Gender bias in the force concept inventory?

Dietz, Richard; Pearson, R. H.; Semak, Matthew; Willis, Courtney

doi:10.1063/1.3680022

Cited by 30 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Sample 1 results of this study supported the advantage for women in item 9 found in Deitz et al [56] (large DIF) and Osborn Popp et al [47] (small to moderate DIF). This study also supported the large DIF toward men of item 23 found in both of these previous studies.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…4 of Ref. [56] it seems likely item 15 would be found biased towards women and items 12, 14, and 27 biased towards men, consistent with this work. The graph also suggests item 30 may also be biased toward men.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…Dietz et al used the MH statistic to evaluate DIF in an approximately gender-balanced sample of 520 students and found FCI items 4 and 9 were significantly biased against men and item 23 biased against women (p < 0.005), all with large DIF [56]. They also presented plots similar to Figs.…”

Section: E Item Fairnesssupporting

confidence: 56%

“…DIF analysis was also attempted for Samples 2 and 3 by stratifying students into five quantiles to reproduce the analysis of Dietz et al [56]. The stratification into 5 quantiles left only a few women in the highest scoring quantile and the results were strongly dependent on the number of quantiles selected.…”

Section: Differential Item Functioning Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Gender fairness within the Force Concept Inventory

Traxler

Henderson

Stewart

et al. 2018

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on the test structure of the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) has largely ignored gender, and research on FCI gender effects (often reported as "gender gaps") has seldom interrogated the structure of the test. These rarely crossed streams of research leave open the possibility that the FCI may not be structurally valid across genders, particularly since many reported results come from calculus-based courses where 75% or more of the students are men. We examine the FCI considering both psychometrics and gender disaggregation (while acknowledging this as a binary simplification), and find several problematic questions whose removal decreases the apparent gender gap. We analyze three samples (total N pre ¼ 5391, N post ¼ 5769) looking for gender asymmetries using classical test theory, item response theory, and differential item functioning. The combination of these methods highlights six items that appear substantially unfair to women and two items biased in favor of women. No single physical concept or prior experience unifies these questions, but they are broadly consistent with problematic items identified in previous research. Removing all significantly gender-unfair items halves the gender gap in the main sample in this study. We recommend that instructors using the FCI report the reduced-instrument score as well as the 30-item score, and that credit or other benefits to students not be assigned using the biased items.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: E Item Fairnesssupporting

confidence: 56%

Section: Differential Item Functioning Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Gender fairness within the Force Concept Inventory

Traxler

Henderson

Stewart

et al. 2018

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The inventory's questions have been investigated using many methods, notably through differential item functioning (Dietz, Pearson, Semak, & Willis, 2012) and alternative question construction (McCullough & Meltzer, 2001). Both studies gave evidence that the FCI had questions that favoured one gender over the other, but neither were able to conclude firmly how students of a certain gender would be affected by a certain question.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Presence of Gender Disparity on the Force Concept Inventory in a Sample of Canadian Undergraduate Students

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concept inventories (CI) are validated, research-based, multiple-choice tests, which are widely used to assess the effectiveness of pedagogical practices in bringing about conceptual change. In order to be a useful diagnostic tool, a CI must reflect only the student understanding of the conceptual material. The Force Concept Inventory (FCI) is arguably the standard for testing conceptual understanding of Newtonian mechanics. Studies in the United States and United Kingdom have shown the existence of a gender gap in FCI scores and gains between male and female students. This study aimed to examine whether such a gap exists for Canadian students at a mid-sized university. Four-hundred and thirty-four men and 379 women taking first-term introductory physics courses from the past nine years were assessed with the FCI prior to and after receiving instruction. A gender gap in the pre-instruction and post instruction scores was revealed in favour of male students (p < 0.01). There also existed a gender disparity in the learning gains between the two tests, where males had significantly higher gains (p < 0.01), although the effect size was small. Further analysis found that both male and female students who studied in classes that included interactive engagement methods had somewhat higher gains than students in traditional lecture courses, but that the interactive engagement methods did not eliminate the gender gap between male and female students (p < 0.01). Our results sound a cross-disciplinary note of caution for anyone using concept inventories as research or self-assessment tools. Les inventaires de concepts sont des questionnaires à choix multiples validés basés sur la recherche qui sont largement utilisés pour évaluer l’efficacité de pratiques pédagogiques en instaurant un changement conceptuel. Afin d’être des outils diagnostiques utiles, les inventaires de concepts doivent refléter uniquement la compréhension qu’a l’étudiant de la matière conceptuelle. Le « Force Concept Inventory (FCI) » est sans aucun doute la norme pour tester la compréhension conceptuelle de la mécanique newtonienne. Des études menées aux États-Unis et au Royaume-Uni ont montré l’existence d’un écart hommes-femmes dans les résultats du FCI et ainsi que dans les acquis. Cette étude vise à déterminer si un tel écart existe parmi les étudiants canadiens dans une université de taille moyenne. Un total de 434 hommes et 379 femmes inscrits à un premier cours d’introduction à la physique au fil des neuf dernières années ont été évalués avec le FCI au tout début et à la toute fin de la session. Les résultats ont révélé un écart hommes-femmes dans les résultats des tests, aussi bien ceux effectués avant le cours que ceux après le cours, en faveur des étudiants masculins (p < 0.01). Ils ont également révélé une disparité entre hommes et femmes dans les acquis d’apprentissage entre les deux tests : les hommes avaient atteint des acquis plus élevés (p < 0.01), bien que l’ampleur de l’effet ait été faible. Des analyses complémentaires ont montré que tant les hommes que les femmes qui avaient étudié dans des classes qui comprenaient des méthodes d’engagement interactif avaient obtenu davantage d’acquis que les étudiants qui avaient suivi des cours magistraux traditionnels, mais que les méthodes d’engagement interactif n’avaient pas éliminé l’écart hommes-femmes parmi les étudiants (p < 0.01). Nos résultats présentent une mise en garde à l’intention de ceux qui utilisent les inventaires de concepts en tant qu’outils de recherche ou d’auto-évaluation, quelle que soit leur discipline.

show abstract

Equity in college physics student learning: A critical quantitative intersectionality investigation

Dusen

Nissen

2019

J Res Sci Teach

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated the intersectional nature of race/racism and gender/sexism in broad scale inequities in physics student learning using a critical quantitative intersectionality. To provide transparency and create a nuanced picture of learning, we problematized the measurement of equity by using two competing operationalizations of equity: Equity of Individuality and Equality of Learning. These two models led to conflicting conclusions. The analyses used hierarchical linear models to examine student's conceptual learning as measured by gains in scores on research-based assessments administered as pretests and posttests. The data came from the Learning About STEM Student Outcomes' (LASSO) national database and included data from 13,857 students in 187 firstsemester college physics courses. Findings showed differences in student gains across gender and race. Large gender differences existed for White and Hispanic students but not for Asian, Black, and Pacific Islander students. The models predicted larger gains for students in collaborative learning than in lecture-based courses. The Equity of Individuality operationalization indicated that collaborative instruction improved equity because all groups learned more with collaborative learning. The Equality of Learning operationalization indicated that collaborative instruction did not improve equity because differences between groups were unaffected. We discuss the implications of these mixed findings and identify

show abstract

Gender bias in the force concept inventory?

Cited by 30 publications

References 4 publications

Gender fairness within the Force Concept Inventory

Gender fairness within the Force Concept Inventory

The Presence of Gender Disparity on the Force Concept Inventory in a Sample of Canadian Undergraduate Students

Equity in college physics student learning: A critical quantitative intersectionality investigation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About