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
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


ABSTRACT


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.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

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.


TABLE OF CONTENTS


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


TABLES


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?


FIGURES


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


CHAPTER 1
Introduction

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.

Purpose Statement

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?

Definition of Terms

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.

Delimitations

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.


CHAPTER 2
Review of Literature

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).

What Science Teachers Can Do

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.

Conclusions

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.


CHAPTER 3
Methodology

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.

Research

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.

Procedures

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.

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.

Opinionnaire

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.

Analysis

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.

Summary

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.


CHAPTER 4
Analysis of the Data

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."

Summary

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.


CHAPTER 5
Findings and Conclusions

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.

Findings

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.

Conclusions

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.


CHAPTER 6
Recommendations

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.

Final Recommendations

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.


APPENDIX A

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.


References

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.


Related Resources

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