Aguilar, Walton, and Wieman reply: We appreciate the interest that our article generated. The example provided by Robert Megginson shows how difficult it is for even the most well meaning, such as the dean in his story, to recognize aspects of the classroom (or lab) that are important to those who come with different experiences and perspectives. That story emphasizes the need to turn to research, as we discussed in our article, rather than relying on one’s own opinions and experiences to understand the perspectives of underrepresented groups and how those perspectives may affect the quality of their experience and success in educational settings.
When people enter physics environments, they want to know, “Is anyone like me here? Will people value and respect me here?” For women and ethnic-minority students these questions have a special resonance, so they notice cues, like the absence of women, that other people overlook. Research shows that changing how students interpret those cues so that women and minorities feel valued and respected can unleash their potential. Such interventions don’t change the curriculum or the standards. They don’t give some students a leg up over others. They level the playing field.
William DeBuvitz underscores the importance of cultural stereotypes about scientists who are represented as either “antisocial eccentrics” or “so bright that everything comes easily to them.” As he says, such a representation turns students off. Indeed, the research we referenced shows that a fixed mindset that some people are intelligent and other people just aren’t leads students to view effort negatively. If you have to work hard, it means you’re not “smart.” That mindset makes students less persistent, less resilient, and worse learners. We echo DeBuvitz’s recommendation that physicists communicate the need for “real academic work” and the idea that “one doesn’t have to be a genius to be successful.”
In contrast, Peter Hansen asserts that there are indeed math-brained people and non-math-brained people. When we see some introductory students “get it” quickly and others struggle, it’s easy to have such thoughts. But we don’t typically see the history or opportunities for learning that may have led to those differences. Moreover, the beliefs and expectations that children get from their parents and teachers are well known to have a powerful impact on their behavior and success. The belief that a child is inherently poor at math is very likely to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. We discussed the extensive studies showing that when students learn to believe that working on challenging material helps the brain grow, their learning and performance in math and science improve, sometimes dramatically. The effects are often greatest for students with a history of underperformance.
Aaron Slepkov astutely notes in the value-affirmation intervention shown in our figure 3a and reference 11, there was a negative effect for men on one outcome (exam scores). Due to a lack of space, we were unable to include a discussion about what appears to be a statistical anomaly. That pattern did not replicate on other outcomes (Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation scores, course grades) or on any outcome in a replication study.1 That result is reassuring; nonetheless, it is essential to monitor effective interventions for potential adverse effects among subpopulations of students.
The lack of impact on males is consistent with the broader literature we listed on value-affirmation and other interventions that mitigate the threat associated with negative stereotypes—for example, social-belonging and wise-feedback interventions. Members of minority or at-risk groups in school settings generally show benefits from those interventions; members of majority groups are usually unaffected but in some cases also benefit. This is not surprising, as the interventions are carefully targeted to the specific barriers faced by students in settings where their group is underrepresented and faces negative stereotypes.
Sadri Hassani raises many points without supporting data; we disagree with most of them, and believe that many people would find them offensive. However, there is some truth to his claim that what matters ultimately is, “How much time are they willing—or forced—to spend, at an early age, practicing physics and the mathematics that goes with it?” There is no doubt that mastering complex material takes time. But what motivates a person to invest that time, to struggle through challenges? If a student has a fixed mindset of “I just can’t get physics” or “Maybe people like me don’t belong” then he or she is less likely to invest in the field. The purpose of remedying psychological barriers is to encourage students to invest in physics.
Where will growth in physics come from in the coming decades? The greatest opportunity for growth comes from groups that are underrepresented in the field, like women and minorities.
Our article discussed the barriers to success that well-qualified women and ethnic-minority students encounter in the physics classroom. The research we reviewed suggests that simple and low-cost exercises can make a significant difference in bringing these people into the field.
