Hermione and the Secretary: How gendered task division in introductory physics labs can disrupt equitable learning
HHermione and the Secretary:How gendered task division in introductory physicslabs can disrupt equitable learning
Danny Doucette, Russell Clark, and Chandralekha Singh
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania 15260, USAE-mail: [email protected]
Abstract.
Physics labs provide a unique opportunity for students to grow their physics identityand science identity in general since they provide students with an opportunity totinker with experiments and analyze data in a low-stakes environment. However,it is important to ensure that all students are benefiting from the labs equally andhave a positive growth trajectory. Through interviews and reflexive ethnographicobservations, we identify and analyze two common modes of work that maydisadvantage female students in introductory physics labs. Students who adopt theSecretary archetype are relegated to recording and analyzing data, and thus maymiss out on much of the opportunity to grow their physics and science identitiesby engaging fully in the experimental work. Meanwhile, students in the Hermionearchetype shoulder a disproportionate amount of managerial work, and also may notget an adequate opportunity to engage with different aspects of the experimental workthat is essential for helping them develop their physics and science identities. Weuse a physics identity framework to investigate how students under these modes ofwork may experience stunted growth in their physics and science identity trajectoriesin their physics lab course. This stunted growth can then perpetuate and reinforcesocietal stereotypes and biases about who does physics. Our categorization not onlygives a vocabulary to discussions about equity in the physics lab, but may also serve asa useful touchstone for those who seek to center equity in efforts to transform physicsinstruction.
Keywords : physics education, labs, task division, equity, gender differences, identity a r X i v : . [ phy s i c s . e d - ph ] F e b ermione and the Secretary
1. Introduction
In lab, I’m usually in charge of writing down the data that we collect, and [mypartner] is usually the one doing the physical part.I think my partners weren’t always prepared for the labs, so it fell on me tounderstand and get the group to finish the lab... I need to be prepared to knowwhat’s going on, because they won’t.
Consider the above quotes from students describing their experiences inintroductory physics labs. Who do you imagine these students to be? How mightstudents’ genders affect the way they experience the traditional introductory physicslab? The introductory physics lab presents a unique and powerful opportunity forstudents to grow their physics and science identities. Identity in this sense is the ‘kindof person’ [1] students consider themselves – with respect to physics, or with respectto science generally – and we may understand the lab as contributing to their largerphysics or science identity trajectory. Well-designed labs can be particularly effectivefor identity growth because of their low-stakes nature, which allows students to ‘tinker’with the apparatus and develop a meaningful and relevant understanding of physics asan experimental science, and because lab-work can be collaborative and engaging forstudents.However, as physics lab instruction increasingly adopts pedagogical approachesthat include evidence-based active engagement strategies [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] andcollaborative learning [11, 12, 2, 5, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18], concerns have emerged thatthese types of learning environments might actually increase the ‘gender gap’ even asall students are learning more than they would in traditionally-taught courses [19]. Inparticular, if physics lab environments are not equitable and inclusive, social interactionsaround physics may allow for activation of stereotype threats [20] and the perpetuationor verbalization of stereotypes about who belongs in physics and who is capable ofsucceeding in physics [21]. Additionally, in such an environment, micro-aggressions,discrimination, and harassment [22] have the potential to stunt the physics and scienceidentity development of students from traditionally-disadvantaged groups if equity isnot placed at the center of the learning process in designing the learning environment.Likewise, research shows that due to lack of role models and societal stereotypesassociated with physics, women in college physics classes report lower levels of self-efficacy [23], are more susceptible to stereotype threats [20], are more often subjectto stereotypes related to their competence, and enroll as physics majors and graduatestudents at markedly lower rates [24] compared with their male peers. In introductorylabs, women average less expert-like responses on E-CLASS [25], an assessment ofstudent attitudes toward experimental physics, and may perform different roles whenengaging in lab-work with male peers [26, 27]. Research also shows that as theyprogress in their careers, female graduate students and scientists continue to experience ermione and the Secretary
Harry Potter [34] series who exemplifies therole in contemporary media), women tend to be thrust into the role of managing the ermione and the Secretary
2. Framework
