Advertisement

Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 15, Issue 5–6, pp 331–343 | Cite as

How Partner Gender Influences Female Students’ Problem Solving in Physics Education

  • N. Ding
  • E. Harskamp
Article

Abstract

Research has shown that female students cannot profit as much as male students can from cooperative learning in physics, especially in mixed-gender dyads. This study has explored the influence of partner gender on female students’ learning achievement, interaction and the problem-solving process during cooperative learning. In Shanghai, a total of 50 students (26 females and 24 males), drawn from two classes of a high school, took part in the study. Students were randomly paired, and there were three research groups: mixed-gender dyads (MG), female–female dyads (FF) and male–male dyads (MM). Analysis of students’ pre- and post-test performances revealed that female students in the single-gender condition solved physics problems more effectively than did those in the mixed-gender condition, while the same was not the case for male students. We further explored the differences between female and male communication styles, and content among the three research groups. It showed that the females’ interaction content and problem-solving processes were more sensitive to partner gender than were those for males. This might explain why mixed-gender cooperation in physics disadvantages females in high schools.

Keywords

cooperative learning gender interaction problem solving physics education. 

References

  1. Bales R. F. (1950) Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of Small Groups, Reading, MA: Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  2. Bales R. F. (1999) Social Interaction Systems: Theory and Measurement, New Brunswick: TransactionGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbieri M. S., Light P. H. (1992) Interaction, gender, and performance on a computer-based problem solving task. Learning and Instruction 2: 199–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cohen E. (1994) Restructuring the classroom: Situations for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research 64(1): 1–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ding N., Xu Y. R. (2005) “Giving students hints”—An investigation of improving students’ problem-solving skills in high school science learning. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning 6(2)Google Scholar
  6. Erkens, G. (1998). Multiple Episode Protocol Analysis (MEPA 3.0), Internal publication. Department of Educational Sciences, Utrecht University, The Netherlands. Google Scholar
  7. Fetler M. (1985) Sex differences on the California statewide assessment of computer literacy. Sex Roles 13 (3/4): 181–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hogan D., Tudge J. (1999) Implications of Vygotsky’s theory for peer learning. In O’Donnell A., King A. (Eds.), Cognitive Perspectives on Peer Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  9. Howe C., Tolmie A., Greer K., Mackenzie M.(1995) Peer collaboration and conceptual growth in physics: Task influences on children’s understanding of heating and cooling. Cognition and Instruction 13(4): 483–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hyde J. S., Fennema E., Lamon. S. J. (1990) Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 107(2): 139–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johnson D. W., Johnson R. T. (1986) Computer-assisted cooperative learning. Educational Technology 26(1): 12–18Google Scholar
  12. Lakoff R. (1973) Language and woman’s place. Language in Society 2: 45–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lay M. M. (1992) The androgynous collaborator: The impact of gender studies on collaboration. In Forman J. (ed.), New Visions of Collaborative Writing, Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, pp. 82–104Google Scholar
  14. Lehtinen, E. (2003). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An approach to powerful learning environments. In Powerful Learning Environments: Unravelling Basic Components and Dimensions, Pergamon, pp. 35–53Google Scholar
  15. Li Q. (2002) Gender and computer-mediated communication: An exploration of elementary students’ mathematics and science learning. Journal of computers in mathematics and science teaching 21(4): 341–359Google Scholar
  16. Light P., Littleton K., Bale S., Joiner R., Messer D. (2000) Gender and social comparison effects in computer-based problem solving. Learning and Instruction 10: 483–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Margrett J. A., Marsiske M. (2002) Gender differences in older adults’ everyday cognitive collaboration. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 26(1): 45–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mercer N. (1996) the quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction 6: 359–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Orenstein P. (1994) School Females. Doubleday: NYGoogle Scholar
  20. Pol H., Harskamp E., Suhre C. (2005) The solving of physics problems: Computer assisted instruction. International Journal of Science Education 27: 451–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schoenfeld A. H. (1992) Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In Grouws D. A. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning. NY: Macmillan, pp. 334–367Google Scholar
  22. Schwartz D. L. (1995) The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. Journal of the Learning Sciences 4(3): 321–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sharan S., Shachar H. (1988) Language and learning in the cooperative classroom. New York: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  24. Sherin B. L. (2001) How students understand physics equations. Cognition and Instruction 19(4): 479–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Siann G., Macleod H. (1986) Computers and children of primary school age: issues and questions. British Journal of Educational Technology 17: 199–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Siann G., Durndell A., Macleod H., Glissov P. (1988) Stereotyping in relation to gender gap in participation in computing. Educational Research 30: 98–103Google Scholar
  27. Speck, B. W. (2003). Fostering collaboration among students in problem-based learning. In New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. p. 59, 95Google Scholar
  28. Sutherland L. (2002) Developing problem solving expertise: The impact of instruction in a question analysis strategy. Learning and Instruction 12: 155–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Teasley S. (1995) The role of talk in children’s peer collaboration. Developmental Psychology 3(2): 207–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Underwood G., Jindal N., Underwood J. D. M. (1994) Gender differences and effects of co-operation in a computer-based language task. Educational Research 36: 63–74Google Scholar
  31. Webb, N. M. (1984). Sex Differences in Interaction and Achievement in Cooperative Small Groups.Journal of Educational Psychology36(1): 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Behavioral and Social SciencesUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations