Advertisement

Urban College Students Negotiate Their Identities to Dis/Connect with Notions of Physics

Chapter
  • 179 Downloads
Part of the Cultural Studies of Science Education book series (CSSE, volume 19)

Abstract

Using ethnographic methods gathered from an insider (the physics teacher) this chapter distills stories of students in physics labs that highlight the intersections of masculinity, femininity and racialized subjectivities. Data suggests that White, middle class, masculine subjectivities align closely with conventional physics identities. This alignment affords male students the confidence to define ‘what counts’ as physics in laboratory spaces.

References

  1. Brewe, E., Sawtelle, V., Kramer, L. H., Brien, G. E. O., Rodriguez, I., & Pamelá, P. (2010). Toward equity through participation in modeling instruction in introductory university physics. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 6(010106), 1–12.Google Scholar
  2. Butler, J. (1988). Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. Theatre Journal, 40(4), 519–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carlone, H. B. (2004). The cultural production of science in reform-based physics: Girls’ access, participation, and resistance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 392–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187–1218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Epstein, C. F. (1988). Deceptive distinctions: Sex, gender, and the social order. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Etkina, E., Van Heuvelen, A., White-Brahmia, S., Brookes, D. T., Gentile, M., Murthy, S., et al. (2006). Scientific abilities and their assessment. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 2(2), 020103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Geertz, C. (2008). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In The cultural geography reader (pp. 41–51). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Hestenes, D. (1987). Toward a modeling theory of physics instruction. American Journal of Physics, 55(5), 440–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hughes, G. (2001). Exploring the availability of student scientist identities within curriculum discourse: An anti-essentialist approach to gender-inclusive science. Gender and Education, 13(3), 275–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jones, M. G., Howe, A., & Rua, M. J. (2000). Gender differences in students’ experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education, 84(2), 180–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Karplus, R., & Brunschwig, F. (1969). Introductory physics. Captain’s Engineering Services.Google Scholar
  15. Kelly, A., & Sheppard, K. (2009). Secondary school physics availability in an urban setting: Issues related to academic achievement and course offerings. American Journal of Physics, 77(10), 902–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Knight, R., Jones, B., & Field, S. (2009). College physics: A strategic approach (2nd ed.). Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  17. Kost-Smith, L. E., Pollock, S. J., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2010). Gender disparities in second semester college physics: The incremental effects of a “smog of bias”. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 6(2), 020112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McDermott, L. C., & the Physics Education Group, University of Washington. (1995). Physics by inquiry. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  20. Pollock, S. J., Finkelstein, N. D., & Kost, L. E. (2007). Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom: How sufficient is interactive engagement? Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 3(010107), 1–4.Google Scholar
  21. Rosa, K., & Mensah, F. M. (2016). Educational pathways of Black women physicists: Stories of life. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(1), 020113–020115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Von Korff, J., Archibeque, B., Gomez, K. A., Heckendorf, T., McKagan, S. B., Sayre, E. C., Schenk, E. W., Shepherd, C., & Sorell, L. (2016). Secondary analysis of teaching methods in introductory physics: A 50k-student study. American Journal of Physics, 84(12), 969–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wood, L. A., & Kroger, R. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rutgers UniversityNewarkUSA
  2. 2.Teachers College, Columbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations