Paper detail

A longitudinal analysis of students' motivational characteristics in introductory physics courses: Gender differences

The lack of diversity and the under-performance of underrepresented students in STEM courses have been the focus of researchers in the last decade. In particular, many hypotheses have been put forth for the reasons for the under-representation and under-performance of women in physics. Here, we present a framework for helping all students learn in science courses that takes into account four factors: 1) characteristics of instruction and learning tools, 2) implementation of instruction and learning tools, 3) student characteristics, and 4) students' environments. While there has been much research on factor 1 (characteristics of instruction and learning tools), there has been less focus on factor 2 (students' characteristics, and in particular, motivational factors). Here, we focus on the baseline motivational characteristics of introductory physics students obtained from survey data to inform factor 2 of the framework. A longitudinal analysis of students' motivational characteristics in two-semester introductory physics courses was performed by administering pre- and post-surveys that evaluated students' self-efficacy, grit, fascination with physics, value associated with physics, intelligence mindset, and physics epistemology. Female students reported lower self-efficacy, fascination and value, and had a more "fixed" view of intelligence in the context of physics compared to male students. Grit was the only factor on which female students reported averages that were equal to or higher than male students throughout introductory physics courses. These gender differences can at least partly be attributed to the societal stereotypes and biases about who belongs in physics and can excel in it. The findings inform the framework and have implications for the development and implementation of effective pedagogies and learning tools to help all students learn.

preprint2021arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.