- 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

Structuring groups for gender equitable equipment usage in labs

Matthew Dew, Emily M. Stump, and N. G. Holmes*

  • Laboratory of Atomic and Solid State Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA

  • *Contact author: ngholmes@cornell.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010162 – Published 27 June, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/yyml-sr6q

Abstract

Previous research has found gender inequitable equipment usage across various lab course contexts. Few studies, however, have tested possible remediation strategies. In this work, we use hierarchical linear modeling to compare men and women’s lab equipment usage in two group work structures across three course contexts. In one in-person course, students formed their own groups in class and rotated into new groups every unit. In the other two courses, one in person and one remote, students were assigned groups formed by the instructor and worked with the same group all semester. In line with former studies, we found gender inequitable equipment usage in the course with in-class formed, rotated groups. We did not observe gender inequitable equipment usage, however, in the course with instructor-assigned, fixed groups. Analyzing equipment usage across the semester within each course, our results suggest that this improvement comes from a combination of both instructor-assigned groups and keeping groups fixed for the semester. Our findings present many opportunities for subsequent controlled studies to probe these practices.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (37)

  1. J. Kozminski, N. Beverly, D. Deardorff, R. Dietz, M. Eblen-Zayas, R. Hobbs, H. Lewandowski, S. Lindaas, A. Reagan, R. Tagg, J. Williams, and B. Zwickl, AAPT recommendations for the undergraduate physics laboratory curriculum, AAPT Technical Report, 2014, https://www.aapt.org/resources/upload/labguidlinesdocument_ebendorsed_nov10.pdf.
  2. N. G. Holmes, G. Heath, K. Hubenig, S. Jeon, Z. Y. Kalender, E. Stump, and E. C. Sayre, Evaluating the role of student preference in physics lab group equity, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010106 (2022).
  3. D. Doucette and C. Singh, Making lab group work equitable and inclusive, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 52, 31 (2023).
  4. P. W. Laws, P. J. Rosborough, and F. J. Poodry, Women’s responses to an activity-based introductory physics program, Am. J. Phys. 67, S32 (1999).
  5. M. Dew, A. Phillips, S. Karunwi, A. Baksh, E. M. Stump, and N. G. Holmes, So unfair it’s fair: Equipment handling in remote versus in-person introductory physics labs, presented at PER Conf. 2022, Grand Rapids, MI, 10.1119/perc.2022.pr.Dew, pp. 144–150.
  6. M. Dew, E. Hunt, V. Perera, J. Perry, G. Ponti, and A. Loveridge, Group dynamics in inquiry-based labs: Gender inequities and the efficacy of partner agreements, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010121 (2024).
  7. K. N. Quinn, M. M. Kelley, K. L. McGill, E. M. Smith, Z. Whipps, and N. G. Holmes, Group roles in unstructured labs show inequitable gender divide, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010129 (2020).
  8. R. Gunter, G. Spiczak, and J. Madsen, Cosmic collaboration in an undergraduate astrophysics laboratory, Am. J. Phys. 78, 1035 (2010).
  9. D. Doucette, R. Clark, and C. Singh, Hermione and the secretary: How gendered task division in introductory physics labs can disrupt equitable learning, Eur. J. Phys. 41, 035702 (2020).
  10. J. Day, J. B. Stang, N. G. Holmes, D. Kumar, and D. A. Bonn, Gender gaps and gendered action in a first-year physics laboratory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020104 (2016).
  11. M. T. H. Chi and R. Wylie, The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes, Educ. Psychol. 49, 219 (2014).
  12. J. Jovanovic and S. S. King, Boys and girls in the performance-based science classroom: Who’s doing the performing?, Am. Educ. Res. J. 35, 477 (1998).
  13. T. A. Greenfield, Gender-and grade-level differences in science interest and participation, Sci. Educ. 81, 259 (1997).
  14. P. Heller and M. Hollabaugh, Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups, Am. J. Phys. 60, 637 (1992).
  15. K. D. Tanner, Structure matters: Twenty-one teaching strategies to promote student engagement and cultivate classroom equity, Cell Biol. Educ. 12, 322 (2013).
  16. D. Doucette and C. Singh, Share it, don’t split it: Can equitable group work improve student outcomes?, Phys. Teach. 60, 166 (2022).
  17. D. Doucette, R. Clark, and C. Singh, What makes a good physics lab partner?, presented at PER Conf. Proc. 2020, 10.1119/perc.2020.pr.Doucette, pp. 124–130.
  18. J. P. Adams, G. Brissenden, R. S. Lindell, T. F. Slater, and J. Wallace, Observations of student behavior in collaborative learning groups, Astron. Educ. Rev. 1, 25 (2002).
  19. D. W. Johnson and R. T. Johnson, An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning, Educ. Res. 38, 365 (2009).
  20. D. W. Johnson, R. T. Johnson, and K. A. Smith, Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works?, Change 30, 26 (1998).
  21. K. Tanner and D. Allen, Approaches to biology teaching and learning: Understanding the wrong answers–teaching toward conceptual change, Cell Biol. Educ. 4, 112 (2005).
  22. D. W. Johnson and R. T. Johnson, Making cooperative learning work, Theory Pract. 38, 67 (1999).
  23. G. Geschwind, M. Alemani, M. F. J. Fox, P. S. W. M. Logman, E. Tufino, and H. J. Lewandowski, Development of a global landscape of undergraduate physics laboratory courses, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020117 (2024).
  24. N. Shah and C. M. Lewis, Amplifying and attenuating inequity in collaborative learning: Toward an analytical framework, Cognit. Instr. 37, 423 (2019).
  25. N. G. Holmes. Structured quantitative inquiry labs: Developing critical thinking in the introductory physics laboratory, Ph.D. thesis, University of British Columbia, 2014.
  26. D. L. Schwartz and T. Martin, Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction, Cognit. Instr. 22, 129 (2004).
  27. R. K. Atkinson, S. J. Derry, A. Renkl, and D. Wortham, Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research, Rev. Educ. Res. 70, 181 (2000).
  28. J. L. Fleiss, Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters, Psychol. Bull. 76, 378 (1971).
  29. J. L. Fleiss, B. Levin, and M. C. Paik, Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, 3rd ed. (Wiley, New York, 2003).
  30. A. L. Traxler, X. C. Cid, J. Blue, and R. Barthelemy, Enriching gender in physics education research: A binary past and a complex future, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020114 (2016).
  31. B. Van Dusen and J. Nissen, Modernizing use of regression models in physics education research: A review of hierarchical linear modeling, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020108 (2019).
  32. Y. Chang and P. Brickman, When group work doesn’t work: Insights from students, CBE-Life Sci. Educ. 17, ar52 (2018).
  33. E. M. Stump and N. G. Holmes, Student views of what counts as doing physics in the lab, presented at PER Proc. Conf. 2022, Grand Rapids, MI, 10.1119/perc.2022.pr.Stump, pp. 444–450.
  34. T. Lumley, P. Diehr, S. Emerson, and L. Chen, The importance of the normality assumption in large public health data sets, Annu. Rev. Public Health 23, 151 (2002).
  35. C. Walsh, H. J. Lewandowski, and N. G. Holmes, Skills-focused lab instruction improves critical thinking skills and experimentation views for all students, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010128 (2022).
  36. D. Bates, M. Mächler, B. Bolker, and S. Walker, Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4, J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1 (2015).
  37. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/yyml-sr6q for the observation data, code used for analysis, and code output.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010162– Published 27 June, 2025
  • Received 21 November 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