- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Inclusive teaching strategies are not widely used by male physics instructors

Md Sanyat Rabby1,* and Charles Henderson2,†

  • *Contact author: mdsanyat.rabby@wmich.edu
  • †Contact author: charles.henderson@wmich.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020102 – Published 11 July, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/96y2-cyf2

Abstract

Introductory physics is a gateway course that is required for many science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors. In introductory physics courses, women and racially minoritized students often have lower grades and higher attrition than white men. Inclusive teaching is widely recommended to ensure that all students have the opportunity to fully participate and succeed in the learning process. Thus, inclusive teaching practices may help increase the diversity of people in STEM majors and careers. However, these recommended inclusive teaching practices are not widely used in introductory physics courses. This study seeks to better understand the extent to which introductory college-level physics instructors use inclusive teaching strategies as well as their reasons for the use or nonuse of such practices. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 11 male instructors from a variety of higher education institutions in Michigan who taught introductory calculus-based physics courses in Spring 2022. The participants were asked to describe their use of and beliefs about 23 specific inclusive teaching strategies. Results show that few of these instructors are aware of the full range of inclusive teaching strategies. Most instructors are aware of inclusive teaching strategies that are related to active learning and frequently articulate valid reasons for implementing these strategies. However, when implementing inclusive teaching strategies, they often do not do so in ways that are known to be most effective. Instructors are less aware of and less willing to use inclusive teaching practices that require acknowledging differences in students’ identities. Their reasoning is that physics is an objective science that has nothing to do with race, gender, or other aspects of identity. Overall, this preliminary study suggests that significant work is needed to help introductory physics instructors understand, value, and implement the full range of inclusive teaching strategies.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (72)

