years, 4 denotes
16-20 years, 5 denotes 21-30 years, 6 denotes 31 years or more).
For analysis and display, the data for question 3 was simplified
to four groups: 0-10 years, 11-20 years, 21-30 years, and 31 years
or more. Question 4 asked for the teaching level of the respondent
(3 denotes high school, 4 denotes two-year college, 5 denotes
four-year college, 6 denotes "other"). The demographic
data is displayed graphically in Figures 1, 2, and 3.
There were more male respondents than female respondents (Figure 1). However, it should be noted
that females represent a higher percentage of the respondents
than they do of meeting participants. That is, females were more
likely than males to complete and return the opinionnaire. Roughly,
the respondents were two-thirds male and one-third female.
Figure 1 also shows the teaching level
of the respondents. More than half the respondents were high school
teachers, less than one-third were two-year college teachers,
and less than one-tenth were four-year college teachers.
A wide distribution of ages was represented among the respondents
(Figure 2). There were respondents
in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s. The largest single age group
was respondents in their 30s. Half the respondents were under
40 while half were 40 or older. The male respondents were generally
older than the female respondents: nine males were 40 or older
while only two females were.
A clear majority of the respondents had 10 or fewer years of teaching
experience (Figure 3). Only two of
the female respondents had more than 10 years of experience. Three
of the male respondents had more than 30 years of experience.
Females in the Physics Pipeline
Respondents' assessment of female participation in physics
coursework, degree programs, and faculty appointments is shown
in Table 2. This data is displayed graphically
in Figures 4 and 5.
Figure 4 shows the level of female
participation in physics as estimated by female respondents, as
estimated by male respondents, and as reported in national studies
(Fehrs and Czujko, 1992; Neuschatz and Alpert, 1996). Both male
and female estimates for the percent of high school physics students
that is female lie in the low 30s. The actual national values
place this number in the middle 40s. Both male and female estimates
show diminishing female participation, although female estimates
show a greater drop-off at higher levels of study. Both male and
female estimates of the percent of bachelors and doctoral degrees
earned by females were lower than the actual national values.
The male estimates of the percent of physics faculty that is female
is significantly higher than the female estimates and the actual
national values.
Nearly all the respondents were teachers at the high school or
college level. In question 5 of the opinionnaire, respondents
were asked to report the gender composition of their own classes.
The results are listed in Table 3. Figure 5 shows respondents' estimates
of the percent of female participation in physics at their level
nationwide, the percent of female participation in their own courses,
and the actual national values. Figure
5 can be thought of as two bar graphs (one generated from
high school teachers' responses and one generated by college teachers'
responses) connected to show the trends in the high school-to-college
transition in terms of respondents' own experiences and their
perception of the national values.
High school teachers' own reported female participation is greater
than their estimates of national female participation and greater
than the actual national participation. College teachers' own
reported female participation is less than their estimates of
national female participation and less than the actual national
participation.
General Factors Leading to Female Attrition
The responses to question 6 (Why do you believe fewer females
than males are found in physics classes? Offer as many reasons
as you think are applicable) fell into seven categories as listed
in Table 4 and shown in Figure
6.
Respondents identified societal and cultural factors most often.
One male responded, "Society makes it easier for females
to avoid highly challenging intellectual pursuits"; another
offered, "Social pressures on girls to be pretty and dumb."
Others identified cultural bias and traditional gender roles.
A female respondent wrote, "Girls are not exposed to 'how
things work' when they are young. Girls are not encouraged to
excel in math and science at a young age."
The second most frequent response identified the lack of role
models as a factor. Most male and female respondents who listed
this mentioned it without additional commentary, although one
male respondent suggested that female students are "unaware
of females who have successfully completed physics and gone on
to get a science degree."
The next two most common responses received an equal number of
responses. One identified a so-called "old boys' club"
aspect of physics as a factor. Male and female respondents listed
this as a potential source of intimidation; one female's response
listing sexual harassment as a factor was included in this group.
The other identified discouragement by counselors, teachers, and
parents. While none of the respondents elaborated on teacher discouragement,
some offered additional commentary on the deleterious effects
of counselors and parents. One female respondent mentioned, "Parents
still buy little boys trucks and little girls dolls."
Each of the three remaining factors was identified by an equal
number of respondents. First among these was a lack of confidence
among female students. Second was a lack of interest in physics
among female students. Third was a lack of aptitude or differences
in brain function. Only male respondents identified this as a
possible factor and each included a qualification of some sort.
One wrote, "Possibly physiological differences in the brain
(still speculative)"; another speculated, "Do males
have greater mechanical aptitude?"
