Amy Bug Guest Forum on Learning in Physics
Amy Bug
Here are two remedy-oriented studies which deal with the achievement of women in the classroom. The first, Miyake et al. (Science, 330, 1234, 2010) finds that using the "values-affirmation" technique of asking undergraduates to write about important personal values had the ability to erase the gender-related test-score gap in an introductory physics course. The women who most subscribed to the notion that men are better at physics were both least likely to do well without the intervention, and most dramatically helped by the intervention. (Read news story here--LH)
One might interpret these results in terms of reduction of "sterotype-threat" (Steele and Aronson, see where we discussed this on our forum here--LH), an extensively studied phenomenon that may have its roots in the ability of pressure and fear to disrupt concentration and memory, hence performance. Miyake et al's work is very encouraging, but not without its troubling shadows. In one measure, men who affirmed their personal values did slightly worse on exams (though not enough to significantly effect their course grades.)
A second study by Carrell et al. (click here or go to http://www.slate.com/id/2219701) exploited the random assignment of students to professors at the U.S. Air Force Academy. They found that final-grade gender gaps in more than 9000 undergraduates in mandatory intro math and science courses were substantially reduced when women happened to be taught by women. Yet again, there is a shadow - an effect of male students doing slightly worse with a woman professor. But strikingly, for men and women with the greatest incoming math skills, women's grades were enhanced to such a degree that the gender-gap was essentially erased, while men's grades were unaffected by the gender of the lecturer.
These studies raise wonderful questions of a causal nature: By what mechanisms do writing a statement of self-affirmation, or having a same-gender teacher/mentor, nullify an achievement gap? Understanding can help craft further solutions ... would these results extend to a same-race faculty member? My initial guess is that there will not be simple mechanistic answers. Further, just as we can't point our finger at one cause for a gender gap in science, we shouldn't hope that we can embrace a single remedy.
Hi Amy,
Thanks so much for posting a guest forum here. It was great to have a chance for the forum readers to hear your ideas and interact with you. I'm sure they will check out the reading too.
cheers,
Laura
Hi, it's Amy again. This is a reply to two comments from Laura Hoopes.
1) Regarding our work on actors playing physicists: A paper in the scientific literature is still in progress, so the only publication I can point to now is an article in "PhysicsWorld" in August, 2010. Our reply to the commenters in October, 2010 (I think ... ) is good to read too, as it provided a few more details about the study and, I hope, satisfied some commenters as to methods and the extent of our claims about results. Basically, there was a significant interaction between gender of the actor playing the professor, and gender of the student evaluating him/her.
2) Yes, I've read Ceci and Williams 2010 "The Mathematics of Sex" ... it's a terrific book on the "Why so few?" issue. To first order I agree with what you say: the blame is mostly on women's choices related to (both intellectual interest and) wishes to have a family. But they give attention to other causes ... hence a "confluence of factors". I like it because it introduces and then refutes evidence that suggests the issues are "only biology" or "only socialization". But it's hard to get through, not b/c its difficult to read, just so heavily researched that it can overwhelm. If people are eager to know the conclusions (or want to assign just a part of it to students) turning straight to Chapter 8 "Conclusions and Synthesis" is good. That chapter stands well alone and one can always go back to the rest of the book for more complete support for the arguments. An even shorter summary of the book's main evidence and arguments can be found in a 2010 paper by Ceci and Williams in "Current Directions in Psychlogical Science" called "Sex Differences in Math Intensive Fields". On the other hand, for those who want even more of the technical details, the book cites their 2009 paper which delves deeply into details of approximately 400 papers in the scientific literature.
Dear Naveed, it's Amy here. You are very right that both of the papers I recommend not only are studies done in the U.S., but take the perspective that the *problem* we are trying to fix is one that is very typical in the developed world, but not necessarily the big problem in countries in the developing world. One set of resources that speak to the very diverse and serious issues in developing countries are the reports from the three international IUPAP conferences on women in physics. There is a fourth IUPAP conference planned for 2011 in South Africa. If you go to the website of the working group for Women in Physics of
IUPAP I hope that you can from there find some of these remarkable papers.
http://www.iupap.org/wg/wip/ . I have used papers from authors in China, Kenya, and Egypt for my course. In paticular, we read Karimat ElSayed, a remarkable Egyptian physicist (the scientific "grandmother" of many women doing physical science now in the Arab countries) who is extremely active and knows how to balance the particular cultural needs of typical women in the Arab countries (make a stable marriage, be a good daughter, adhere to religious rules) with enabling them to obtain a university education and work in science.
