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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bales R. F. (1950) Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of Small Groups, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Bales R. F. (1999) Social Interaction Systems: Theory and Measurement, New Brunswick: Transaction
Barbieri M. S., Light P. H. (1992) Interaction, gender, and performance on a computer-based problem solving task. Learning and Instruction 2: 199–213
Cohen E. (1994) Restructuring the classroom: Situations for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research 64(1): 1–35
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)
Erkens, G. (1998). Multiple Episode Protocol Analysis (MEPA 3.0), Internal publication. Department of Educational Sciences, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.
Fetler M. (1985) Sex differences on the California statewide assessment of computer literacy. Sex Roles 13 (3/4): 181–191
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 Associates
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): 483–503
Hyde J. S., Fennema E., Lamon. S. J. (1990) Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 107(2): 139–155
Johnson D. W., Johnson R. T. (1986) Computer-assisted cooperative learning. Educational Technology 26(1): 12–18
Lakoff R. (1973) Language and woman’s place. Language in Society 2: 45–80
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. 82–104
Lehtinen, E. (2003). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An approach to powerful learning environments. In Powerful Learning Environments: Unravelling Basic Components and Dimensions, Pergamon, pp. 35–53
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): 341–359
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: 483–496
Margrett J. A., Marsiske M. (2002) Gender differences in older adults’ everyday cognitive collaboration. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 26(1): 45–59
Mercer N. (1996) the quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction 6: 359–377
Orenstein P. (1994) School Females. Doubleday: NY
Pol H., Harskamp E., Suhre C. (2005) The solving of physics problems: Computer assisted instruction. International Journal of Science Education 27: 451–469
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. 334–367
Schwartz D. L. (1995) The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. Journal of the Learning Sciences 4(3): 321–354
Sharan S., Shachar H. (1988) Language and learning in the cooperative classroom. New York: Springer
Sherin B. L. (2001) How students understand physics equations. Cognition and Instruction 19(4): 479–541
Siann G., Macleod H. (1986) Computers and children of primary school age: issues and questions. British Journal of Educational Technology 17: 199–44
Siann G., Durndell A., Macleod H., Glissov P. (1988) Stereotyping in relation to gender gap in participation in computing. Educational Research 30: 98–103
Speck, B. W. (2003). Fostering collaboration among students in problem-based learning. In New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. p. 59, 95
Sutherland L. (2002) Developing problem solving expertise: The impact of instruction in a question analysis strategy. Learning and Instruction 12: 155–187
Teasley S. (1995) The role of talk in children’s peer collaboration. Developmental Psychology 3(2): 207–220
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: 63–74
Webb, N. M. (1984). Sex Differences in Interaction and Achievement in Cooperative Small Groups.Journal of Educational Psychology36(1): 33–44.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ding, N., Harskamp, E. How Partner Gender Influences Female Students’ Problem Solving in Physics Education. J Sci Educ Technol 15, 331–343 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-9021-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-9021-7