Structure, Content, or Pedagogy of Physics as a Reason for Female Attrition
Question 7 asked respondents to list anything about the structure,
content, or pedagogy of physics that might discourage girls from
greater participation in physics. The responses were characterized
into three categories:
1. Yes, there is something about physics that leads to female
attrition.
2. No, there is nothing about physics that leads to female attrition.
3. No response.
The characterized results are listed in Table
5 and displayed in Figures 7 and
8. Figure 7
shows the males' responses; Figure 8
shows the females' responses. Forty-two percent of male respondents
and 62% of female respondents indicated that there is something
about physics that leads to female attrition. Twenty-nine percent
of male respondents and 25% of female respondents indicated that
there was nothing in the structure, content, or pedagogy of physics
that leads to female attrition.
Among those respondents, several indicated that there is an emphasis
on male-oriented interests embedded in the content presented in
physics courses. One female respondent offered, "Physics
is only ever applied to sports or technology for [real life] applications."
Two male respondents concurred. One offered that "more examples
of applied physics to cover females interests" are needed.
As indicated in the literature, the reason behind the male-oriented
content may be related to the gender imbalance among physics instructors
and students. Two respondents identified male-dominated student
populations as a reason for female attrition. On suggested that
"the lack of women in class discourages others from trying."
A female respondent phrased it differently, suggesting that girls
are discouraged by the competitive nature of the "'nerdy'
guys in [physics]."
Several respondents offered reasons that seem to relate to a perceived
nature of female students. One respondent shared, "as a teacher
I have observed that female students tend to be more hesitant
in connecting / using unfamiliar equipment or software. Given
enough time they will do an overall job of equal or superior quality."
Another suggested, "beginning physics coursework is postponed
until college. By then, students have already decided that they
will or will not fit in physics or engineering." A third
said quite simply, "some girls may be intimidated by labs."
The question itself called for a listing of elements of the structure,
content, or pedagogy of physics; these respondents listed perceptions
of female students' nature or behavior.
Only one respondent suggested-in this section-that a lack of female
role models was a cause of female attrition in the physics pipeline.
Strategies For Encouraging Female Participation
Question 8 asked respondents to list any strategies they had
tried in an effort to promote gender equity within their classroom,
course, or department.
The most frequently identified strategy-and one mentioned only
by male respondents-was to hold high expectations of female students
and believe in their abilities. One male respondent wrote, "Actually
I haven't done much to encourage girls other than I believe women
are just as skilled as men and this attitude comes across to students."
A strategy mentioned by male and female respondents was to talk
to girls in class. A male respondent suggested, "Reach out
to women in class to lessen their anxiety"; a female respondent
wrote, "Being a woman, I try and talk to the women students.
Find out where they are at. Give them support-answer questions-talk
physics."
A strategy mentioned only by female respondents was inclusion
of material or pedagogy directed toward female interests. One
respondent indicated she "use[s] female examples such as
earrings." Another wrote, "I encourage girls in their
holistic solutions and even give extra-credit problems that are
more easily solved holistically (boys hate this)." A male
respondent did write, "Emphasize verbal explanations from
students? Females seem better at verbal skills." However,
the punctuation and speculation of the response indicated that
this may have been a suggestion rather than a strategy he actually
used.
Another strategy mentioned only by males was the involvement of
women guest speakers in class.
The remaining strategies were offered by single respondents. A
male respondent mentioned discussion of gender issues in class.
A female respondent stated that at her school, only females taught
physics. She also wrote, "I have a zero-tolerance policy
for female-bashing (including self-bashing)." A male respondent
indicated that supporting science clubs was an important strategy.
A female respondent indicated that she uses single-gender lab
groups.
Teachers' Personal Assessments of the Gender Equity Issue
Question 9 asked respondents to provide their personal assessment
of the gender equity in physics instruction issue. Some of the
ideas mentioned in previous sections of the opinionnaire were
repeated here, but the nature of the question allowed respondents
to reveal their "true feelings" about the issue.
Among male respondents, some were interested but frustrated: "Gender
equity is very important, but I don't know how to solve the problem."
Others deemed the issue irrelevant: "Issues of gender, like
issues of other characteristics of humans, are not relevant to
the curriculum and methodology of physics, since we are teaching
about physical entities that have no human characteristics. The
only thing we have to do is to treat our girl students the same
as we treat our boy students-which any teacher should do anyway."
Others felt that there was no gender bias in physics instruction:
"I have not really encountered it."
Some felt both society and teachers shared responsibility for
ensuring gender equity: "Changes in society will help, but
teachers need to provide an environment that encourages females."
Among the female respondents, some felt there was a problem but
were unsure of the solution. One respondent indicated that "There
is a problem. There are fewer girls in [Advanced Placement Physics]
than in [second year Advanced Placement Calculus], but the numbers
[of potential female students] are similar"; another wrote,
"I like to believe that women are just as naturally talented-maybe
they are not as well adapted to the competitive nature of the
field? I don't know."
Others indicated a personal familiarity with the problem. One
mentioned that she was the only female physics student in a class
of 50. Another wrote, "I left graduate work in physics due
to harassment. Also as an undergraduate-destroyed my self-esteem
and turned [me] away from research. I was a statistic, not a human."
Others insisted that there was no problem at hand. One respondent
wrote, "I don't think that women will ever choose physics
in the same numbers as men. It is very important that girls be
exposed to physics and that physics be available to girls and
women, but if they don't choose it because it doesn't match well
with their abilities, sensitivities, and priorities, maybe we
should honor them for their contributions and choices."
Another stated, "Why should there be an equal number of males
and females in physics? There is no good reason to have an equal
number. Men and women who choose physics as a profession are happy
with their choice. There is no problem. Don't create a problem
where none exists."
Data relevant to the purpose of this study was collected via
the opinionnaire. Age, experience, and teaching level data established
the demographic profile of the respondents.
Estimates of female participation in physics at various levels
of instruction established respondents' awareness of the existence
of the "leaky pipeline" of female attrition in physics.
Comparing respondents' own reported course gender make-up with
their estimates of national average gender make-up for the course
at their level added another dimension for understanding the perception
of the leaky pipeline.
The reasons offered for female attrition provide insight into
respondents awareness of the causes of the "leaky pipeline."
Respondents' assessments of the role of the structure, content,
and pedagogy of physics in female attrition provides information
on respondents' sense of the role they-and the subject they teach-play
in the leaky pipeline. This extends naturally to the listing of
strategies respondents have used to encourage greater participation
among females. And respondents' assessments of the general issue
of gender equity in physics instruction provides a window through
which to see respondents' personally-held beliefs relating to
the issue.
The purpose of this study is to determine why females are underrepresented
in physics and what can and should be done to address this imbalance.
Specifically, what action can be taken by physics teachers to
increase the likelihood of greater gender balance in the population
of physical science professionals in the future? And what strategies
are physics teachers employing at present to reduce the gender
gap?
The literature suggests that the problem has roots in early ill-conceived
(and subsequently disproven) theories of male brain superiority
and more recent psychosocial models of brain function. While the
more recent theories remain contested, their conclusions have
become part of the accepted foundation of current educational
psychology. And so differential treatment and expectations for
male and female students appear in math and science classes on
many scales. Some may be justifiable by certain accepted tenets
of educational psychology and others merely the result of teachers'
own conscious or unconscious gender bias. Regardless of the cause,
the apparent effect is an underrepresentation of females in physical
science. To address this problem, many researchers have suggested
many strategies to address gender bias in the science classroom.
The research presented here was designed to assess two aspects
of the issue. First, to determine the level of awareness of the
problem among physics teachers. Second, to find out which strategies
physics teachers are actually using in the classroom to address
the problem of gender imbalance. An opinionnaire was constructed
to serve this purpose (Appendix A). It was distributed to about
80 working physics teachers at the high school and college level
at a regional physics teachers' meeting. Twenty two teachers returned
completed or partially completed opinionnaires. Of these respondents,
14 were male and 8 were female. The opinionnaire responses established
the demographic profile of the respondents and assessed the respondents'
school and course gender make-up and the respondents' estimate
of the gender make-up of physics students and professionals at
several levels. The opinionnaire also included questions designed
to elicit the respondents' opinions relating to the gender issue
and strategies they have employed to address the issue.
Of the physics teachers responding to the opinionnaire, most
were male. High school teachers outnumbered all post-secondary
teachers. While respondents varied in age from their 20s to their
60s, a plurality were in their 30s. A majority of respondents
had 10 or fewer years of teaching experience.
The respondents' estimates of the level of female participation
in physics from high school course election through college faculty
position attainment was in general agreement with actual national
values. Male and female respondents underestimated the level of
female participation as the high school, baccalaureate degree,
and doctoral degree levels. Male respondents overestimated the
number of females at the college faculty level.
High school teachers reported their own female enrollment to be
greater than their estimate of the national average female enrollment
in high school physics. The actual national average was higher
than the high school teachers' estimate but lower than their own
reported female enrollment.