We employ an identity framework to analyze how introductory physics lab learningenvironments affect the development of physics and science identities for female andmale students [35]. In this framework, physics identity pertains to whether studentssee themselves as a physics “kind of person” [1, 36]. We also acknowledge that astudent’s identity “is not predetermined and fixed” [35] and that one’s identity isdynamic and “always being shaped and impacted by one’s environment” [37]. Anidentity framework is ideally-suited to the analysis of students’ experiences in culturally-rich settings [38, 39] such as the introductory lab because identity framing focuses onand values the experiences of individual students, while avoiding the trap of deficitmodels that may be interpreted as inadequacies from differences between students. Inour case, we seek to understand whether the way that physics lab learning environmentsare designed ensure that all students develop a stronger identity as a physics or scienceperson.Three constructs are often discussed in connection with physics identity. Perceivedrecognition is the degree to which students feel recognized or valued by peers, TAs,instructors, and family as a physics person or a person who is good at physics. Researchsuggests both that recognition is the strongest influence on the development of physicsidentity, and that the average perceived recognition by the instructor/teaching assistantin physics courses is larger for men than for women [40]. Interest is a measure of astudent’s intrinsic valuation of their engagement with physics and enjoyment of thispursuit in a personally meaningful way [21]. Self-Efficacy (sometimes also referred to ascompetency belief) is a student’s belief in their ability to succeed in a certain situation,task, or domain [41, 42], and may be associated with long-term student persistence [23].The lower self-efficacy may partly be due to pervasive social and cultural stereotypesand biases and the paucity of positive encouragement and support endemic in the fieldof physics. All three of these factors – perceived recognition, interest, and self-efficacy –would, in general, contribute toward the development of a student’s identity as a physicsand science person [21, 43, 44].There are several ways in which the development of a student’s physics identityis important in the lab context. A student who develops a favorable and productiveidentity as a person who is good at physics is likely to engage, enjoy, and learn morein the lab [45], both during and after the course is finished. Low-stakes tinkering inthe physics lab can be an important part of developing interest and self-efficacy inexperimental physics and experimental science in general. A student’s physics identityis valuable beyond the scope of the introductory physics sequence, even for students who ermione and the Secretary
3. Methodology
In order to investigate the introductory physics lab experiences and interactionsof students who identify with different genders, we adopted a qualitative, mixed-methods approach that involved ethnographic classroom observations as well as semi-structured interviews with individual students. Both techniques are influenced bythe reflexive strand of ethnographic investigation, in which the observer is mindful oftheir own positioning and background while planning data collection, interacting with ermione and the Secretary
The participants in this investigation are students enrolled in a stand-alone introductoryphysics lab at a large research university in the USA. The course is a one-semesterintroductory lab, which requires the second half of a two-semester introductory physicscourse as a co-requisite. Two versions of this lab, corresponding to the algebra- andcalculus-based physics sequences, are offered. The algebra-based lab is often taken inthe third or fourth year of study, and the majority of students who enroll are bio-sciencemajors with an interest in health-related professions. Students in the calculus-based labare typically engineering or physical science majors, and are more likely to be in theirfirst or second year of study. While the algebra-based sequence is 55% female and 45%male, enrolment in the calculus-based sequence is 20% female and 80% male. Universityrecords at this time do not acknowledge non-binary gender identities.The labs are run by graduate student teaching assistants (TAs), who are alsoresponsible for most grading in this course. Enrolment is capped at 24 students perlab session. Students are graded for completion of their work and, aside from a post-lab exercise, partners receive the same grade. The introductory physics labs have areputation for being somewhat easier than other labs typically taken by students in thiscourse such as organic chemistry, introductory biology, or introductory chemistry lab.Students who attend all 12 lab sessions typically receive at least a ‘B’ grade, and mostreceive an ‘A’ grade.In both versions, students worked in groups of two (or three, if needed, e.g., ifthere is an odd number of students or some apparatus is broken so there are lessstations available) to complete a thorough and detailed lab procedure during a 3-hourperiod. Our observations suggest that students self-select into partnerships essentiallyat random, as they sit down at an open lab bench on their first lab session. Theexception is that a very small number of students partner-up before arriving in thelab: we generally see no significant differences in how these partnerships operate. Onceformed, groups tend to stay together unless the TA requires a re-shuffling (see Section6). Most students’ pseudonyms were chosen by study participants: they reflect theparticipant’s gender but not necessarily their racial or ethnic identity. ermione and the Secretary Table 1.