  1. Y. Ma and Y. Liu, Race and STEM degree attainment, Sociol. Compass 9, 609 (2015).
  2. National Center for Education Statistics, Number, and percentage distribution of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees/certificates conferred by postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity, level of degree/certificate, and sex of student: Academic years 2011–12 through 2020–21 (Table 318.45) (U.S. Department of Education, 2022) [accessed November 29, 2024], https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d22/tables/dt22_318.45.asp.
  3. American Physical Society, Diversity in physics, https://www.aps.org/learning-center/statistics/diversity [accessed December 10, 2024].
  4. X. Chen, STEM attrition: College students’ paths into and out of STEM fields, Statistical Analysis Report No. NCES 2014-001, National Center for Education Statistics, 2013.
  5. E. Seymour, A. B. Hunter, and R. P. Harper, Talking About Leaving Revisited: Persistence, Relocation, and Loss in Undergraduate STEM Education (Springer, Cham, 2019).
  6. V. Sathy and K. A. Hogan, Want to reach all of your students? Here’s how to make your teaching more inclusive, in Chronicle of Higher Education (The Chronicle of Higher Education, Inc., Washington, DC, 2019), https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-to-make-your-teaching-more-inclusive/.
  7. B. Dewsbury and C. J. Brame, Inclusive teaching, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 18, fe2 (2019).
  8. J. Amayo, S. Heron, N. Spell, and H. Gooding, Twelve tips for inclusive teaching, MedEdPublish 10, 81 (2021).
  9. M. Molbaek, Inclusive teaching strategies–dimensions and agendas, Int. J. Inclusive Educ. 22, 1048 (2018).
  10. T. M. Addy, P. M. Reeves, D. Dube, and K. A. Mitchell, What really matters for instructors implementing equitable and inclusive teaching approaches, Improve Acad. 40, 1 (2021).
  11. O. Brussino, Building capacity for inclusive teaching: Policies and practices to prepare all teachers for diversity and inclusion, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 256, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1787/57fe6a38-en.
  12. K. D. Tanner, Structure matters: Twenty-one teaching strategies to promote student engagement and cultivate classroom equity, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 12, 322 (2013).
  13. K. Gannon, The case for inclusive teaching, in The Chronicle of Higher Education (The Chronicle of Higher Education, Inc., Washington, DC, 2018), p. 27, https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-case-for-inclusive-teaching/.
  14. K. T. Lindner, L. Nusser, K. Gehrer, and S. Schwab, Differentiation and grouping practices as a response to heterogeneity–teachers’ implementation of inclusive teaching approaches in regular, inclusive and special classrooms, Front. Psychol. 12, 676482 (2021).
  15. O. R. Aragón, J. F. Dovidio, and M. J. Graham, Colorblind and multicultural ideologies are associated with faculty adoption of inclusive teaching practices, J. Diversity Higher Educ. 10, 201 (2017).
  16. G. M. Walton and G. L. Cohen, A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 92, 82 (2007).
  17. G. M. Walton, G. L. Cohen, D. Cwir, and S. J. Spencer, Mere belonging: the power of social connections, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 102, 513 (2012).
  18. S. Freeman, S. L. Eddy, M. McDonough, M. K. Smith, N. Okoroafor, H. Jordt, and M. P. Wenderoth, Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 8410 (2014).
  19. E. J. Theobald, M. J. Hill, E. Tran, S. Agrawal, E. N. Arroyo, S. Behling, and S. Freeman, Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117, 6476 (2020).
  20. D. C. Haak, J. HilleRisLambers, E. Pitre, and S. Freeman, Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology, Science 332, 1213 (2011).
  21. S. Getty, N. Gosnell, B. Whitten, and J. Taylor, Supporting inclusive teaching in introductory college physics, Phys. Teach. 58, 312 (2020).
  22. K. M. Cooper, B. Haney, A. Krieg, and S. E. Brownell, What’s in a name? The importance of students perceiving that an instructor knows their names in a high-enrollment biology classroom, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 16, ar8 (2017).
  23. S. A. Karabenick, Seeking help in large college classes: A person-centered approach, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 28, 37 (2003).
  24. C. Henderson and M. H. Dancy, Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: The influence of both individual and situational characteristics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020102 (2007).
  25. M. A. Jackson and M. P. Wenderoth, A thematic analysis of interviews reveals how a STEM faculty development program supported the complexity of implementing evidence-based teaching, Improve Acad. 43 (2024).
  26. T. Russo-Tait, Color-blind or racially conscious? How college science faculty make sense of racial/ethnic underrepresentation in STEM, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 59, 1822 (2022).
  27. V. Braun and V. Clarke, Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qual. Res. Psychol. 3, 77 (2006).
  28. M. I. Alhojailan, Thematic analysis: A critical review of its process and evaluation, in WEI International European Academic Conference Proceedings, Zagreb, Croatia (West East Institute, Zagreb, Croatia, 2012), https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/THEMATIC-ANALYSIS%3A-A-CRITICAL-REVIEW-OF-ITS-PROCESS-Ibrahim/0c66700a0f4b4a0626f87a3692d4f34e599c4d0e.
  29. M. Maguire and B. Delahunt, Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars, All Ireland J. Higher Educ. 9, 3352 (2017), https://ojs.aishe.org/index.php/aishe-j/article/view/335.
  30. J. Caulfield, How to do thematic analysis step-by-step guide & examples, Scribbr, https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/thematic-analysis/ (2023) [accessed November 29, 2024].
  31. L. Ulriksen, L. M. Madsen, and H. T. Holmegaard, Why do students in stem higher education programmes drop/opt out?–explanations offered from research, in Understanding student participation and choice in science and technology education (Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2014), pp. 203–217.
  32. W. Cobern and B. Adams, When interviewing: How many is enough?, Int. J. Assess. Tools Educ. 7, 73 (2020).
  33. A. J. Onwuegbuzie and N. L. Leech, Validity and qualitative research: An oxymoron?, Qual. Quant. 41, 233 (2007).
  34. J. W. Creswell and V. L. P. Clark, Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (Sage Publications, 2017), https://collegepublishing.sagepub.com/products/designing-and-conducting-mixed-methods-research-3-241842?utm_source=chatgpt.com.
  35. G. Reischauer, Combining artefact analysis, interview and participant observation to study the organizational sensemaking of knowledge-based innovation, Hist. Soc. Res. 40, 279 (2015).
  36. C. Hofisi, M. Hofisi, and S. Mago, Critiquing interviewing as a data collection method, Mediterr. J. Soc. Sci. 5, 60 (2014), https://www.richtmann.org/journal/index.php/mjss/article/view/3280.