College teachers reported their own female enrollment to be less
than their estimate of the national average female enrollment
in introductory college physics. The actual national average was
equal to the college teachers' estimate and therefore higher than
their own reported female enrollment.
Respondents listed seven general reasons for female attrition
in physics:
1. Societal or cultural influences.
2. Lack of female role models.
3. The "Old Boys Club" aspect of physics coursework
and instruction.
4. Discouragement from parents, counselors, and teachers.
5. Lack of interest in physics.
6. Lack of confidence in physics.
7. Aptitude, ability, or brain differences.
Female responses were distributed fairly evenly among all categories
except the last one; none of the female respondents listed it.
Male responses included all categories but heavily favored societal
and cultural influences and lack of role models.
One-fourth of female respondents and slightly more of the male
respondents were satisfied that there is nothing in the structure,
content, or pedagogy of physics that discourages greater female
participation. However, nearly one-half of the male respondents
and nearly two-thirds of the female respondents felt there is
something about physics that leads to female attrition.
Three aspects of physics structure, content, and pedagogy that
discourage greater participation by females were indicated by
respondents.
1. The emphasis on male-oriented interests and applications.
2. Gender imbalance among physics instructors and students.
3. A mismatch between the perceived nature of physics and the
perceived nature of female students.
The respondents listed a variety of strategies they used to encourage
greater female participation. Maintaining high expectations for
female students, talking to female students, and including examples
relevant to female students were among the strategies offered.
No single strategy emerged as a widely agreed upon method.
Respondents held a wide variety of opinions on the gender equity
in physics instruction issue. Males' and females' opinions ranged
from feeling that there is a great problem to feeling there is
no problem.
The review of literature and research findings lead to a number
of conclusions about female involvement in physical science.
High school and college physics teachers are aware of the gender
imbalance and its growth at higher levels of physics instruction.
They actually underestimate the female participation at most levels.
This is likely due to the fact that slowly, the level of female
participation is rising. The progress is glacial and easy to miss.
So physics teachers' estimates lag behind current values. They
are probably in accord with the values that existed when the teachers
were students in high school, college, and so on.
High school physics teachers think the level of female participation
in their own classes is greater than that of their colleagues
nationally while college physics teachers think he level of female
participation in their own classes is less than that of their
colleagues nationally. The rise in high school participation coincides
with expanded offerings of conceptual physics courses across the
nation, though it is unclear whether or not a solid causal relation
exists. The fact that female participation drops precipitously
from high school to college could be interpreted in more than
one way. It could be that college physics with its solid mathematical
underpinnings and male-dominated enrollment remains intimidating
to females. Or it could be that females elect degree programs
that do not require physics coursework. Or it could be that having
completed high school physics, female students become disinterested
in pursuing physics any further.
There are few-if any-compelling reasons for the gender imbalance
in physics. The published literature and opinionnaire respondents
offered many possible reasons, but none hold up to much scrutiny.
Originally, all areas of academic study were reserved for males.
Society and culture frowned upon-indeed, explicitly disallowed-female
study of any subject. Only recently (in a historical sense) did
women break into academia. And when women began to study and earn
degrees, there were no role models for them to follow. All areas
of academic study were fairly entrenched "Old Boys' Clubs."
Women were discouraged by parents, teachers, and counselors from
any areas of academic study other than nursing, teaching, or home
economics. Women were not thought to have the intellectual capacity
or aptitude to succeed in these areas. Outnumbered by men and
almost always less prepared for rigorous study, how could women
have had much confidence in any academic area? And yet women eventually
populated and succeeded in most degree programs in numbers proportional
to those of men.
It seems almost trivial to dispense with most of the widely offered
and agreed-upon reasons for gender imbalance in physical science.
It brings to mind another long- and widely-held fallacy that fell
under simple scrutiny. For over 2000 years, the world accepted
the notion that heavy objects fall faster than light ones. It
seemed reasonable; it made sense. But simply dropping a pebble
and a rock simultaneously from the same height disproves it. For
over 2000 years, no one dropped the pebble and the rock. Similarly,
a simple recollection of the history of female exclusion from
and then participation in academia negates the validity of most
of the reasons offered for the lack of female participation in
physical science.
The "lack of interest" reason survives this scrutiny,
however. This argument suggests that the problems, models, and
approaches presented in physical science do not match the interests
and experiences of females and are at odds with the characteristics
society values and encourages in females. Interestingly, this
was the only reason among the seven offered by the opinionnaire
respondents that was given by more females than males. Nevertheless,
this reason is primarily an issue of who is teaching physics and
how they are doing it. Teachers who rely on examples and analogies
based on sports and military applications and who encourage competition
and who emphasize numerical work promote disinterest among their
female students. Teachers who use examples and analogies based
on areas of female or androgynous interest and encourage collaboration
and emphasize written and verbal work promote interest among their
female students. A spectrum of working physics teachers and their
classroom practices lies primarily between these two extremes.
