Abstract
Currently, the physics disciplines are represented by a significantly larger number of professional males, compared to females. Although the problem of underrepresentation of female physicists has several causes, one likely reason is the lower interest that female school students have in physics activities. Several instructional solutions have been proposed to spark girls’ interest in physics, including recent ones with mobile devices. However, mobile devices could be problematic technologies for school students and teachers, particularly if guidance in their use is not provided. In the present study, we investigated the effectiveness of a novel mobile application guided with laboratory reports to increase high school students’ interest in physics. We also investigated whether the intervention with mobile laboratory activities facilitated learning about an important physics topic, namely, understanding graphs. The study was conducted in eight eligible schools, totaling data from 268 high school students (57% females). Results showed that all seven measures of self-rated interest in physics received higher scores in the posttest than in the pretest. One of the items, which assessed changes in understanding physics, showed greater effects on females than on males. Hence, the instructional mobile application under consideration helped to spark students’ interest in physics, and the effect was somewhat greater in schoolgirls, but the intervention did not change the test scores about understanding graphs, failing to demonstrate an association between increased interest in physics and changes in physics educational outcomes. The instructional implications for these findings, as well as limitations and future research directions, are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ashman, G., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2020). Problem-solving or explicit instruction: Which should go first when element interactivity is high? Educational Psychology Review, 32(1), 229–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09500-5
Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2011). Quantifying the gender gap in science interests. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(3), 523–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9194-7
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 396–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00051.x
Becker, S., Klein, P., Gößling, A., & Kuhn, J. (2020). Using mobile devices to enhance inquiry-based learning processes. Learning and Instruction, 69, 101350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101350
Bindis, M. (2020). “I love science”: Opinions of secondary school females toward science and science careers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(8), 1655–1671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10036-x
Burden, K., Kearney, M., Schuck, S., & Hall, T. (2019). Investigating the use of innovative mobile pedagogies for school-aged students: A systematic literature review. Computers & Education, 138, 83–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.008
Bybee, R., & McCrae, B. (2011). Scientific literacy and student attitudes: Perspectives from PISA 2006 science. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.518644
Cai, Z., Fan, X., & Du, J. (2017). Gender and attitudes toward technology use: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 105, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.003
Castro-Alonso, J. C., Wong, M., Adesope, O. O., Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2019). Gender imbalance in instructional dynamic versus static visualizations: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 361–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09469-1
Castro-Alonso, J. C., & Jansen, P. (2019). Sex differences in visuospatial processing. In J. C. Castro-Alonso (Ed.), Visuospatial processing for education in health and natural sciences (pp. 81–110). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20969-8_4
Castro-Alonso, J. C., & Uttal, D. H. (2019). Science education and visuospatial processing. In J. C. Castro-Alonso (Ed.), Visuospatial processing for education in health and natural sciences (pp. 53–79). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20969-8_3
Ceci, S. J., Ginther, D. K., Kahn, S., & Williams, W. M. (2014). Women in academic science: A changing landscape. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 15(3), 75–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100614541236
Cheung, A., Slavin, R. E., Kim, E., & Lake, C. (2017). Effective secondary science programs: A best-evidence synthesis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(1), 58–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21338
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
Coolican, H. (2009). Research methods and statistics in psychology (5th ed.). Hodder Education.
Crompton, H., Burke, D., Gregory, K. H., & Gräbe, C. (2016). The use of mobile learning in science: A systematic review. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(2), 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9597-x
Crompton, H., Burke, D., & Lin, Y.-C. (2019). Mobile learning and student cognition: A systematic review of PK-12 research using Bloom’s Taxonomy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(2), 684–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12674
Donnelly-Hermosillo, D. F., Gerard, L. F., & Linn, M. C. (2020). Impact of graph technologies in K-12 science and mathematics education. Computers & Education, 146, 103748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103748
Geerling, D., Butner, J., Fraughton, T., Sinclair, S., Zachary, J., & Sansone, C. (2020). The dynamic association of interest and confusion: The potential for moderation by utility value and gender. The Journal of Experimental Education, 88(3), 407–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2018.1561403
Glazer, N. (2011). Challenges with graph interpretation: A review of the literature. Studies in Science Education, 47(2), 183–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2011.605307
Glynn, S. M., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Brickman, P. (2009). Science Motivation Questionnaire: Construct validation with nonscience majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(2), 127–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20267
Gnambs, T. (2021). The development of gender differences in information and communication technology (ICT) literacy in middle adolescence. Computers in Human Behavior, 114, 106533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106533
Guiso, L., Monte, F., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2008). Culture, gender, and math. Science, 320(5880), 1164–1165. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1154094
Hazari, Z., Potvin, G., Lock, R. M., Lung, F., Sonnert, G., & Sadler, P. M. (2013). Factors that affect the physical science career interest of female students: Testing five common hypotheses. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 9(2), 020115. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.020115
Hochberg, K., Kuhn, J., & Müller, A. (2018). Using smartphones as experimental tools—Effects on interest, curiosity, and learning in physics education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27(5), 385–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9731-7