Participants in this study from the introductory physics lab, along with thepseudonyms of those quoted in this paper.Gender Female 13 (Leah, Elisa, Melanie, Bella, Natalie, Paulette, Zara, Liza, Janet, Kamala)Male 5 (Mark, Lou)Major Pre-Health Sciences 12 (Elisa, Melanie, Mark, Natalie, Zara, Liza, Janet, Kamala)Physical Sciences 5 (Leah, Lou, Paulette)Engineering 1 (Bella)Course Algebra-Based 12 (Mark, Elisa, Melanie, Natalie, Zara, Liza, Janet, Kamala)Calculus-Based 6 (Leah, Lou, Bella, Paulette)Total 18
The experiences that affect students’ identity trajectories can be subtle and hard toidentify. External observers, however, may be better-positioned to see how words,body positioning, and the manipulation of physical objects can contribute to student’sexperiences in the lab. We conducted observations many times over the course of thesemester. These observations targeted six introductory lab sections during each of thefall 2018 and spring 2019 semesters. Each of the twelve sections was run by a differentgraduate student TA, who was informed in advance of the observation and asked tobriefly introduce the observer at the start of the lab session. Observations lasted atleast 1 hour each, in order to develop a fuller understanding of the student interactionsthat were being observed. In total, more than 100 hours of such observations werecompleted.We took on the role of non-participant observers [51]. During our observationsessions, we sat on a side-bench of the laboratory and observed the students and TAwhile taking notes of what we saw and heard, as well as our reflections on what theymight mean. An informal observation protocol [51] was adopted, and iteratively refined,as we sought to understand factors that might affect students’ identity trajectories inthe lab. With practice, and after comparison of notes between observers, we came toidentify particular items of interest: comparing same-gender with mixed-gender groups,the work done by students in mixed-gender groups, and the nature of the students’discussions about their lab-work.In line with our reflexive approach to investigation, we sought to fulfill three goalsin how we positioned ourselves during our observations: acceptance, detachment, andreflexivity [50]. First, we aimed to position ourselves in such a way as to not influence thenormal behavior of the TA or students. Sitting at the side of the lab helped in this effort,but we also engaged in a small amount of discussion with a few students (offering briefadvice on the apparatus, asking Socratic questions about concepts, etc.) to establish theidea that we were friendly and unobtrusive. This was largely successful for the students,who were typically focused on their lab-work and ignored the observers. In follow-updiscussions, some of the observed TAs agreed that our presence did not noticeably affect ermione and the Secretary
Based on our classroom observations, we identified students whose perspectives andexperiences we thought would (a) provide a cross-section of the students who enrollin the lab classes, and (b) had experiences and perspectives that would be valuablefor us in understanding student interactions in the lab. These students were invitedto participate in hour-long interviews, for which they were compensated with a $25payment card. Roughly half of the students who were invited agreed to be interviewedand we conducted a total of 18 interviews at the end of the fall and spring semestersduring the 2018/19 academic year.Our reflexive ethnographic observations suggested differential gender effects withnegative impacts on women, so we aimed for an interview pool that included morewomen’s voices. Our decision was supported by the fact that only two of the five menwe interviewed were aware of these effects (perhaps experiencing a blindspot [52]) whileall of the women were able to describe at least one way in which men and womenexperienced the lab differently. In addition, we sought particularly to speak withstudents from mixed-gender partnerships, as these seemed to be the locus of genderedinequity of opportunities, based on the ethnographic observations. By comparison, weobserved that students who worked in same-gender groups tended to collaborate muchmore effectively and equitably. Of the 18 participants who agreed to participate ininterviews, 13 identified as female and 5 as male, and all but one described working ina mixed-gender group for at least part of the lab course (we note that most studentsin the lab course stayed with the same partner throughout and only a few occasionallyswitched). All 18 participants worked in groups that were stable over the course of the14-week semester.Drawing on our observations we assembled and refined a list of potential interviewquestions to serve as our interview protocol [51]. These included questions about thestudent’s background and prior lab experiences; interactions with other students andthe TA; thoughts on the structure, mechanisms, and effectiveness of the course; and ermione and the Secretary
4. Results and Discussion
Students in the physics lab have a wide variety of background experiences. Some havetaken AP Physics in high school, while others went to schools that didn’t offer it. Leah,a high-achieving chemistry major, described why she didn’t take physics in high school:
I had never had physics in high school at all. My school pushed for biology andchemistry for girls, and physics for guys... So when I came here I had no clueabout anything about physics... I was clueless in a sense about physics. PhysicsI and II, the calculus-based ones, were [a] little fast for me but a good speed foreveryone [else]. The physics lab seemed a lot slower paced, so it was really goodfor me but it was kind of boring for other people that were very, very, very good atphysics...
