Lessons learned during the first offering of a lab component of an intermediate astrophysics course at the University of Wisconsin-River Falls are discussed. The course enrolled students from a variety of majors. Students worked in mixed-gender, mixed-major collaborative groups. They explored cosmic rays through hands-on, inquiry-based activities that took them from classic, fundamental discoveries to open-ended questions of their own design. We find that students divided their labor and brought the various parts of their research project together with little or no discussion regarding the various pieces and how they inform each other. Aspects of the lab design helped disrupt some typical gender dynamics in that men did not dominate group discussions. However, men did dominate the hands-on activities of the lab.
REFERENCES
1.
M.
Lorenzo
, C. H.
Crouch
, and E.
Mazur
, “Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom
,” Am. J. Phys.
74
(2
), 118
–122
(2006
).2.
National Science Board
, Science and Engineering Indicators
(National Science Foundation
, Arlington, VA
, 2000
), NSB-00-1.3.
S. V.
Rosser
, “Keys to the engineering gateway: Using creative technology to retain women and underrepresented students
,” On Campus with Women
, American Association of Colleges & Universities, 37
(2
) (2008
), ⟨http://www.aacu.org/ocww/volume37_2/feature.cfm?section=1#⟩.4.
C. M.
Ashby
, Higher Education: Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Programs and Related Trends
(U. S. Government Accountability Office
, Washington, D.C.
, 2005
), GAO-06-114.5.
C. A.
Buxton
, “Feminist science in the case of a reform-minded biology department
,” J. Women Minor. Sci. Eng.
7
, 173
–198
(2001
).6.
T.
Conefrey
, “Laboratory talk and women’s retention rates
,” J. Women Minor. Sci. Eng.
6
, 251
–264
(2000
).7.
C.
Hollenshead
, P. S.
Younce
, and S. A.
Wenzel
, “Women graduate students in mathematics and physics: Reflections on success
,” J. Women Minor. Sci. Eng.
1
, 63
–88
(1994
).8.
M.
Ong
, “Body projects of young women of color in physics: Intersections of gender, race, and science
,” Soc. Probl.
52
(4
), 593
–617
(2005
).9.
E.
Seymour
and N. M.
Hewitt
, Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences
(Westview Press
, Boulder, CO
, 1997
), pp. 231
–289
.10.
R.
Gunter
, “The emergence of gendered participation styles in science-related discussions: Implications for women’s place in science
,” J. Women Minor. Sci. Eng.
15
, 53
–75
(2009
).11.
B. J.
Guzzetti
and W. O.
Williams
, “Changing the pattern of gendered discussion: Lessons from science classrooms
,” J. Adolesc. Adult Literacy
40
, 38
–47
(1996
).12.
P.
Heller
and M.
Hollabaugh
, “Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups
,” Am. J. Phys.
60
(7
), 637
–644
(1992
).13.
P.
Heller
, R.
Keith
, and S.
Anderson
, “Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group vs. individual problem solving
,” Am. J. Phys.
60
(7
), 627
–636
(1992
).14.
D. W.
Johnson
, R. T.
Johnson
, and K. A.
Smith
, “Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works?
,” Change
30
(4
), 26
–35
(1998
).15.
M. L.
McKinnon
and W. H.
Potter
, “Preliminary results of gender equity variations in a large active-learning introductory physics course due to laboratory activity instructions
,” AIP Conf. Proc.
790
, 129
–132
(2005
).16.
D. M.
Merrill
and C. G.
Gilbert
, “Effective peer interaction in a problem-centered instructional strategy
,” Distance Educ.
29
(2
), 199
–207
(2008
).17.
M.
Prince
, “Does active learning work? A review of the research
,” J. Eng. Educ.
93
(3
), 223
–231
(2004
).18.
A.
Badalà
, F.
Blanco
, P.
La Rocca
, G. S.
Pappalardo
, A.
Pulvirenti
, and F.
Riggi
, “Extensive air showers in the classroom
,” Eur. J. Phys.
28
, 903
–913
(2007
).19.
A.
Cho
, “Forging a cosmic connection between students and science
,” Science
310
, 770
–771
(2005
).20.
M.
Galley
, “Astrophysics brings together Calif. schools and scientists
,” Educ. Week
23
(26
), 6
–8
(2004
).21.
R. A.
Soluk
, “Educational cosmic ray arrays
,” in CP828, Multiparticle Dynamics
, edited by V.
Simak
, M.
Sumbera
, S.
Todorova
, and B.
Tomasik
(American Institute of Physics
, Kromeriz, Czech Republic
, 2006
), pp. 271
–276
.22.
T.
Wibig
, K.
Kolodziejczak
, R.
Pierzynski
, and R.
Sobczak
, “Educational studies of cosmic rays with a telescope of Geiger-Muller counters
,” Phys. Educ.
41
(6
), 542
–545
(2006
).23.
R. J.
Beichner
, J. M.
Saul
, R. J.
Allain
, D. L.
Deardorff
, and D. S.
Abbott
, “Introduction to SCALE-UP (student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs) project
,” Proceedings of the 2000 Meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education
, Seattle, WA, 2000
.24.
IceCube Startup Project, Cooperative Agreement No. OPP-0236449, National Science Foundation.
25.
J.
Madsen
, R.
Atkins
, M.
Briggs
, J.
Cooley
, B.
Dingus
, F.
Halzen
, K.
Rawlins
, D.
Steele
, T.
Millar
, and S.
Stevenoski
, “Astronomy in the ice: Bringing neutrino astronomy to the secondary schools
,” Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Proceedings
, NASA Office of Space Science Education and Public Outreach in Chicago, June 12–14, 2002
.26.
J.
Madsen
, “Bringing neutrinos to the secondary school classroom, IceCube E &O
,” Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl.
, 138
, 458
2005
.27.
R.
Hake
, “Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses
,” Am. J. Phys.
66
(1
), 64
–74
(1998
).28.
R.
Hake
, “Socratic pedagogy in the introductory physics laboratory
,” Phys. Teach.
30
, 546
–552
(1992
).29.
M.
Johnson
, “Facilitating high quality student practice in introductory physics
,” Am. J. Phys.
69
(S1
), S2
–S11
(2001
).30.
E.
Cavicchi
, “Faraday and Piaget: Experimenting in relation with the world
,” Perspect. Sci.
14
(1
), 66
–96
(2006
).31.
A.
Bhattacharyya
, R. R.
Hake
, and R.
Sirochman
, “Improving Socratic dialogue inducing (SDI) labs
,” AAPT Announcer
25
(2
), 80
(1995
).32.
A. B.
Arons
, “Guiding insight and inquiry in the introductory physics laboratory
,” Phys. Teach.
31
, 278
–282
(1993
).33.
M.
Ruibal
, S.
Murthy
, A.
Karelina
, and E.
Etkina
, “Scaffolding students’ experimental work with scientific abilities rubrics
,” AAPT Announcer
35
(2
), 121
(2005
).34.
V.
Otero
and S.
Pollock
, “Transforming your undergraduate physics course using learning assistants
,” Workshop for NASULG Leadership Collaborative, Pre-PTEC 09 Meeting
, Pennsylvania, 2009
.35.
M. E.
Huba
and J. E.
Freed
, Learner-Centered Assessment on College Campuses: Shifting the Focus from Teaching to Learning
(Allyn and Bacon
, Needham Heights, MA
, 2000
).36.
T. A.
Angelo
and K. P.
Cross
, Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers
, 2nd ed. (Jossey-Bass
, San Francisco
, 1993
).37.
B. L.
Boyd
, “Formative classroom assessment: Learner focused
,” Agricultural Education Magazine
73
(5
), 18
–19
(2001
).38.
American Association of University Women
, Gender Gaps: Where Schools Still Fail Our Children
(Marlowe
, New York
, 1999
), pp. 61
–65
.39.
P. H.
Dunham
, “Procedures to increase the entry of women in mathematics-related careers
,” ERIC/SMEAC Mathematics Education Digest No. 3, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED324195 (1990
).40.
P. M.
Frome
and J. S.
Eccles
, “Parents’ influence on children’s achievement-related perceptions
,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
74
(2
), 435
–452
(1998
).41.
J. S.
Hyde
and K. C.
Kling
, “Women, motivation, and achievement
,” Psychol. Women Q.
25
, 364
–378
(2001
).42.
Q.
Li
, “Teachers’ beliefs and gender differences in mathematics: A review
,” Educ. Res.
41
, 63
–76
(1999
).43.
P.
Orenstein
, School Girls: Young Women, Self-Esteem, and the Confidence Gap
(Anchor Books
, Doubleday, NY
, 1994
), pp. 3
–31
.44.
M.
Sadker
and D.
Sadker
, Failing at Fairness: How Our Schools Cheat Girls
(Simon and Schuster
, New York, NY
, 1994
), pp. 42
–76
.45.
S. J.
Correll
, “Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self-assessments
,” Am. J. Sociol.
106
(6
), 1691
–1730
(2001
).46.
T. K.
Debacker
and R. M.
Nelson
, “Motivation to learn science: Differences related to gender, class type, and ability
,” J. Educ. Res.
93
(4
), 245
–254
(2000
).47.
M.
Enman
and J.
Lupart
, “Talented female students’ resistance to science: An exploratory study of post-secondary achievement motivation, persistence, and epistemological characteristics
,” High Abil. Stud.
11
(2
), 161
–178
(2000
).48.
T.
Tindall
and B.
Hamil
, “Gender disparity in science education: The causes, consequences, and solutions
,” Education
125
(2
), 282
–295
(2004
).49.
M.
Baenninger
and N.