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10106
Holmes, N. G., Wieman, C. E., & Bonn, D. A. (2015). Teaching critical thinking. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(36), 11199–11204. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1505329112
Hoogerheide, V., van Wermeskerken, M., van Nassau, H., & van Gog, T. (2018). Model-observer similarity and task-appropriateness in learning from video modeling examples: Do model and student gender affect test performance, self-efficacy, and perceived competence? Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 457–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.012
Jansen, M., Lüdtke, O., & Schroeders, U. (2016). Evidence for a positive relation between interest and achievement: Examining between-person and within-person variation in five domains. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.05.004
Jerrim, J., Oliver, M., & Sims, S. (2019). The relationship between inquiry-based teaching and students’ achievement. New evidence from a longitudinal PISA study in England. Learning and Instruction, 61, 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.12.004
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Liou, P.-Y. (2021). Students’ attitudes toward science and science achievement: An analysis of the differential effects of science instructional practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(3), 310–334. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21643
Liu, C., Zowghi, D., Kearney, M., & Bano, M. (2021). Inquiry-based mobile learning in secondary school science education: A systematic review. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12505
Mauk, M., Willett, R., & Coulter, N. (2020). The can-do girl goes to coding camp: A discourse analysis of news reports on coding initiatives designed for girls. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(4), 395–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1781889
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.59.1.14
Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2016). The impact of paper-based, computer-based and mobile-based self-assessment on students’ science motivation and achievement. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1241–1248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.025
Pols, C. F. J., Dekkers, P. J. J. M., & de Vries, M. J. (2021). What do they know? Investigating students’ ability to analyse experimental data in secondary physics education. International Journal of Science Education, 43(2), 274–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1865588
Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2014). Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and technology at K-12 levels: A systematic review of 12 years of educational research. Studies in Science Education, 50(1), 85–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2014.881626
Purba, S. W. D., & Hwang, W.-Y. (2017). Investigation of learning behaviors and achievement of vocational high school students using an ubiquitous physics tablet PC app. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(3), 322–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9681-x
Reychav, I., & McHaney, R. (2017). The relationship between gender and mobile technology use in collaborative learning settings: An empirical investigation. Computers & Education, 113, 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.005
Rodríguez-Ardura, I., & Meseguer-Artola, A. (2021). Flow experiences in personalised e-learning environments and the role of gender and academic performance. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1572628
Schnotz, W., & Baadte, C. (2015). Surface and deep structures in graphics comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 43(4), 605–618. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0490-2
Sikora, J., & Pokropek, A. (2012). Gender segregation of adolescent science career plans in 50 countries. Science Education, 96(2), 234–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20479
Sung, Y.-T., Chang, K.-E., & Liu, T.-C. (2016). The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students’ learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Computers & Education, 94, 252–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.008
Tuan, H. L., Chin, C. C., & Shieh, S. H. (2005). The development of a questionnaire to measure students’ motivation towards science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 639–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000323737
Vonkova, H., Papajoanu, O., Stipek, J., & Kralova, K. (2021). Identifying the accuracy of and exaggeration in self-reports of ICT knowledge among different groups of students: The use of the overclaiming technique. Computers & Education, 164, 104112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104112
Vorholzer, A., von Aufschnaiter, C., & Boone, W. J. (2020). Fostering upper secondary students’ ability to engage in practices of scientific investigation: A comparative analysis of an explicit and an implicit instructional approach. Research in Science Education, 50(1), 333–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9691-1
Wang, M.-T., & Degol, J. L. (2017). Gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): Current knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 119–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9355-x
Wong, M., Castro-Alonso, J. C., Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2018). Investigating gender and spatial measurements in instructional animation research. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 446–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.02.017
Wulff, P., Hazari, Z., Petersen, S., & Neumann, K. (2018). Engaging young women in physics: An intervention to support young women’s physics identity development. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 14(2), 020113. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.020113
Yang, J.-M., Sung, Y.-T., & Chang, K.-E. (2020). Use of meta-analysis to uncover the critical issues of mobile inquiry-based learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(4), 715–746. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119879366
Zimmerman, H. T., Land, S. M., Maggiore, C., & Millet, C. (2019). Supporting children’s outdoor science learning with mobile computers: Integrating learning on-the-move strategies with context-sensitive computing. Learning, Media and Technology, 44(4), 457–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2019.1667823
Zydney, J. M., & Warner, Z. (2016). Mobile apps for science learning: Review of research. Computers & Education, 94, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.001
Funding
This study is funded by the ANID/PIA/Basal Funds for Centers of Excellence FB0003, ANID Fondecyt 11180255, and CORFO 16PES-66152.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare competing financial interests in Lab4U.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Carreño, M.J., Castro-Alonso, J.C. & Gallardo, M.J. Interest in Physics After Experimental Activities with a Mobile Application: Gender Differences. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 20, 1841–1857 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10228-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10228-4