4.2 Article

Gender bias in first-year multiple-choice physics examinations

Journal

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.020109

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The multiple-choice section of the final examination for the first-year Advanced Physics I course at the University of Newcastle, Australia between 2010 and 2018 was found to have approximately 20% of the questions exhibiting statistically significant gender bias. A proposed schema for characterizing the questions was used to analyze the entire set, revealing moderate to large bias in favor of males through characteristics related to visualization, and moderate bias in favor of females through numerical calculations involving simple one-step equations. These findings suggest that gender bias analysis using a characterization schema could be used as a routine tool for testing gender gaps in student performance in physics.
The multiple-choice section of the final examination for the first-year Advanced Physics I course at the University of Newcastle, Australia between 2010 and 2018 was investigated for gender bias. A Mantel-Haenszel analysis revealed that approximately 20% of the multiple-choice questions exhibited statistically significant gender bias. A schema for characterizing the multiple-choice questions was proposed and used analyze the entire question set. Male bias questions showed moderate to large bias and tended to include characteristics related to visualization, though not images. Several questions exhibited a moderate bias in favor of females and were characterized by requiring a numerical calculation involving a simple one-step equation. These results indicate that with continued development, gender bias analysis of physics questions based on a characterization schema may be used as a routine tool for testing for the presence and origin of gender gaps in student performance.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available