Leah’s high school experiences established a clear picture of who can be a physicsperson, so it is unsurprising that she expressed a low level of physics self-efficacy anddid not see herself as a person who can be good at physics. Furthermore, her priorpreparation meant that when she got to college, Leah had little confidence in her abilityto do physics. Her low self-efficacy is clear when she compared herself with peers,whom she perceived to be mastering physics concepts much more quickly than she was.However, Leah acknowledged that when she compared her grades with those of hermore-confident classmates, she saw that she was doing just as well as them.
There would be times when I would feel like I am not good at physics, I am notgood at it. But we would get tests back... I was very comparable to them, but I stillfelt like, ‘Oh, it’s not my thing, I’m not very good at it.’ But here I am, and theythink they are very good at it and I’m doing just as well as them.
While Leah was certainly doing well in class, her physics identity was stagnantbecause her low self-efficacy prevented her from internalizing the idea that she wasdeveloping mastery of physics concepts. Even though Leah was telling her (male)peers that they were “very good at physics”, no-one was communicating that type ofmessage to her or recognizing her success. This conflict is typical for women enrolled inintroductory physics and even though men and women perform equally in introductoryphysics at the institution where this study was carried out, men report substantially ermione and the Secretary
I’ve taken apart a lot of things. I’ve done work with Arduinos, kind of, buildingmy own circuits... [My father is] a chemical engineer, so I always had somethingI could work with when I would take things apart, until I bought my own things...some of [the Arduino work] I had done with my research experience outside ofschool, having to design some things, measuring bacteria and things like that. Oneof them, I did this summer program where we build a little thing to switch LEDsoff and on, and also to measure absorbance inside cultures.
Mark’s prior experience led him to adopt the role of the Tinkerer in his labgroup. He recognized that this meant an unequal division of labor in his group. Whenasked explicitly about why male students sometimes took over the apparatus in theintroductory lab, and what could be done about it, Mark replied:
I would say maybe some of the labs that had a more technical set-up, I would domore of that. And then while I was setting that up, she would be waiting... I’musually in front of the machine so I’m usually handling that while she’s inputtingall the data. And that’s maybe something to think about, maybe changing the roles.
We see here an example of masculine lab behavior being replicated along genderlines [28], to the benefit of Mark at the expense of his partner, Elisa. Furthermore,Mark attempted to blame his dominance of the apparatus on his seating location. Wefound this attribution by male students when questioned to be common, but spurious,as we observed most students alternate locations readily as they do their lab work.Elisa agreed with Mark’s description of the unequal task division in theirpartnership, but speculated he must have taken advanced physics classes to havesuch a high self-efficacy with the lab apparatus (in fact, he had neither taken highschool physics, nor had he taken any physics classes she had not). Here, again, noticehow asymmetric engagement with the lab-work only provided opportunities to Mark,potentially bolstering his physics identity development while hindering Elisa’s. Byassuming that he must have taken advanced classes and allowing him to do the tinkering,Elisa appears to recognize Mark’s practical skills and self-confidence. This is a messagethat may have bolstered his self-efficacy, even though he hadn’t actually taken suchclasses.On the other hand, Elisa was doing the other work: she didn’t get to developexpertise with experimental techniques in a low-stakes environment, didn’t get ermione and the Secretary
He liked to do a lot of the setting-up and he knew what was going on, more thanI did. I felt like we both tried to split [it] up, so it wasn’t one person doing all thework. I like to do the data entry and stuff, so often I would do that.
This division of work into Tinkerer and Secretary roles was a theme we saw repeatedfrequently, in both algebra- and calculus-based labs, when students worked in mixed-gender groups. In most cases, the Tinkerer tended to be male, and the Secretary tendedto be female. When the Secretary-Tinkerer split happened, as with Elisa and Mark,students typically thought of it as a fair division of labor. Melanie, a biology major,described how she and her partner split the work:
In lab, I’m usually in charge of writing down the data that we collect, and he’susually the one doing the physical part.
