Gender differences in science: a cure?
Science has a fascinating study at the University of Colorado at Boulder: a simple, 30 minute intervention erased the gender gap in physics grades in a randomized, double-blind study. (Here are two summaries for those without a subscription.)
The gist: in weeks 1 and 4 of the 15 week course, students spent 15 minutes writing about either things that they valued (the treatment group) or things that someone else might value (the controls).
For women in the treatment group, the gender gap in exam scores largely vanished (women's scores were below men's, but not by a statistically significant amount), and they outperformed men slightly on a standardized test of physics knowledge. Men outperformed the women in the control group.
From the abstract:
Values affirmation reduced the male-female performance and learning difference substantially and elevated women's modal grades from the C to B range. Benefits were strongest for women who tended to endorse the stereotype that men do better than women in physics.
The outcomes are consistent with existing research on stereotype threat, and the intervention is similar to standard mechanisms used in psychology for priming) people.
The experiment certainly sounds promising enough to warrant replication - that would be a great (and probably quite inexpensive) thing for an interested foundation to catalyze. What I wonder is, assuming that this can be proven to work, what is the mechanism for getting more physics (or other S&E fields with big gender disparities) classes to adopt this kind of remedy? Certainly it is something that is far outside of what people have experience with.
-
on Tue, Dec 14, 10:12PM
I think you're right, Geoff, that this is an area that is almost totally unexplored in the academic science community. There is precedent in other sectors. I am very keen on exploring those precedents and bringing them into the academic realm for consideration and pilot programs to see what 'works.'
I was surprised to find out that many companies in Silicon Valley have been using tools for engaging the 'human' aspect of individuals in the workforce to optimize performance and facilitate effective inter-group dynamics -- and have, in fact, been doing so for many years.
More recent movements in this arena include the Agile software development approach, I am specifically familiar with Scrum, and the values-based approach that is a mainstay (see also Tobias Mayer).
Michael Broom, book author and organizational development guru, is the one who planted the seed in my thinking when he shared with me that scientists and engineers that he's worked with (there have been precious few) expect people to behave logically in the workplace, and have not realized the value of acknowledging and dealing effectively and imaginatively with our core values and human attributes. However, I think these approaches have been present as an innate function of good lab environments - realizing, acknowledging and honoring the need for such attributes may be what's most needed.
Recent books, such as 'Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard' by Chip Heath and Dan Heath, give good evidence of how highly effective it can be to adopt approaches that are consonant with the values experiment you speak of.
I assert that there are many overlaps between what promotes effective, diverse scientific work-groups and what promotes effective, diverse learning groups. It's certainly an area worth exploring, and I thank you for posting this interesting research finding.