Newcombe
, “Environmental input to the development of sex-related differences in spatial and mathematical ability
,” Learn. Individ. Differ.
7
, 363
–379
(1995
).50.
J. S.
Eccles
, “Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices
,” Psychol. Women Q.
18
, 585
–609
(1994
).51.
S. J.
Farenga
and B. A.
Joyce
, “Beyond the classroom: Gender differences in science experiences
,” Educ.
117
(4
), 563
–568
(1997
).52.
T. A.
Greenfield
, “Gender and grade-level differences in science interest and participation
,” Sci. Educ.
81
, 259
–276
(1997
).53.
G.
Huang
, N.
Taddese
, E.
Walter
, and S. S.
Peng
, Entry and Persistence of Women and Minorities in College Science and Engineering Education, U.S. Department of Education: Office of Educational Research and Improvement (NCES 2000-601, 2000
).54.
B. A.
Joyce
and S. J.
Farenga
, “Informal science experience, attitudes, future interest in science, and gender of high-ability students: An exploratory study
,” Sch. Sci. Math.
99
(8
), 431
–437
(1999
).55.
S. D.
Simpkins
, P. E.
Davis-Kean
, and J. S.
Eccles
, “Math and science motivation: A longitudinal examination of the links between choices and beliefs
,” Dev. Psychol.
42
(1
), 70
–83
(2006
).56.
L. L.
Carli
, “Gender, language, and influence
,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
59
(5
), 941
–951
(1990
).57.
M.
Foschi
, in Sociological Theories in Progress: New Formulations
, edited by J.
Berger
, M.
Zelditch
, Jr., and B.
Anderson
(Houghton Mifflin
, Boston
, 1989
), pp. 58
–72
.58.
S. A.
Reid
, N.
Keerie
, and N. A.
Palomares
, “Language, gender salience, and social influence
,” J. Lang. Soc. Psychol.
22
(2
), 210
–233
(2003
).59.
C. L.
Ridgeway
, “Interaction and the conservation of gender inequality: Considering employment
,” Am. Sociol. Rev.
62
(2
), 218
–235
(1997
).60.
V.
Valian
, Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women
(MIT Press
, Cambridge, MA
, 1999
), pp. 103
–144
.61.
D. G.
Wagner
and J.
Berger
, “Gender and interpersonal talk behaviors: Status expectation accounts
,” Sociol. Perspect.
40
, 1
–32
(1997
).62.
C. H.
Crouch
and E.
Mazur
, “Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results
,” Am. J. Phys.
69
(9
), 970
–977
(2001
).63.
L. P.
Rivard
and S. B.
Straw
, “The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study
,” Sci. Educ.
84
(5
), 566
–593
(2000
).64.
L.
Springer
, M. E.
Stanne
, and S. S.
Donovan
, Effects of Small-Group Learning on Undergraduates in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology: A Meta-Analysis
, Research Monograph No. 11
(National Institute for Science Education
, Madison, WI
, 1997
).65.
R.
Narode
, “A constructivist program for college remedial mathematics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst
,” ERIC Document No. ED309988 (1989
).66.
N.
Enyedy
, “Knowledge construction and collective practice: At the intersection of learning, talk, and social configurations in a computer-mediated mathematics classroom
,” J. Learn. Sci.
12
(3
), 361
–407
(2003
).67.
J. M.
Morse
, M.
Barrett
, M.
Mayan
, K.
Olson
, and J.
Spiers
, “Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research
,” Int. J. Qual. Methods
1
(2
), 13
–22
(2002
).68.
J. F.
Dovidio
, C. E.
Brown
, K.
Heltman
, S. L.
Ellyson
, and C. F.
Keating
, “Power displays between women and men in discussions of gender-linked tasks: A multichannel study
,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
55
(4
), 580
–587
(1988
).69.
K.
Amann
and K.
Knorr-Cetina
, in Representation in Scientific Practice
, edited by M.
Lynch
and S.
Woolgar
(MIT Press
, Cambridge, MA
, 1990
), pp. 85
–330
.70.
K.
Jordan
and M.
Lynch
, in The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Science
, edited by A.
Clarke
and J.
Fujimura
(Princeton U. P.
, Princeton, NJ
, 1992
), pp. 77
–114
.71.
K.
Jordan
and M.
Lynch
, in Technology in Working Order: Studies of Work, Interaction, and Technology
, edited by G.
Button
(Routledge
, New York
, 1992
), pp. 162
–178
.72.
K.
Knorr-Cetina
, Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge
(Harvard U. P.
, Cambridge, MA
, 1999
), pp. 79
–110
.73.
B.
Latour
and S.
Woolgar
, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts
(Princeton U. P.
, Princeton, NJ
, 1986
), pp. 15
–90
.© 2010 American Association of Physics Teachers.
2010
American Association of Physics Teachers
AAPT members receive access to the American Journal of Physics and The Physics Teacher as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.