While the Secretary-Tinkerer task division looks fair on its surface, there are two bigreasons why it can be a deleterious approach to work. First, this division can reinforcea power imbalance in team-work that deprives the Secretary of the opportunity to be ascientific investigator. Lou, the partner of Leah (above) and a fellow chemistry major,described a moment when he interfered with his partner’s attempts to contribute tobuilding a complex circuit:
Sometimes I get a little carried away with getting things to work. If Leah wouldcome over and try to change things, I’d be like, “I’ve almost got it.” That’s justmy personality.
Leah described the same type of interaction in her interview. Traditional genderroles were being enacted here: the man as authoritative, and the woman as responsive.However, Leah wanted to do her fair share of the tinkering and recognized the inequalityin their division of the work. The following situation was a rare case of the Secretarybeing willing to speak up and risk conflict, and may be seen as arising from a mismatchbetween Leah’s relatively high level of initiative as a learner and the expectation thatSecretaries have a more passive role.
In the circuits labs, he kind of took over the experiment... the next week, I waskind of like, “okay, give me that wire.” I tried to do more of the trying to plug inand see what’s going on.
The second reason the Secretary-Tinkerer split is deleterious is that it deprivesboth members of practice with the other type of working. Since the physics lab isoften the only place students learn to do hands-on experimental physics, the Secretary ermione and the Secretary
It’s mainly the guys who are building the labs. And the women are mainly having tofigure out the software and the calculations... I don’t know, maybe it’s a perceptionthat men are better at things that require the use of hands?
When asked whether the gender split deprived women of opportunities to learn,Bella explained that she felt under-prepared for a mid-term practical assessment in herengineering lab:
Definitely! It definitely does. On the practicum, I remember thinking, ‘Dang, mypartner always did this part of the lab.’
Although most of the interview participants discussed short-term impacts, theSecretary-Tinkerer split can also have long-term negative consequences. In particular,this inequitable task division deprives women of the opportunity to tinker in a low-stakesenvironment, which is necessary for developing one’s physics and science identity as aperson who can handle the equipment and experiment.
While the Secretary-Tinkerer mode of work deprives female students of the opportunityto tinker with apparatus, which is a critical part of the lab and essential for identitydevelopment as a physics or science person, we observe a very different effect in asecond mode of work that is equally salient. In this case, a student, typically female,ends up shouldering a disproportionate amount of the work and compensating for theshortcomings of their partner(s). Such students take on the responsibility of ensuringthe work gets done when their partners fall short, but are more than just a projectmanager. In the physics lab, Bella described working with two partners and asking oneof them a question, only for him to turn the question back on her because he hadn’tprepared for the lab and did not want to think about it.
I feel like I did a lot of the thinking for the group... [When I asked him a question]he would be like, what do you think?
Typically, students who adopt this Hermione archetype see it as necessary in orderto complete their lab-work because their partner, the Slacker, appears to be uninterested.Like the Secretary-Tinkerer split, the Hermione-Slacker task division is one that seemsto strengthen as partners work together for more than one lab session, as the partnersrecognize that the other person would be willing to pick up the slack.The Hermione-Slacker mode of work seems to be especially prevalent in groups ofthree students, although we also observe it in pairs. It may partly be that the student(s) ermione and the Secretary
I like being on a team... Seeing that he puts in as much effort as I put in... BecauseI don’t see that effort coming from him, I’ve had to step up to make up for thateffort so we get it done with.
The lack of engagement or initiative from Natalie’s partner, however, went beyondmerely not contributing. She described how her partner’s disinclination to participateled to her skipping a portion of the lab report that was not explicitly graded:
In the beginning of the semester, I would try to do the analysis questions justbecause I wanted to understand it more, and he was like, we don’t have to do this,there’s no reason to doing this. So I kind of gave up on that portion.
As a result of this partnership, Natalie’s opportunity to grow her expertise andinterest in physics was stymied, and in the rest of the interview it was evident thatsubscribing to her partner’s lackadaisical approach to doing the lab just to get a grademay have negatively impacted her physics and science identity development.Despite being a physics major, Paulette’s male partner seemed to have little interestin completing the lab, let alone contributing equally to the mental and physical laborrequired to complete the work. This put her in the awkward position of needing torepeatedly ask him to contribute to work for which he was receiving a grade and, perhapsworse, forced Paulette into a traditional – almost maternal – role, depriving her of theopportunity to dig deeper and develop her self-efficacy as a subject-matter expert.
Well, my partner’s a little lazy... Sometimes he’s on his phone and stuff, and I’mjust like, ‘get off your phone.’ He helps when I ask. I’ll be like, ‘hey, can you dothis?’ But he doesn’t really start doing stuff himself most of the time. I’m like,‘I’m not your mom.’
As time went on, Paulette explained, he took increasingly-long and increasingly-frequent breaks from the lab, and contributed less and less to the lab-work they shouldhave been sharing equally. She described asking him to help, but he was so detachedfrom the entire task that he would not even know where they were in the lab procedureor what needed to be done.We observed Hermiones taking on a variety of tasks, including preparing for labwhen their partners did not, managing the work-flow, assigning small tasks to theirpartners and monitoring their progress, communicating with the lab TA and othergroups, and ensuring the data collection was complete before leaving the lab room. Wealso saw Hermiones take on the labor of reconciling different and sometimes conflictinginstructions, methods, and conceptual ideas. It added up to a lot of commitment andeffort, and so frustration with a partner’s lack of preparation is a common theme forstudents such as Zara in this role. Here, she described what it was like when her partners ermione and the Secretary
There was one lab where, working with circuits... that was very difficult for me.Maybe it’s just because during the week I didn’t have a very good week or something.I really struggled understanding it. I think my partners weren’t always prepared forthe labs, so it fell on me to understand and get the group to finish the lab... I needto be prepared to know what’s going on, because they won’t.
Despite the disproportional amount of time and effort she invested into the lab,Zara either didn’t receive or didn’t internalize recognition from her peers. When askedif she was the expert in her group, she laughed and said:
I definitely would not call myself an expert. Maybe I read the lab manual more?
According to the identity framework, perceived recognition should stimulatedevelopment of Zara’s physics identity. However, because her lab participation wasmanagerial, rather than focused on the physics or hands-on parts of the lab work, therecognition she received from her partner was – in her view – related to the projectmanagement, rather than mastery of physics concepts and skills. Moreover, it appearedthat Zara wasn’t internalizing the little recognition she did receive from her peers, andso she appears to have experienced little identity development as a physics person.Like Zara, Liza described her Hermione role in a way that situated her as doingnecessary work to accommodate an unprepared peer:
He didn’t read the manual every week, a lot of the time it was me telling him whatto do... do this, do this, and it would be me doing the note-taking... I felt like Iwas controlling from that position.
The Hermione archetype can disadvantage students who adopt it in part becausethey do the majority of the work while receiving the same learning experience and/orgrade. Even worse, the managerial work they do takes them away from the tinkeringand sense-making activities that could help them to develop their identities as physicsand science people. Janet described spending a large portion of her time mediatingbetween her partner and the TA, asking questions to the TA about things she alreadyunderstood, in order to appease her partner after he hadn’t bothered with the pre-labreading and expressed doubts about her explanations of the tasks they needed to do.
It’s like, you’re wasting my time because you’re unprepared. Well, now I’m notable to learn as well because I’m spending so much time asking [his] questions [tothe TA] that I don’t really need to ask, because I know what’s going on. It’s wastingmy time...
Since Hermione-role students are typically situated as the hard-working one in theirpartnerships, these students tend to attribute their successes to their exertions ratherthan their physics competence, which could again shortchange their physics and science ermione and the Secretary
He’s very good at equipment, so even if he doesn’t necessarily read the lab, he’s justone of those people that has very good problem-solving skills when there’s hands-onthings.
On the other hand, when it came to her own expertise, she rebuffed credit from herpartners, interpreting what they say as not genuine, saying:
They have an impression that I’m just better at physics than they are. Or I’m justsmarter at this stuff than they are. Which isn’t necessarily true. It just comesdown to... are you willing to push the group forward in terms of knowing what thenext thing to do is?
