Educational Psychology Review

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 149–169

Gender Differences in Science: An Expertise Perspective

Review Article

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to propose a new approach to research on gender differences in science that uses the work on expertise in science as a framework for understanding gender differences. Because gender differences in achievement and participation in the sciences are largest in physics, the focus of this review is on physics. The nature of expertise is first discussed and a framework that focuses on factors that influence the emergence of expertise in physics is presented. This is used to interpret what is known about gender differences in science, particularly physics. Next, the potential contributions of the research on gender differences to our understanding of expertise are discussed. Using what is learned from these two areas of research, recommendations are made for future research examining gender differences in physics. It is suggested that such an approach be used for other areas of science, such as chemistry, where large gender differences in achievement and participation also exist.

Keywords

Physics Gender Expertise Science 

References

  1. Abuhamdeh, S., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2004). The artistic personality: A systems approach. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.) Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 31–42). Washington: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  2. Adelman, C. (1991). Women at thirtysomething. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.Google Scholar
  3. Alexander, P. A. (2003). Can we get there from here? Educational Researcher, 32, 3–4.Google Scholar
  4. Anzai, Y. (1991). Learning and use of representations for physics expertise. In K. A. Anders, & J. Smith (Eds.) Toward a general theory of expertise (pp. 64–92). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Atkin, J. A. (1977). An information processing model of learning and problem solving. (Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 6488.Google Scholar
  6. Baker, D., & Leary, R. (2003). Letting girls speak out about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 176–200.Google Scholar
  7. Bell, A. E., Spencer, S. J., Iserman, E., & Logel, C. E. R. (2003). Stereotype threat and women’s performance in engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 92, 307–312.Google Scholar
  8. Beller, M., & Gafni, N. (1996). The 1991 international assessment of educational progress in mathematics and sciences: The gender differences perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 365–377.Google Scholar
  9. Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1984). Academic precocity: Aspects of its development. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bloom, B. S. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  11. Boster, J. S., & Johnson, J. C. (1989). Form or function: A comparison of expert and novice judgments of similarity among fish. American Anthropologist, 91, 866–889.Google Scholar
  12. Brainard, S. G., & Carlin, L. (1998). A six-year longitudinal study of undergraduate women in engineering and science. Journal of Engineering Education, 87, 369–375.Google Scholar
  13. Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., Norby, M. N., & Ronning, R. R. (2004). Cognitive psychology and instruction. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  14. Burkam, D. T., Lee, V. E., & Smerdon, B. A. (1997). Gender and science learning early in high school: Subject matter and laboratory experiences. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 297–331.Google Scholar
  15. Cavallo, A. M. L., Rozman, M., Blickenstaff, J., & Walker, N. (2004). Students’ learning approaches, reasoning abilities, motivational goals, and epistemological beliefs in differing science courses. Journal of College Science Teaching, 33, 18–24.Google Scholar
  16. Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The Draw-a-Scientist test. Science Education, 67, 255–265.Google Scholar
  17. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self- explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.Google Scholar
  18. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.Google Scholar
  19. Crowley, K., Callanan, M. A., Tenenbaum, H. R., & Allen, E. (2001). Parents explain more often to boys than to girls during shared scientific thinking. Psychological Science, 12, 258–261.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Davis, R. (1989). Expert systems: How far can they go? AI Magazine, 10, 61–67.Google Scholar
  21. DeBacker, T. K., & Nelson, R. M. (2000). Motivation to learn science: Differences related to gender, class type, and ability. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 245–254.Google Scholar
  22. Dee-Lucas, D., & Larkin, J. H. (1986). Novice strategies for processing scientific texts. Discourse Processes, 9, 329–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Desouza, J. M. S., & Czemiak, C. M. (2002). Social implications and gender differences among preschoolers: Implications for science activities. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 16, 175–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dhillon, A. S. (1998). Individual differences within problem-solving strategies used in physics. Science Education, 82, 379–405.Google Scholar