The fact that a majority of female physics teachers and a minority
of male physics teachers feels there is something about the structure,
content, or pedagogy of physics that discourages greater participation
is disconcerting. It suggests that at their core, the majority
of physics teachers (males) do not feel it necessary to change
their pedagogy in the interest of promoting greater female participation.
Female teachers do feel compelled to make such changes, but they
represent a minority of physics teachers.
For those who wish to proceed upon a course of action to increase
female participation in physical science, there is no agreement
on what action should be taken, nor is there a solid foundation
of research that suggests any one strategy is more effective than
any other. Long lists of strategies are suggested in the literature,
but none are backed by field research. And so teachers are left
to their own instincts to develop strategies or use any of those
found in the literature, not knowing which-if any-will work with
their own student population. When asked in the opinionnaire,
many respondents appeared to be suggesting strategies rather than
reporting strategies they used, so there is reason to believe
that many teachers-even among those responding to the opinionnaire-do
nothing to encourage greater female participation.
One strategy that has been researched to some extent is segregation
of classes into single-gender lab groups or segregate courses
into male classes and females classes. Only one respondent indicated
she segregates lab groups in her classes. The research that exists
is of limited help: it suggests that boys learn best in mixed-gender
settings while girls learn best in all-girl settings. Of course,
simultaneous arrangements appropriate for both male and female
learners are not possible.
Despite the dearth of research-supported strategies for teachers
to use, the female participation in physical science is increasing.
The progress is unacceptably slow, but there is progress.
Physics teachers in the classroom cannot do anything about the
fact that little girls are given dolls and little boys are given
trucks, but they can make the attempt to present examples and
analogies that are as pertinent to girls as they are to boys.
Physics teachers in the classroom cannot do anything about the
lack of female role models in physical science since females were
excluded when the most fundamental findings were made in this
field, but they can make room for collaborative learning and increased
emphasis on written and verbal performance in class.
Physics teachers in the classroom cannot do anything about the
fact that physics is currently dominated by males (many of whom
may not be entirely socially adjusted), but they can believe that
female students are not "out of place" in a physics
course or degree program.
The purpose of this study is to determine why females are underrepresented
in physics and what can and should be done to address this imbalance.
Specifically, what action can be taken by physics teachers to
increase the likelihood of greater gender balance in the population
of physical science professionals in the future? And what strategies
are physics teachers employing at present to reduce the gender
gap?
The literature suggests that the problem has roots in early ill-conceived
(and subsequently disproven) theories of male brain superiority
and more recent psychosocial models of brain function. While the
more recent theories remain contested, their conclusions have
become part of the accepted foundation of current educational
psychology. And so differential treatment and expectations for
male and female students appear in math and science classes on
many scales. Some may be justifiable by certain accepted tenets
of educational psychology and others merely the result of teachers'
own conscious or unconscious gender bias. Regardless of the cause,
the apparent effect is an underrepresentation of females in physical
science. To address this problem, many researchers have suggested
many strategies to address gender bias in the science classroom.
The research presented here was designed to assess two aspects
of the issue. First, to determine the level of awareness of the
problem among physics teachers. Second, to find out which strategies
physics teachers are actually using in the classroom to address
the problem of gender imbalance. An opinionnaire was constructed
to serve this purpose (Appendix A). It was distributed to about
80 working physics teachers at the high school and college level
at a regional physics teachers' meeting. Twenty two teachers returned
completed or partially completed opinionnaires. Of these respondents,
14 were male and 8 were female. The opinionnaire responses established
the demographic profile of the respondents and assessed the respondents'
school and course gender make-up and the respondents' estimate
of the gender make-up of physics students and professionals at
several levels. The opinionnaire also included questions designed
to elicit the respondents' opinions relating to the gender issue
and strategies they have employed to address the issue.
Recommendations for Parents and Counselors
The review of literature makes it clear that the achievement
of gender balance in physical science requires the efforts of
several groups. Parents and counselors have been found to engage
in practices that discourage female participation in physical
science coursework. Members of these groups must be encouraged
to modify their behaviors. Parents must encourage their daughters
in the exploration of mechanical and electrical toys, models,
and real world applications. Counselors must encourage female
students to engage in-rather than to avoid-physical science coursework.
Recommendations for Physics Teachers
This study focused on the role of classroom teachers, specifically
physics teachers at the high school and college level. Through
their attitudes and actions, teachers have the potential to make
a significant positive or negative impact on gender balance in
physical science. While teachers cannot direct the upbringing
or course selection of female students, they do have a responsibility
to provide an environment in which female students can learn and
achieve. To this end, physics teachers can begin or continue along
a number of courses of action.
Physics teachers must discontinue practices or behaviors that
discourage female participation. They must never ignore, belittle,
or harass female students. Whether these practices arise from
interpretations of educational psychology, traditional gender
role stereotypes, or social dysfunction, the effect is to reduce
the level of female participation in physics.
Physics teachers must instead take action directed toward encouraging
female participation. A distillation of the published literature
and the findings of this study suggest that physics teachers should
adopt the following strategies.
1. Demonstrate a belief that female students have an appropriate
and legitimate place in the physics classroom and hold high expectations
for female students.
2. Use examples and applications familiar to both girls and boys
instead of drawing mainly on sports and military applications
familiar in greater part to males.
3. Encourage more collaborative than competitive work in class.
4. Place greater emphasis on written and verbal assessments rather
than relying primarily on numerical analytical assessment.
One of the more alarming trends discussed in this study was the
significant decrease in female participation that occurs between
high school physics and introductory college physics. While 43%
of high school physics students are female, only 25% of introductory
college physics students are female. The cause of this drop-off
is unclear. The most likely cause is a combination of factors.
To the extent that it is the result of female students being "turned
off" in high school physics and therefore not participating
in subsequent coursework, the recommendations listed above-if
followed by high school physics teachers-can have a positive impact.
To the extent that it is the result of the mathematically rigorous
nature of college physics and male-dominated instruction and enrollment
intimidating females, the recommendations above-followed by college
instructors-should be augmented by one additional recommendation.
Instead of beginning the coursework with the full level of mathematical
rigor expected throughout the course, instructors should begin
with less mathematical rigor and gradually build to the full level
as the course proceeds.
Significantly fewer recommendations are presented here than in
the published literature. This is primarily due to the somewhat
unsubstantiated nature of the literature's recommendations. All
the recommendations listed here with the exception of the last
one are strategies currently used in the field by practicing physics
teachers. The last recommendation was listed in the literature.
Recommendations for Future Research
There is no shortage of suggested gender equity strategies
listed in the published literature. There is, however, a shortage
of research on the efficacy of these strategies. This is clearly
the most important direction future research in this area can
take. The time has come to put the strategies to the test and
determine which ones have a measurable effect.
No group should be excluded from making contributions in physical
science. Females are severely underrepresented in this area at
present. While parents, counselors, teachers, and society at large
have important roles to play in bringing about a balance, one
thing should not be forgotten. It was the women themselves who
broke down the barriers and populated other fields of academic
pursuit. All involved groups stand to benefit from the contributions
women can make in physical science, so all involved groups have
some responsibility to encouraging gender equity. But in the final
analysis, a gender balance will only be struck when women force
it to occur.
Gender and Physics Opinionnaire
Dean Baird · Northern California/Nevada Section AAPT
Fall Meeting · 11/2/96
Please complete the questionnaire below. This is the field
research instrument of the Master's thesis I am currently working
on. The results will be presented at a future section meeting
and will be posted on my Web site. I appreciate your considered
responses.
1. What is your gender? __M __F
2. What is you age? __18-29 __30-39 __40-49 __50-59 __60-69 __70+
3. How long have you been teaching physics?
__0-5yrs __6-10yrs __11-15yrs __16-20yrs __21-30yrs __30yrs+
4. What level of physics do you currently teach? (Check one.)
__Elementary School __Middle School __High School
__2-Year College __4-Year College/University __Other:________
5. To the best of your knowledge, approximately what percentage
of
% a. your school population is female?
% b. your physics students are female?
% c. all US students enrolled in high school physics are
female?
% d. all US students enrolled in introductory college physics
are female?
% e. all US bachelor's degrees in physics are earned by females
each year?
% f. all US PhDs in physics are earned by females each year?
% g. all US college and university physics faculty members are
female?
6. Why do you believe fewer females than males are found in physics
classes? Offer as many reasons as you think are applicable.
(continued)
7. Are you aware of anything in the structure, content, or pedagogy
of physics instruction that discourages female students from greater
participation?
8. Please describe any strategies have you have tried (or have
been tried in your department) in an effort to promote gender
equity in your classroom, course, or department. Were they effective
or ineffective? Were they sustained or abandoned?