In effect, then, Kamala praised her partner for practical work, which he did becauseof his confidence with the equipment but without reading the lab manual, while sheappears to have internalized no recognition for her mastery of the physics concepts orexperimental procedures. In part, this was because she felt she was essentially managingthe lab work for her group in order to make sure it got done. This is a common themein these interviews: women displayed lower self-efficacy than men, and were more likelyto attribute their success to external factors such as hard work rather than to their owndeveloping mastery of experimental physics. By focusing on managerial work, womenwho adopted the Hermione archetype received recognition that was either not relevantto their physics and science identities or that was interpreted as not being genuine. Theyconsequently appear to have experienced physics and science identity growth that wasstunted in comparison with their peers in same-gender groups, or in comparison withthe men in the class who adopted Tinkerer roles.
5. General Discussion
While the Secretary-Tinkerer mode of work has been documented before in research onSTEM education [54, 55, 56], here we introduce the Hermione-Slacker mode for the firsttime. We believe that this taxonomy will help educators conceptualize and reflect on theways in which students may be disadvantaged by gendered modes of work in the physicslab and other places in which students are doing science together. These archetypesare both salient and ubiquitous in mixed-gender groups, especially when compared withsame-gender groups.Applying the identity framework, we find that both Secretary and Hermionearchetypes can act to stunt the development of physics and science identity for women ermione and the Secretary ermione and the Secretary Figure 1.
A proposed model to account for how female and male students settle intoadopted gendered modes of work in mixed-gender groups. our observations that were corroborated by interviews. In this model, a student’sinitiative - their willingness to do work - in the lab is plotted horizontally, while thevertical axis shows a student’s gender. Fig. 1a shows the typical dynamics we observewhen a woman with lower initiative begins to work with a high-initiative man: he tendsincreasingly to take over the experiment, adopting the Tinkerer role, and she tends moretoward the Secretary role. Similarly, Fig. 1b shows what we typically observe when ahigh-initiative woman begins to work with a low-initiative man: she adopts a Hermionerole, and he becomes a Slacker. We observe this type of dynamics that drives this taskdivision throughout the lab period, but they are especially pronounced during the firsthour that a pair of students is beginning to work together.Our observations suggest that unlike in mixed-gender groups, the symmetrybreaking and “phase separation” into different roles generally does not seem to occur insame-gender groups. In fact, in our observations, the general contrast between themixed-gender and same-gender groups in this regard was striking. As depicted inFig. 1c and Fig. 1d, typically, two students of the same gender who work together- regardless of their initial differences in initiative - tend to achieve an equilibrium,adopting similar types and amounts of work. In these same-gender partnerships, thereis little psychological distance [57] (a measure of the similarity between two people basedon their characteristics, their behaviors, and the social groups to which they identify)between the partners. This may be a relevant factor in determining whether two studentswill collaborate effectively.We also noticed, in our observations, a few cases of mixed-gender groups thatbegan the lab period with comparable initiative. This was the case for Leah and Lou, ermione and the Secretary
6. Implications for Practice
A key question is how to address these inequitable modes of task division. Below, wedescribe five approaches we have started to implement in our labs, which appear to bepromising. In our observations, these approaches seem to be beneficial for students fromall four archetypes identified above. Just like Secretaries and Hermiones, Tinkerers andSlackers benefit from increased accountability (including grade incentives), more clearlydefined responsibilities, and opportunities to renegotiate their role in group work.First, regularly changing group composition may help to reduce some types ofinequities in group-work [18]. When students work together over several weeks, we seethat their adoption of inequitable modes of work (including task division) becomessolidified over time. In labs that changed groups mid-semester, our observationssuggested more-equitable work in the second half of the semester compared with thefirst half of the semester.A second, often-recommended, approach is to assign (and rotate) roles within ermione and the Secretary ermione and the Secretary
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank the anonymous students who served as our research partners fortheir time and insight; Natasha Holmes, Kathy Harper and Bob Devaty for insightfuldiscussions; and the NSF for grant PHY-1524575.
References [1] Gee J P 2000 Identity as an analytic lens for research in education
Rev. Res. Educ. Eur. J. Phys. Eur. J. Phys. Eur. J. Phys. Eur. J. Phys. Phys. Educ Eur. J. Phys. S61–S69[8] Sokoloff D R, Laws P W and Thornton R K 2007 RealTime Physics: Active learning labstransforming the introductory laboratory
Eur. J. Phys. [9] Koenig K, Wood K E, Bortner L J and Bao L 2019 Modifying traditional labs to target scientificreasoning J. of Coll. Sci. Teach. AAPT Recommendations for the Undergraduate PhysicsLaboratory Curriculum (AAPT) ermione and the Secretary [11] Sharma M D, Mendez A, Sefton I M and Khachan J 2014 Student evaluation of research projectsin a first-year physics laboratory Eur. J. Phys. Eur. J. Phys. Eur. J. Phys. Proceedings of the ESERA 2011Conference ed Bruguire C, Tiberghien A and Clment P (Lyon)[15] Johnson D W, Johnson R T and Smith K A 2014 Cooperative learning: Improving universityinstruction by basing practice on validated theory
Journal on Excellence in University Teaching Am. J. Phys. AIP Conference Proceedings vol 1064 (AIP) pp 95–98[18] Heller P and Heller K 2001
Cooperative Group Problem Solving in Physics (Brooks/Cole PublishingCompany)[19] Karim N I, Maries A and Singh C 2018 Do evidence-based active-engagement courses reduce thegender gap in introductory physics?
Eur. J. Phys. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. J. Res. Sci. Teach. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. (1)010121[23] Marshman E M, Kalender Z Y, Nokes-Malach T, Schunn C and Singh C 2018 Female studentswith A’s have similar physics self-efficacy as male students with C’s in introductory courses: Acause for alarm? Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. Physicsin Canada, Special Issue on Physics Education Research Physics Education Research Conference 2018 (Washington, DC)[28] Gonsalves A J, Danielsson A and Pettersson H 2016 Masculinities and experimental practices inphysics: The view from three case studies
Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. Gend. Educ. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. Gend. Soc. Signs Signs ermione and the Secretary [34] Freier M P 2014 The librarian in rowlings harry potter series CLCWeb: Comparative Literatureand Culture J. Res. Sci. Teach. J. Marriage Fam. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ.Res. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. Journal of Belonging,Identity, Language, and Diversity Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. (2) 020119[41] Bandura A 1991 Social cognitive theory of self-regulation Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process Am. Psychol J. Eng. Educ.
Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. (2) 020148[45] Dounas-Frazer D R, Stanley J T and Lewandowski H J 2017 Student ownership of projects in anupper-division optics laboratory course: A multiple case study of successful experiences Phys.Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. (2) 020136[46] Schwartzstein R M, Rosenfeld G C, Hilborn R, Oyewole S H and Mitchell K 2013 Redesigning theMCAT exam: Balancing multiple perspectives Acad. Med. Am. J. Phys. vol 2 (IEEE)[49] Day J, Stang J B, Holmes N G, Kumar D and Bonn D A 2016 Gender gaps and gendered actionin a first-year physics laboratory Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. (2) 020104[50] Buscatto M 1997 Practising reflexivity in ethnography Qualitative Research ed Silverman D (Sage)chap 9, pp 137–151[51] Otero V K and Harlow D B 2009 Getting started in qualitative physics education research
Reviewsin PER Vol Blindspot: Hidden biases of good people (Bantam)[53] Whitcomb K M, Kalender Z Y, Nokes-Malach T J, Schunn C and Singh C 2019 Inconsistentgender differences in self-efficacy and performance for engineering majors in physics and otherdisciplines: A cause for alarm?
Physics Education Research Conference 2019
PER Conference(Provo, UT)[54] Barthelemy R S, McCormick M and Henderson C 2016 Gender discrimination in physics andastronomy: Graduate student experiences of sexism and gender microaggressions
Phys. Rev.Phys. Educ. Res. IEEETrans. Prof. Commun. ermione and the Secretary latina and white women (IEEE)[57] Trope Y and Liberman N 2010 Construal-level theory of psychological distance Psychol. Rev.
Am. J. Phys. Psychol. Sci. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. (2) 020109[61] Wilcox M, Yang Y and Chini J J 2016 Quicker method for assessing influences on teaching assistantbuy-in and practices in reformed courses Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. (2) 020123[62] Doucette D, Clark R and Singh C to be published All aboard! Challenges and successes in traininglab TAs(2) 020123[62] Doucette D, Clark R and Singh C to be published All aboard! Challenges and successes in traininglab TAs