  25. Dietel, R. J., Herman, J. L., & Knuth, R. A. (1991). What does research say about assessment? pp. 1–18. Oakbrook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.Google Scholar
  26. Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., Hardiman, P. T., & Mestre, J. P. (1992). Constraining novices to perform expert-like problem analysis: Effects on schema acquisition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 307–331.Google Scholar
  27. Enman, M., & Lupart, J. (2000). Talented female students’ resistance to science: An exploratory study of post-secondary achievement motivation, persistence, and epistemological characteristics. High Ability Studies, 11, 161–178.Google Scholar
  28. Ericsson, K. A. (1996). The acquisition of expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.) The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts, sciences, sports, and games (pp. 1–50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Ericsson, K. A. (2006a). Protocol analysis and expert thought: Concurrent verbalizations of thinking during experts’ performance on representative task. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.) Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 223–242). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Ericsson, K. A. (2006b). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.) Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 685–706). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406.Google Scholar
  32. Felder, R., Felder, G., Mauney, M., Hamrin, C., & Dietz, J. (1995). A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention: gender differences in student performance and attitudes. Journal of Engineering Education, 151–163. Retrieved April 12, 2004 from The Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science at Case Western University.Google Scholar
  33. Ferry, T. R., Fouad, N. A., & Smith, P. L. (2000). The role of family context in a social cognitive model for career-related choice behavior: A math and science perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57, 348–364.Google Scholar
  34. Finegold, M., & Mass, R. (1985). Differences in the processes of solving physics problems between good physics problem solvers and poor physics problem solvers. Research in Science and Technological Education, 3, 59–67.Google Scholar
  35. Foote, C. J. (1996). Attribution feedback in the elementary classroom (Doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 2354.Google Scholar
  36. Fort, D. C., & Varney, H. L. (1989). How students see scientists: Mostly male, mostly white, and mostly benevolent. Science and Children, 26, 8–13.Google Scholar
  37. Glynn, S. M., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Brickman, P. (2007). Nonscience majors learning science: A theoretical model of motivation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1088–1107.Google Scholar
  38. Greene, B. A., & DeBacker, T. K. (2004). Goal and orientations toward the future: Links to Motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 91–120.Google Scholar
  39. Greenfield, T. A. (1997). Gender- and grade-level differences in science interest and participation. Science Education, 81, 259–275.Google Scholar
  40. Hatano, G., & Oura, Y. (2003). Commentary: Reconceptualizing school learning using insight from expertise research. Educational Researcher, 32, 26–29.Google Scholar
  41. Hazari, Z., Tai, R. H., & Sadler, P. M. (2007). Gender differences in introductory university physics performance: The influence of high school physics preparation and affective factors pp. 1–30. Wiley, NY: Science Education.Google Scholar
  42. Hess, R. D., Hollowly, S. D., Dickson, W. P., & Price, G. G. (1984). Maternal variables as predictors of children’s school readiness and later achievement in vocabulary and mathematics in sixth grade. Child Development, 55, 1902–1912.Google Scholar
  43. Hewitt, N. M., & Seymour, E. (1991). The problems of women in science, mathematics, an engineering. Retrieved April 12, 2004 from The Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science at Case Western University.Google Scholar
  44. Heyworth, R. M. (1999). Procedural and conceptual knowledge of expert and novice students for the solving of a basic problem in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 195–211.Google Scholar
  45. Howard, B. C., McGee, S., Shia, R., & Hong, N. (2000). Computer-based science inquiry: How components of metacognitive self-regulation affect problem- solving. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Meeting, Seattle, WA. Retrieved from: http://www.cet.edu/research/papers/CPhoward01.html (April).
  46. Huber, R. A., & Burton, G. M. (1995). What do students think scientists look like? School Science & Mathematics, 95, 371–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Inzlicht, M., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2000). A threatening intellectual environment: Why females are susceptible to experiencing problem-solving deficits in the presence of males. Psychological Science, 11, 365–371.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Ivie, R., Cuzjko, R., & Stowe, K. (2001). Women physicists speak: The 2001 International Study of Women in Physics. American Institute of Physics Report. Retrieved from http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/gendertrends.html.