9. What is your personal assessment of the issue of gender equity
in physics?
10. Please list the name and institution of anyone you know of
who would be willing to share expertise and/or experience relating
to issues of gender equity in physics.
Thank you for your participation. Please return completed questionnaire
to the designated response box or Dean Baird.
American Association of University Women. (1989, August). Equitable
treatment of girls and boys in the classroom. Washington, DC:
Author.
Baird, D. (1996a). The blowgun as a teaching tool. The Physics
Teacher, 34(2), 98-100.
Baird, D. (1996b). The book of phyz (11th ed.). Unpublished manuscript.
Barnhart, R. K. & Steinmetz, S. (1986). Hammond Barnhart Dictionary
of Science (1st ed.). Maplewood, NJ: Hammond Incorporated.
Bazler, J. A. & Simonis, D. A. (1990). Are women out of the
picture? The Science Teacher, 57(9), 24-27.
Biehler, R. F. & Snowman, J (1982). Psychology applied to
teaching (4th ed.).
Benbow, C. & Stanley, J. (1980). Sex differences in mathematical
ability: Fact or artifact? Science 210, 1262-1269.
Bentley, D. & Watts, M. (1987). Courting the positive virtues:
The case for feminist science. In Kelly, A. (Ed.), Science for
girls? (pp. 89-99). Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.
Beyer, K. & Reich, J. (1987, July). Why are many girls inhibited
from learning scientific concepts in physics. In Daniels, J. Z.
& Kahle, J. B. (Eds.), Girls and science and technology: Proceedings
of the GASAT Conference. 53-60.
Crossman, M. (1987). Teachers' interactions with girls and boys
in science lessons. In Kelly, A. (Ed.), Science for girls? (pp.
58-65). Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.
Erickson, G. L. & Erickson, L. J. (1984). Females and science
achievement: Evidence, explanations, and implications. Science
Education, 68(2), 63-89.
Fausto-Sterling, A. (1985). Myths of Gender: Biological theories
about women and men. New York: Basic Books.
Fehrs, M. & Czujko, R. (1992). Women in physics: Reversing
the exclusion. Physics Today, 45(8-1), 33-40.
Galton, M. (1981). Differential treatment of boy and girl pupils
during science lessons. In Kelly, A. (Ed.), The missing half:
Girls and science education (pp. 180-191). Manchester, England:
Manchester University Press.
Geisel, L. (1996, February 1). Math for jerks. Canadian Dimension,
30. [Online]. Available: Electric Library.
Gierl, M. J. (1994, April). A student's perspective on the intrinsic
characteristics of the single-sex physics class. Paper presented
at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
New Orleans, LA.
Gray, J. A.. (1981). A biological basis for the sex differences
in achievement in science? In Kelly, A. (Ed.), The missing half:
Girls and science education (pp. 43-58). Manchester, England:
Manchester University Press.
Hacker, R. G. (1991). Gender differences in science-lesson behaviours.
International Journal of Science Education, 13(4), 439-445.
Hecht, E. (1994). Physics. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Holloway, M. (1993). A lab of her own. Scientific American, 269(5),
94-103.
Jones, M. G. & Wheatley, J. (1990). Gender differences in
teacher-student interactions in science classrooms. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 27(9), 861-874.
Kahle, J. B. & Lakes, M. K. (1983). The myth of equality in
science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20
(2), 131-140.
Kelly, A. (1981a). Girls and science education: Is there a problem?
In Kelly, A. (Ed.), The missing half: Girls and science education
(pp. 1-19). Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
Kelly, A. (1981b). Retrieving the missing half. In Kelly, A. (Ed.),
The missing half: Girls and science education (pp. 276-297). Manchester,
England: Manchester University Press.
Kelly, A. (1981c). Girls, physics, and sexism. In Kelly, A. (Ed.),
The missing half: Girls and science education (pp. 242-246). Manchester,
England: Manchester University Press.
Kelly, A. (1987a). Why girls don't do science. In Kelly, A. (Ed.),
Science for girls? (pp. 12-17). Milton Keynes, England: Open University
Press.
Kelly, A. (1987b). The construction of masculine science. In Kelly,
A. (Ed.), Science for girls? (pp. 66-79). Milton Keynes, England:
Open University Press.
Kelly, E. (1981). Socialization in a patriarchal society. In Kelly,
A. (Ed.), The missing half: Girls and science education (pp. 59-61).
Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
Kimura, D. (1992). Sex differences in the brain. Scientific American,
267(3), 118-125.
Leach, L. (1994). Sexism in the classroom: A self-quiz for teachers.
The Science Teacher, 61(8), 54-59.
Leach, L. (1995, October 1). Sexual harassment in chemistry classrooms:
Three students' experiences. School Science & Mathematics,
95. [Online]. Available: Electric Library.
Lockwood, J. (1994, January 1). Creating gender-friendly astronomy
classrooms. Mercury, 23. [Online]. Available: Electric Library.
Mann, J. (1995). Judy Mann on gender bias in math/science. Women's
Connection Online. [Online]. Available: http://www.bbai.onramp.net/wco/eda1447.htm
McMurdy, D. (1992, November 9). Gender and the numbers. Maclean's
105. [Online]. Available: Electric Library.
National Public Radio. (1995, October 14). Despite gains, math
and physics still male dominated. All Things Considered. [Online].
Available: Electric Library.
Neuschatz, M. & Alpert, L. (1996). Overcoming Inertia: High
school physics in the 1990s, findings from the 1993 nationwide
survey of high school physics teachers. College Park, MD: American
Institute of Physics.
Ormerod, M. B., Bottomly, J., Keys, W., & Wood, C. (1979).
Girls and Physics Education. Physics Education, 14(5), 271-277.
Parsons-Chatman, S. (1987, July). Females and physical science:
Is tinkering an issue? In Daniels, J. Z. & Kahle, J. B. (Eds.),
Girls and science and technology: Proceedings of the GASAT Conference.
97-104.
Peltz, W. (1990). Can girls + science - stereotypes = success?
(Subtle sexism in science studies).
The Science Teacher, 57(9), 44-49.
Physical Science Study Committee (1960). PSSC Physics (1st ed.).
Boston: D.C. Heath.
Pollina, A. (1995, September 1). Gender balance: Lessons from
girls in science and mathematics. Educational Leadership, 53,
30-33.
Restak, R. M. (1984). The Brain. New York: Bantam Books.
Reynolds, K. (1994). Toys for boys and girls. The Science Teacher,
61(8), 64.
Rosser, S. V. (1995a). Reaching the majority: Retaining women
in the pipeline. In Rosser, S. V. (Ed.), Teaching the majority:
Breaking the gender barrier in science, mathematics, and engineering
(pp. 1-21). New York: Teachers College Press.
Rosser, S. V. (1995b). Changing the curriculum and pedagogy to
reach the majority results in a positive upward spiral. In Rosser,
S. V. (Ed.), Teaching the majority: Breaking the gender barrier
in science, mathematics, and engineering (pp. 220-229). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Smail, B. (1981). Organizing the curriculum to fit girls' interests.
In Kelly, A. (Ed.), The missing half: Girls and science education
(pp. 80-88). Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
Sorgen, C. (1994, August 19). Are girls a class below? Area schools
are taking a closer look at gender bias. Baltimore Jewish Times.
[Online]. Available: Electric Library.
Standish, L. (1982, September/October). Women, work, & the
scientific enterprise. Science For the People, 12-19.
Stowe, L. G. (1991). Should physics classes be single sex? The
Physics Teacher 29(6), 380-381.
Taber, K. S. (1991). Girl-friendly physics in the national curriculum.
Physics Education, 26(7), 221-226.
Vedelsby, M. (1987, July). Some proposals for integration of affective
and cognitive aspects in physics education. In Daniels, J. Z.
& Kahle, J. B. (Eds.), Girls and science and technology: Proceedings
of the GASAT Conference. 171-176.
Weinreich-Haste, H. (1981). The image of science. In Kelly, A.
(Ed.), The missing half: Girls and science education (pp. 216-229).
Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
American Association of University Women. (1993). Hostile hallways:
The AAUW survey on sexual harassment in America's schools. Washington,
DC: Author.
Flam, F. (1991). Still a 'chilly climate' for women? Women in
astronomy and physics say they face not so much overt discrimination
as a pattern of 'micro-inequities.' The remedy: More women. Science
252, 1604-1606.
Fox, L. H. (1984). Sex differences among the mathematically precocious.
Science 224, 1291-1293.
Maccoby, E. E. & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of
sex differences. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Rossiter, M. (1982). Women in science: Struggles and strategies
to 1940. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982.
Shields, S. A. (1975). Functionalism, Darwinism, and psychology
of women: A study in social myth. American Psychologist 30, 739-754.
Treagust, D. (1980). Gender-related differences of adolescents
in spatial representational thought. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 17(2), 91-97.
Young, D. & Fraser, B. (1992, April). Sex differences in science
achievement: A multilevel analysis. Paper presented at the Annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San
Francisco, CA.
Return to resume