Hi, Amy here ... I am enjoying these interesting posts Scifeminista ... your "brain-constraint" resonates with me and must have analogs in social psychology terminology - is anyone out there an expert in psychology of gender who knows to what it might correspond? In a non-expert vein, it reminds me of one of the "pigs" that are talked about in the book "Every Other Thursday" by Ellen Daniell.
I'm about to get on a plane for a holiday with my kids. I hope SciFemXX, Naveed, and of course Laura will be willing to check back on Dec. 30 or 31 when I come back. You raise terrific points to which I'd like to reply, but I want to check references and not just rattle off something. (one of my "pigs"? :)
You are talking about gender difference in an advance country. More important question is that wihat is happening in third world countries? Gender difference is a great problem in third world countries and a worst barriers in the devlopment of such type countries. In these countries the women is really suffering. anyhow good finding.
Hi Amy,
You mentioned Ceci and Williams as critics of Beyond Bias report who have credibility. I looked over their 2007 book. Have you read the new book (2010, Oxford Univ Press) by Ceci and Williams? I have not yet, but a couple of people mentioned to me that they criticized both the Summers hypothesis about different math ability (the tail of the distribution) and the quick decision that no differences in biology exist, but finally favored women's choices, largely rooted in reproductive drives, as the main reason why there are so few full professors of physics who are women. Did you read it? Is that what you got out of it?
cheers,
Laura
I'm very interested in these simulations you mention, Amy. Did you publish the study, and can you give us the reference?
Hi Amy,
With "brain constraint" I'm thinking some kind of self-constraint, brain-against-brain wars. That sounds flamboyant, but it seems to me that the lack of confidence effect could originate in an inhibitory signal from some of the emotional sensing signals. Maybe that's wrong, and I don't know of any data that would help, although there might be some.
Reply to Scifeminista: Amy here ... Thank you for the enthusiasm you have for these types of studies! Yes, I did the study with actors playing physicists. Trying to understand those results makes me agree with you that the "shadow" effects are related. David Hekman, who has done studies with actors re: customer service ratings, helped me clarify some ideas with the following jargon. "Role congruence" is the sense that someone fits their job ... E.g. male professor in tweed coat - perfectly congruent! "Rater/ratee bias" on the other hand makes raters sympathize with the candidate who is like them. Male physics students are pushed in the same way by both effects. Female physics students are pulled in two different directions. Finally, I am interested in the way you use the term "brain constraint". Want to elaborate?
Reply to Small Science Woman: Amy here ... Thank you for your comment! Voodoo!? How sad that your colleague is showing distain for truly engaging with these issues. (This is the kind of arrogance that makes scientists so popular ... not!) As much as I believe that social forces are incredibly pervasive and potent,
and beg our understanding - I do think we have to be careful about saying that it is *only* problems and barriers. The National Academies 2007 book, "Beyond Bias and Barriers" which was strongly oriented this way received some powerful backlash. Much of it was idiological and irrational, but a few critics were fine scientists with good points. Ceci and Williams are two in the latter group that come to my mind ...
Physics profs were the first to find out that lectures don't deliver real understanding; I think you have a great tradition of studying how teaching and learning work in your field. These new studies are fascinating. I agree that stereotype threat could be the basis of the affirmation findings, not voodoo as one of my male colleagues suggested. The second set seems to imply there is no "real" difference in ability to do physics between men and women. Only problems and barriers and bias, right?
I love these studies that show how the human brain can fight itself or help itself to learn. If I recall correctly, Amy Bug (you) did a study that would suggest men don't learn as well from women professors of physics, did I get that right? Using actors? That might correlate with the shadow effect you noted in the second study.
But the cream of the findings is essentially no gender difference in performance for women with women profs and men with men profs. Not a brain capability difference, but a brain constraint difference seems to explain why women might do less well in physics. Interesting findings!