  49. Jones, G., Howe, A., & Rua, M. J. (2000). Gender differences in students’ experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education, 84, 180–192.Google Scholar
  50. Jones, L. R., Mullis, I. V. S., Raizen, S. A., Weiss, I. R., & Weston, E. A. (1992). The 1990 science report card: NAEP’s assessment of fourth, eighth, and twelfth graders. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  51. Jones, G., & Wheatley, J. (1990). Gender differences in teacher–student interactions in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 861–874.Google Scholar
  52. Kahle, J. B., & Lakes, M. K. (1983). The myth of equality in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 131–140.Google Scholar
  53. Kardash, C. M. (2000). Evaluation of an undergraduate research experience: Perceptions of undergraduate interns and their faculty mentors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 191–201.Google Scholar
  54. Kardash, C. M., & Wallace, M. L. (2001). The perceptions of science classes survey: What undergraduate science reform efforts really need to address. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 199–210.Google Scholar
  55. Kaschalk, R. (2002). Physics- why bother?..that’s why!. Contextual Teaching Exchange, 1, 1–8.Google Scholar
  56. Katz, S., Allbritton, D., Aronis, J., Wilson, C., & Soffa, M. L. (2006). Gender, achievement, and persistence in an undergraduate computer science program. The Database for Advances in Information Systems, 37, 42–57.Google Scholar
  57. Kleinfeld, J. (1998). The myth that schools shortchange girls: Social science in the service of deception. U.S. News and World Report, pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
  58. Knight, M., & Cunningham, C. (2004). Draw an Engineer Test (DAET): Development of a tool to investigate students’ ideas about engineers and engineering. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education, Utah. Retrieved from: http://asee.org/acPapers/2004–1188_Final.pdf. (June).
  59. Koch, A. (2001). Training in metacognition and comprehension of physics texts. Science Education, 85, 758–768.Google Scholar
  60. Larkin, J. H. (1983). The role of problem representations in physics. In D. Gentner, & A.L. Stevens (Eds.) Mental Models (pp. 75–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  61. Larkin, J. H. (1985). Understanding problem representations and skill in physics. In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.) Thinking and learning skills: Vol 2. Research and open questions (pp. 141–159). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  62. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65–99.Google Scholar
  63. Larkin, J. H., Heller, J., & Greeno, G. (1980). Instructional implications of research in problem solving. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2, 51–65.Google Scholar
  64. Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, H., & Simon, D. (1980a). Models of competence in solving physics problems. Cognitive Science, 4, 317–345.Google Scholar
  65. Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, H., & Simon, D. (1980b). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208, 1335–1342.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Larose, S., Ratelle, C. F., Guay, F., Senecal, C., & Harvey, M. (2006). Trajectories of science self-efficacy and academic and vocational adjustment in science and technology programs. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12, 373–393.Google Scholar
  67. Law, D. J., Pellegrino, J. W., & Hunt, E. B. (1993). Comparing the tortoise and the hare: Gender differences and experience in dynamic spatial reasoning tasks. Psychological Science, 4, 35–40.Google Scholar
  68. Lee, V. L., Marks, H. M., & Byrd, T. (1994). Sexism in single-sex and coeducational secondary classrooms. Sociology of Education, 67, 92–120.Google Scholar
  69. Linn, M. C., & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and categorization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56, 1479–1498.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Lupart, J. L., Cannon, E., & Telfer, J. A. (2004). Gender differences in adolescent academic achievement, interests, values, and life-role expectations. High Ability Studies, 15, 25–42.Google Scholar
  71. Mannis, J. D., Thomas, N. G., Sloat, B. F., & Davis, C. (1989). An analysis of factors affecting choices of majors in science, mathematics, and engineering at the University of Michigan (Research Report No. 23). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Education of Women.Google Scholar
  72. Mattern, N., & Schau, C. (2002). Gender differences in science attitude-achievement relationships over time among white middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 324–340.Google Scholar
  73. Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  74. McIver, L. (2000). The effect of programming language on error rates of novice programmers. Paper presented at the twelfth annual meeting of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group, Corigliano Calabro, Italy (April).Google Scholar
  75. Meece, J. L., & Jones, G. M. (1996). Gender differences in motivation and strategy use in science: Are girls rote learners? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 393–406.Google Scholar
  76. Miller, P. H., Blessing, J. S., & Schwartz, S. (2006). Gender differences in high school students’ views about science. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 363–381.Google Scholar
  77. Morgan, C., Isaac, J. D., & Sansone, C. (2001). The role of interest in understanding the career choices of female and male college students. Sex Roles, 44, 295–320.Google Scholar
  78. Murphy, P., & Whitelegg, E. (2006). Girls and physics: continuing barriers to belonging. The Curriculum Journal, 17, 281–305.Google Scholar
  79. National Assessment of Educational Progress (2005). Results of the 2005 science trial urban district assessment. Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  80. National Commission on Excellence in Education (2000). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  81. National Research Council (2001). Assessment in practice. Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  82. National Science Foundation. (2004). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2004. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/pdf/nsf04317.pdf.
  83. National Science Foundation. (2006). Science and engineering indicators 2006: Elementary and secondary education. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c1/c1h.htm.
  84. Neto, A. J., & Valente, M. O. (1997). Problem solving in physics: Towards a synergetic metacognitively developed approach. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/16/59/d1.pdf. (March)
  85. Nolen, S. B. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and study strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 269–287.Google Scholar
  86. Posnick-Goodwin, S. (2005). In the march toward gender equity, girls surge forward, but boys fall back. California Editor, pp. 1–3.Google Scholar
  87. Priest, A. G., & Lindsay, R. O. (1992). New light on novice-expert differences in physics problem solving. The British Psychological Society, 83, 389–405.Google Scholar
  88. Reif, F., & Allen, S. (1992). Cognition for interpreting scientific concepts: A study of acceleration. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 1–44.Google Scholar
  89. Reif, F., & Heller, J. I. (1982). Knowledge structures and problem solving in physics. Educational Psychologist, 17, 102–127.Google Scholar
  90. Ridley, D. R., & Novak, J. D. (1983). Sex-related differences in high school science and mathematics enrollments: Do they give males a critical headstart toward science and math-related careers? Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 29, 308–318.Google Scholar
  91. Riley, S. (2005). K-12 programs draw girls to science. EE Times, pp. 1–3.Google Scholar
  92. Roe, A. (1956). Psychology of occupations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  93. Rosser, S. V. (2003). Sociology of science: Testing theories for the gender difference. Science, 302, 1506–1507.Google Scholar
  94. Schmidt, H. G., & Boshuizen, P. A. (1993). On acquiring expertise in medicine. Educational Psychology Review, 5, 205–220.Google Scholar
  95. Schneider, A. (1998). Why don’t women publish as much as men? Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
  96. Schneider, W. (1993). Acquiring expertise: determinants of exceptional performance. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.) International Handbook of Research and Development of Giftedness and Talent (pp. 311–324). United Kingdom: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  97. Seymour, E. (1992a). “The problem iceberg” in science, mathematics, and engineering education: Student explanations for high attrition rates. Journal of College Science Teaching, 21, 230–238.Google Scholar
  98. Seymour, E. (1992b). The problem iceberg in science, mathematics, and engineering education: Student explanations for high attrition rates. Journal of College Science Teaching, 21, 230–232.Google Scholar
  99. Seymour, E. (1995). The loss of women from science, mathematics, and engineering undergraduate majors: An explanatory account. Science Education, 79, 437–473.Google Scholar
  100. Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  101. She, H. C. (2001). Different gender students’ participation in the high and low-achieving middle school questioning-oriented biology classrooms in Taiwan. Research in Science & Technological Education, 19, 147–158.Google Scholar
  102. Shepardson, D. P., & Pizzini, E. L. (1992). Gender bias in female elementary teachers’ perceptions of the scientific ability of students. Science Education, 76, 147–153.Google Scholar
  103. Shin, N., Jonassen, D. H., & McGee, S. (2003). Predictors of well-structured and ill- structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 6–33.Google Scholar
  104. Shin, N., & McGee, S. (2002). The influence of inquiry-based multimedia learning environment on specific problem-solving skills among ninth grade students across gender differences. Paper Presented at Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Dallas, TX. Retrieved from: http://www.cet.edu/research/papers/CPshin02.html. (November).
  105. Siebert, E. D. (2001). Science education program standards. In E. D. Siebert, & W. J. McIntosh (Eds.) College pathways to the science education standards (pp. 115–138). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.Google Scholar
  106. Smith, J. L. (2004). Understanding the process of stereotype threat: A review of mediational variables and new performance goal directions. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 177–206.Google Scholar
  107. Solomon, J. (1997). Girls’ science education: choice, solidarity and culture. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 407–417.Google Scholar
  108. Stake, J. E. (2006). The critical mediating role of social encouragement for science motivation and confidence among high school girls and boys. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1017–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Strenta, A. C., Elliott, R., Adair, R., Matier, M., & Scott, J. (1994). Choosing and leaving science in highly selective institutions. Research in Higher Education, 35, 513–547.Google Scholar
  110. Stumpf, H., & Stanley, J. (1996). Gender related differences on the College Board’s Advanced Placement and Achievement tests, 1982–1992. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 353–364.Google Scholar
  111. Swanson, H. L. (1990). Influence of metacognitive knowledge and aptitude on problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 306–314.Google Scholar
  112. Tai, R. H., & Sadler, P. M. (2001). Gender differences in introductory undergraduate physics performance: University physics versus college physics in the USA. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 1017–1037.Google Scholar
  113. Tenenbaum, H. R., & Leaper, C. (2003). Parent-child conversations about science: The socialization of gender inequities? Developmental Psychology, 39, 34–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. Tenenbaum, H. R., Snow, C. E., Roach, K. A., & Kurland, B. (2005). Talking and reading science: Longitudinal data on sex differences in mother-child conversations in low-income families. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 1–19.Google Scholar
  115. Tobias, S. (1990). They’re not dumb, they’re different: Stalking the second tier. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation.Google Scholar
  116. Tobias, S. (1989). Another look at research on the adaptation of instruction to student characteristics. Educational Psychologist, 24, 213–227.Google Scholar
  117. Tobias, S., & Everson, H. (2000). Cognition and metacognition. Issues in Education, 6, 167–173.Google Scholar
  118. Tuminaro, J., & Redish, E. F. (2007). Elements of a cognitive model of physics problem solving: Epistemic games. Physics Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 3, 1–22.Google Scholar
  119. Van Heuvelen, A. (1991). Overview, case-study physics. American Journal of Physics, 59, 898–907.Google Scholar
  120. Wee, A. T. S., Baaquie, B. E., & Huan, A. C. H. (1993). Gender differences in undergraduate physics examination performance and learning strategies in Singapore. Physics Education, 28, 158–163.Google Scholar
  121. Willingham, W. W., & Johnson, L. M. (1997). Supplement to gender and fair assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  122. Willson, V. L., Ackerman, C., & Malave, C. (2000). Cross-time attitudes, concept formation, and achievement in college freshman physics. Journal of Research on College Teaching, 37, 1112–1120.Google Scholar
  123. Worrall, N., & Tsarna, H. (1987). Teachers’ reported practices toward girls and boys in science and languages. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 300–312.Google Scholar
  124. Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. (2003). Women in science: Career processes and outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  125. Zajchowski, R., & Martin, J. (1993). Differences in the problem solving of stronger and weaker novices in physics: Knowledge strategies, or knowledge structure. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 459–470.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Educational PsychologyUniversity of NevadaLas VegasUSA
  2. 2.Educational Psychology and Instructional TechnologyUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations