Group dynamics in inquiry-based labs: Gender inequities and the efficacy of partner agreements

[This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Instructional labs: Improving traditions and new directions.] Recent studies provide evidence that social constructivist pedagogical methods such as active learning, interactive engagement, and inquiry-based learning, while pedagogically more effective, can enable inequities in the classroom. By conducting a quantitative empirical examination of gender-inequitable group dynamics in two inquiry-based physics labs, we extend results of previous work. Using a survey on group work preferences and video recordings of lab sessions, we find similar patterns of gendered role taking noted in prior studies. These results are not reducible to differences in students’ preferences. We find that an intervention which employed partner agreement forms, with the goal of reducing inequities, had a positive impact on students’ engagement with equipment during a first-semester lab course. Our work will inform implementation of more effective interventions in the future and emphasizes challenges faced by instructors who are dedicated to both research-based pedagogical practices and efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in their classrooms.

This article appears in the following collection:

Figure 1

Pedagogical practices considered in this work depicted within their respective theoretical frameworks. For each pedagogical practice, arrows indicate known link to sustained inequities (solid line) and plausible links to less inequities (dashed lines).

Figure 2

Expected fraction of men and women that preferred a given role controlling for course, track, and the interaction of course and track. Errors bars represent 95% confidence intervals. The asterisks denote statistical significance where $*$ indicates $p<0.05$, $**$ indicates $p<0.01$, and $***$ indicates $p<0.001$. Students could select as many or as few roles as they wanted.

Figure 3

Expected fraction of men and women that preferred a given method of role distribution controlling for course, track, and the interaction of course and track. Errors bars represent 95% confidence intervals. The asterisks denote statistical significance where $*$ indicates $p<0.05$, $**$ indicates $p<0.01$, and $***$ indicates $p<0.001$. Students could select only one answer.

Figure 4

Expected fraction of men and women that preferred a given leadership style controlling for course, track, and the interaction of course and track. Errors bars represent 95% confidence intervals. The asterisks denote statistical significance where $*$ indicates $p<0.05$, $**$ indicates $p<0.01$, and $***$ indicates $p<0.001$. Students could select only one answer.

Figure 5

Results from multilevel regression in (a) Physics I Lab and (b) Physics II Lab for equipment group fraction. These results are controlling for group size, lecture track, and random effects. The base term for each course is the group fraction of men in the control section and enrolled in the algebra-based lecture track who did not indicate a preference for equipment. The error bars represent the standard error of the regression coefficients. The asterisks denote statistical significance where $*$ indicates $p<0.05$, $**$ indicates $p<0.01$, and $***$ indicates $p<0.001$. The full model output can be found in Table 4.

Figure 6

Results from multilevel regression in (a) Physics I Lab and (b) Physics II Lab for laptop, calculator, and paper group fraction. These results are controlling for group size, lecture track, and random effects. The base term for each course is the group fraction of men in the control section and enrolled in the algebra-based lecture track who did not indicate a preference for notes or analysis. The error bars represent the standard error of the regression coefficients. There were no statistically significant differences. The full model output can be found in Table 5.

Figure 7

Contributions of authors. Dark shading corresponds to a major contribution, while a lighter shading corresponds to a minor contribution.

Figure 8

Visual check for the assumption of linearity for hierarchical linear modeling. These plots show the residuals vs the fitted values for (a) equipment group fraction in Physics I Lab, (b) equipment group fraction in Physics II Lab, (c) laptop, calculator, and paper group fraction in Physics I Lab, and (d) laptop, calculator, and paper group fraction in Physics II Lab.

Figure 9

Visual check for the assumption of normality for hierarchical linear modeling. These plots show the residuals vs the fitted values for (a) equipment group fraction in Physics I Lab, (b) equipment group fraction in Physics II Lab, (c) laptop, calculator, and paper group fraction in Physics I Lab, and (d) laptop, calculator, and paper group fraction in Physics II Lab.