  37. C. Helba, A. M. Porter, S. Nicholson, and R. Ivie, Women among Physics and Astronomy Faculty (American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD, 2019).
  38. C. Henderson, M. Dancy, and M. Niewiadomska-Bugaj, Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process?, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020104 (2012).
  39. S. L. Hartman and M. S. Nelson, What we say and what we do: Self-reported teaching behavior versus performances in written simulations among medical school faculty, Acad. Med. 67, 522 (1992).
  40. S. M. Koziol, Jr. and P. Burns, Teachers’ accuracy in self-reporting about instructional practices using a focused self-report inventory, J. Educ. Res. 79, 205 (1986).
  41. H. M. Ernst, J. Wittwer, and T. Voss, Do they know what they know? Accuracy in teacher candidates’ self-assessments and its influencing factors, Br. Educ. Res. J. 49, 649 (2023).
  42. J. Kaufman and B. Junker, What drives alignment between teachers’ survey self-reports and classroom observations of standards-based mathematics instruction?, in Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness (Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, Evanston, IL, 2011), https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED528877.
  43. C. Henderson and M. H. Dancy, Impact of physics education research on the teaching of introductory quantitative physics in the United States, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020107 (2009).
  44. B. M. Dewsbury, Deep teaching in a college STEM classroom, Cult. Stud. Sci. Educ. 15, 169 (2020).
  45. C. Turpen, M. Dancy, and C. Henderson, Perceived affordances and constraints regarding instructors’ use of peer instruction: Implications for promoting instructional change, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010116 (2016).
  46. C. I. Petersen, P. Baepler, A. Beitz, P. Ching, K. S. Gorman, C. L. Neudauer, and D. Wingert, The tyranny of content: “Content coverage” as a barrier to evidence-based teaching approaches and ways to overcome it, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 19, ar17 (2020).
  47. R. J. McKee, Encouraging classroom discussion, J. Soc. Sci. Educ. 14, 66 (2015).
  48. H. I. Modell, Preparing students to participate in an active learning environment, Adv. Physiol. Educ. 270, S69 (1996).
  49. E. J. Dallimore, J. H. Hertenstein, and M. B. Platt, Classroom participation and discussion effectiveness: Student-generated strategies, Commun. Educ. 53 (2004).
  50. T. M. Makoelle, Teacher empathy: A prerequisite for an inclusive classroom, Encycl. Teach. Educ. 11, 27 (2019).
  51. C. A. Warren, Empathy, teacher dispositions, and preparation for culturally responsive pedagogy, J. Teach. Educ. 69, 169 (2018).
  52. C. A. Warren, Towards a pedagogy for the application of empathy in culturally diverse classrooms, Urban Rev. 46, 395 (2014).
  53. G. McAllister and J. J. Irvine, The role of empathy in teaching culturally diverse students: A qualitative study of teachers’ beliefs, J. Teach. Educ. 53, 433 (2002).
  54. S. Zumbrunn, C. McKim, E. Buhs, and L. R. Hawley, Support, belonging, motivation, and engagement in the college classroom: A mixed method study, Instr. Sci. 42, 661 (2014).
  55. G. M. Walton and G. L. Cohen, A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and health outcomes of minority students, Science 331, 1447 (2011).
  56. J. P. McKinney, K. G. McKinney, R. Franiuk, and J. Schweitzer, The college classroom as a community: Impact on student attitudes and learning, Coll. Teach. 54, 281 (2006).
  57. Y. Li and C. Singh, Sense of belonging is an important predictor of introductory physics students’ academic performance, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020137 (2023).
  58. S. Cwik and C. Singh, Students’ sense of belonging in introductory physics course for bioscience majors predicts their grade, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010139 (2022).
  59. R. A. Hirst, K. L. Anderson, B. W. L. Packard, L. J. Liotta, B. H. Bleakley, P. J. Lombardi, and K. C. Burkholder, Faculty learning at the individual and group level: A multi-year analysis of an interdisciplinary science faculty learning community focused on inclusive teaching and mentoring, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 50, 20 (2021).
  60. M. Blair-Loy and E. A. Cech, Misconceiving Merit: Paradoxes of Excellence and Devotion in Academic Science and Engineering (University of Chicago Press, 2022), https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo161019313.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com.
  61. EP3 Initiative, “Guide to equity, diversity, and inclusion,” Version 2021.1, in A Guide to Effective Practices for Physics Programs (EP3), edited by S. B. McKagan, D. A. Craig, M. Jackson, and T. Hodapp (American Physical Society, College Park, MD, 2021).
  62. M. Dancy and A. K. Hodari, How well-intentioned white male physicists maintain ignorance of inequity and justify inaction, Int. J. STEM Educ. 10, 45 (2023).
  63. L. M. Santana and C. Singh, Effects of male-dominated physics culture on undergraduate women, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020134 (2023).
  64. S. Traweek, Beamtimes and Lifetimes (Harvard University Press, 2009), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302882957_Beamtimes_and_Lifetimes_The_World_of_High_Energy_Physicists.
  65. L. McCullough, Gender in the physics classroom, Phys. Teach. 45, 316 (2007).
  66. T. B. McNair, E. M. Bensimon, and L. Malcom-Piqueux, From Equity Talk to Equity Walk: Expanding Practitioner Knowledge for Racial Justice in Higher Education (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2020).
  67. W. J. Jacob, W. Xiong, H. Ye, S. Wang, and X. Wang, Strategic best practices of flagship university professional development centers, Prof. Dev. Educ. 45, 801 (2019).
  68. M. E. Bathgate, O. R. Aragón, A. J. Cavanagh, J. Frederick, and M. J. Graham, Supports: A key factor in faculty implementation of evidence-based teaching, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 18, ar22 (2019).
  69. J. Fountain and K. E. Newcomer, Developing and sustaining effective faculty mentoring programs, J. Publ. Affairs Educ. 22, 483 (2016).
  70. R. A. Berk, J. Berg, R. Mortimer, B. Walton-Moss, and T. P. Yeo, Measuring the effectiveness of faculty mentoring relationships, Acad. Med. 80, 66 (2005).
  71. K. Haag, S. B. Pickett, G. Trujillo, and T. C. Andrews, Co-teaching in undergraduate STEM education: A lever for pedagogical change toward evidence-based teaching?, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 22, es1 (2023).
  72. C. Henderson, A. Beach, and M. Famiano, Promoting instructional change via co-teaching, Am. J. Phys. 77, 274 (2009).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020102– Published 11 July, 2025
  • Received 12 December 2024
  • Accepted 3 June 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation