Exploring gender differences in the Force Concept Inventory using a random effects meta-analysis of international studies

IF 2.6 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Purwoko Haryadi Santoso, Bayu Setiaji, Wahyudi, Johan Syahbrudin, Syamsul Bahri, Fathurrahman, A. Suci Rizky Ananda, Yusuf Sodhiqin
{"title":"Exploring gender differences in the Force Concept Inventory using a random effects meta-analysis of international studies","authors":"Purwoko Haryadi Santoso, Bayu Setiaji, Wahyudi, Johan Syahbrudin, Syamsul Bahri, Fathurrahman, A. Suci Rizky Ananda, Yusuf Sodhiqin","doi":"10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010601","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Force Concept Inventory (FCI) is one of the research-based assessments established by the physics education research community to measure students’ understanding of Newtonian mechanics. Former works have often recorded the notion of gendered mean FCI scores favoring male students notably in the North American (NA) based studies. Nevertheless, these performance gaps remain inconclusive and unexplored outside the NA context. This paper aims to fill this gap by meta-analyzing the mean FCI scores between gender based on the existing physics education research literature internationally. We analyzed the magnitude and direction on the mean FCI scores between gender based on primary international studies published over the last two decades. We also explored the moderating impact of international study characteristics on the meta-analytic findings by performing a subgroup analysis to study the different study regions stratified by two subgroups (NA vs non-NA authors). Thirty-eight studies reporting the mean FCI scores by gender were included in the present meta-analysis. We employed Hedges’ <math display=\"inline\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\"><mi>g</mi></math> statistic to estimate to what degree the mean FCI scores may be different between male and female students on each study. Under a random effects model, we meta-analyzed the findings and conducted a subgroup analysis to answer the research questions. In summary, our meta-analysis indicated a significantly positive and moderate amount of gendered mean FCI scores in favor of male students both in NA- and non-NA based regions, and the performance gaps were wider in the NA-based studies. Suggestions are discussed while interpreting the mean FCI scores between gender for teaching, learning, and forthcoming studies.","PeriodicalId":54296,"journal":{"name":"Physical Review Physics Education Research","volume":"47 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physical Review Physics Education Research","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010601","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Force Concept Inventory (FCI) is one of the research-based assessments established by the physics education research community to measure students’ understanding of Newtonian mechanics. Former works have often recorded the notion of gendered mean FCI scores favoring male students notably in the North American (NA) based studies. Nevertheless, these performance gaps remain inconclusive and unexplored outside the NA context. This paper aims to fill this gap by meta-analyzing the mean FCI scores between gender based on the existing physics education research literature internationally. We analyzed the magnitude and direction on the mean FCI scores between gender based on primary international studies published over the last two decades. We also explored the moderating impact of international study characteristics on the meta-analytic findings by performing a subgroup analysis to study the different study regions stratified by two subgroups (NA vs non-NA authors). Thirty-eight studies reporting the mean FCI scores by gender were included in the present meta-analysis. We employed Hedges’ g statistic to estimate to what degree the mean FCI scores may be different between male and female students on each study. Under a random effects model, we meta-analyzed the findings and conducted a subgroup analysis to answer the research questions. In summary, our meta-analysis indicated a significantly positive and moderate amount of gendered mean FCI scores in favor of male students both in NA- and non-NA based regions, and the performance gaps were wider in the NA-based studies. Suggestions are discussed while interpreting the mean FCI scores between gender for teaching, learning, and forthcoming studies.

Abstract Image

利用随机效应荟萃分析国际研究,探索 "力量概念量表 "中的性别差异
力概念量表(FCI)是物理教育研究界为测量学生对牛顿力学的理解而建立的基于研究的评估之一。在以往的研究中,FCI 的平均分往往存在性别差异,尤其是在北美的研究中,男性学生的得分更高。然而,在北美以外的地区,这些成绩差距仍然没有定论,也未被探索。本文旨在根据国际上现有的物理教育研究文献,对性别间的 FCI 平均分进行元分析,以填补这一空白。我们基于过去二十年发表的主要国际研究,分析了性别间 FCI 平均得分的大小和方向。我们还通过亚组分析(NA 作者与非 NA 作者)对不同研究地区进行了分层,探讨了国际研究特征对元分析结果的调节作用。本荟萃分析共纳入了 38 项报告了不同性别 FCI 平均得分的研究。我们采用 Hedges'g 统计量来估算每项研究中男女学生的 FCI 平均分的差异程度。在随机效应模型下,我们对研究结果进行了元分析,并进行了分组分析,以回答研究问题。总之,我们的元分析结果表明,在基于 NA 和非 NA 的研究中,男生的 FCI 平均分明显偏向于正值和中等水平,而在基于 NA 的研究中,男生和女生的成绩差距更大。在解释性别间的平均 FCI 分数时,我们讨论了对教学、学习和未来研究的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Physical Review Physics Education Research
Physical Review Physics Education Research Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
41.90%
发文量
84
审稿时长
32 weeks
期刊介绍: PRPER covers all educational levels, from elementary through graduate education. All topics in experimental and theoretical physics education research are accepted, including, but not limited to: Educational policy Instructional strategies, and materials development Research methodology Epistemology, attitudes, and beliefs Learning environment Scientific reasoning and problem solving Diversity and inclusion Learning theory Student participation Faculty and teacher professional development
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信