Facilitating the self-determination of undergraduate women in physics: the role of external validation

References

• Ahlqvist, S., B. London, and L. Rosenthal. 2013. “Unstable Identity Compatibility: How Gender Rejection Sensitivity Undermines the Success of Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Fields.” Psychological Science 24 (9): 1644–1652. doi:10.1177/0956797613476048.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Physical Society. 2015. “Fraction of Bachelor’s Degrees in STEM Disciplines Earned by Women.” College Park, MD: American Physical Society. https://www.aps.org/programs/education/statistics/womenstem.cfm.
   Google Scholar
• Aprahamian, A. 2003. “Women in Physics.” Nuclear Physics News 13 (3/4): 3–4. doi:10.1080/10506890308232699.
   Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. 2001. “Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective.” Annual Review of Psychology 52 (1): 1–26. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beede, D., T. Julian, D. Langdon, G. McKittrick, B. Khan, and M. Doms. 2011. “Women in STEM: A Gender Gap to Innovation.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/womeninstemagaptoinnovation8311.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Brink, H. I. L. 1993. “Validity and Reliability in Qualitative Research.” Curationis 16 (2): 35–38. doi:10.4102/curationis.v16i2.1396.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ceci, S. J., W. M. Williams, and S. M. Barnett. 2009. “Women’s Underrepresentation in Science: Sociocultural and Biological Considerations.” Psychological Bulletin 135 (2): 218–261. doi:10.1037/a0014412.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corbin, J., and A. Strauss. 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. 2007. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Danielsson, A. T. 2012. “Exploring Women University Physics Students ‘Doing Gender’ and ‘Doing Physics,’.” Gender and Education 24 (1): 25–39. doi:10.1080/09540253.2011.565040.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deci, E. L., H. Eghrari, B. C. Patrick, and D. R. Leone. 1994. “Facilitating Internalization: The Self-Determination Theory Perspective.” Journal of Personality 62 (1): 119–142. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1994.tb00797.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deci, E. L., R. J. Vallerand, L. G. Pelletier, and R. M. Ryan. 1991. “Motivation and Education: The Self-Determination Perspective.” Educational Psychologist 26 (3&4): 325–346.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denzin, N. K., and Y. S. Lincoln. 2011. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Diekman, A. B., E. R. Brown, A. M. Johnston, and E. K. Clark. 2010. “Seeking Congruity between Goals and Roles: A New Look at Why Women Opt Out of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Careers.” Psychological Science 21 (8): 1051–1057. doi:10.1177/0956797610377342.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisner, E. W. 1991. The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practice. New York: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Fehrs, M., and R. Czujko. 1992. “Women in Physics: Reversing the Exclusion.” Physics Today 45 (8): 33–41. doi:10.1063/1.881315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox, M. F., G. Sonnert, and I. Nikiforova. 2009. “Successful Programs for Undergraduate Women in Science and Engineering: Adapting versus Adopting the Institutional Environment.” Research in Higher Education 50 (4): 333–353. doi:10.1007/s11162-009-9120-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gayles, J. G., and F. D. Ampaw. 2011. “Gender Matters: An Examination of Differential Effects of the College Experience on Degree Attainment in STEM.” New Directions for Institutional Research 2011 (152): 19–25. doi:10.1002/ir.405.
   Google Scholar
• Glaser, B., and A. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
   Google Scholar
• Guest, G., A. Bunce, and L. Johnson. 2006. “How Many Interviews are Enough? An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability.” Field Methods 18 (1): 59–82. doi:10.1177/1525822X05279903.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guzzetti, B. J., and W. O. Williams. 1996. “Gender, Text, and Discussion: Examining Intellectual Safety in the Science Classroom.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 33 (1): 5–20. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199601)33:1<5::AID-TEA>3.0.CO;2-Z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hackett, G., N. E. Betz, J. Manuel Casas, and I. A. Rocha-Singh. 1992. “Gender, Ethnicity, and Social Cognitive Factors Predicting the Academic Achievement of Students in Engineering.” Journal of Counseling Psychology 39 (4): 527–538. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.39.4.527.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hazari, Z., C. Cass, and C. Beattie. 2015. “Obscuring Power Structures in the Physics Classroom: Linking Teacher Positioning, Student Engagement, and Physics Identity Development.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 52 (6): 735–762. doi:10.1002/tea.21214.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hazari, Z., G. Sonnert, P. M. Sadler, and M.-C. Shanahan. 2010. “Connecting High School Physics Experiences, Outcome Expectations, Physics Identity, and Physics Career Choice: A Gender Study.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 47 (8): 978–1003. doi:10.1002/tea.20363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill, C., C. Corbett, and A. St. Rose. 2010. Why so Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.
   Google Scholar
• Ivie, R., C. L. Tesfaye, R. Czujko, and R. Chu. 2013. “The Global Survey of Physicists: A Collaborative Effort Illuminates the Situation of Women in Physics.” American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings 1517 (53). doi:10.1063/1.4794221.
   Google Scholar
• Ivie, R., and K. Ray. 2005. Women in Physics and Astronomy, 2005. College Park, MD: American Institute of Physics.
   Google Scholar
• Ivie, R., R. Czujko, and K. Stowe. 2002. “Women Physicists Speak: The 2001 International Study of Women in Physics.” American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings 628 (49). doi:10.1063/1.1505280.
   Google Scholar
• Joint Task Force on Undergraduate Physics Programs. 2016. Phys21: Preparing Physics Students for 21st Century Careers. College Park, MD: American Physical Society.
   Google Scholar
• Kahveci, A., S. A. Southerland, and P. J. Gilmer. 2006. “Retaining Undergraduate Women in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering.” Journal of College Science Teaching 36 (3): 34–38.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, A. M. 2016. “Social Cognitive Perspective of Gender Disparities in Undergraduate Physics.” Physical Review Physics Education Research 12 (2): 020116. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020116.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koul, R., T. Lerdpornkulrat, and S. Chantara. 2011. “Relationship between Career Aspirations and Measures of Motivation toward Biology and Physics, and the Influence of Gender.” Journal of Science Education and Technology 20 (6): 761–770. doi:10.1007/s10956-010-9269-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Labudde, P., M. P. Walter Herzog, E. V. Neuenschwander, and C. Gerber. 2000. “Girls and Physics: Teaching and Learning Strategies Tested by Classroom Interventions in Grade 11.” International Journal of Science Education 22 (2): 143–157. doi:10.1080/095006900289921.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lent, R. W., S. D. Brown, and G. Hackett. 1994. “Toward a Unifying Social Cognitive Theory of Career and Academic Interest, Choice, and Performance.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 45 (1): 79–122. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• León, J., J. L. Nuñez, and J. Liew. 2015. “Self-Determination and STEM Education: Effects of Autonomy, Motivation, and Self-Regulated Learning on High School Math Achievement.” Learning and Individual Differences 43: 156–163. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2015.08.017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leslie, S.-J., A. Cimpian, M. Meyer, and E. Freeland. 2015. “Expectations of Brilliance Underlie Gender Distributions across Academic Disciplines.” Science 347 (6219): 262–265. doi:10.1126/science.1261375.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lincoln, Y. S., and E. G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• London, B., G. Downey, R. Romero-Canyas, A. Rattan, and D. Tyson. 2012. “Gender-Based Rejection Sensitivity and Academic Self-Silencing in Women.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 102 (5): 961–979. doi:10.1037/a0026615.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorenzo, M., C. H. Crouch, and E. Mazur. 2006. “Reducing the Gender Gap in the Physics Classroom.” American Journal of Physics 74 (2): 118–122. doi:10.1119/1.2162549.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacQueen, K. M., E. McLellan, K. Kay, and B. Milstein. 1998. “Codebook Development for Team-Based Qualitative Analysis.” Cultural Anthropology Methods 10 (2): 31–36. doi:10.1177/1525822X980100020301.
   Google Scholar
• Marchand, G. C., and G. Taasoobshirazi. 2013. “Stereotype Threat and Women’s Performance in Physics.” International Journal of Science Education 35 (18): 3050–3061. doi:10.1080/09500693.2012.683461.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miles, M., and M. A. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Morganson, V. J., M. P. Jones, and D. A. Major. 2010. “Understanding Women’s Underrepresentation in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: The Role of Social Coping.” Career Development Quarterly 59 (2): 169–179. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.2010.tb00060.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morse, J. M. 2000. “Determining Sample Size.” Qualitative Health Research 10 (1): 3–5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mujtaba, T., and M. J. Reiss. 2013. “Inequality in Experiences of Physics Education: Secondary School Girls’ and Boys’ Perceptions of Their Physics Education and Intentions to Continue with Physics after the Age of 16.” International Journal of Science Education 35 (11): 1824–1845. doi:10.1080/09500693.2012.762699.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy, P., and E. Whitelegg. 2006. “Girls and Physics: Continuing Barriers to Belonging.” Curriculum Journal 17 (3): 281–305. doi:10.1080/09585170600909753.
   Google Scholar
• National Academy of Sciences. 2007. Rising above the Gathering Storm. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nehmeh, G., and A. Kelly. 2018. “Women Physicists and Sociocognitive Considerations in Career Choice and Persistence.” Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 24 (2): 95–119. doi:10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2017019867.
   Google Scholar
• Ong, M. 2005. “Body Projects of Young Women of Color in Physics: Intersections of Gender, Race, and Science.” Social Problems 52 (4): 593–617. doi:10.1525/sp.2005.52.4.593.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patton, M. Q. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. 2012. Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: Office of the President of the United States.
   Google Scholar
• Preston, A. E. 2004. “Plugging the Leaks in the Scientific Workforce.” Issues in Science and Technology 20 (4): 69–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramsey, L. R., D. E. Betz, and D. Sekaquaptewa. 2013. “The Effects of an Academic Environment Intervention on Science Identification among Women in STEM.” Social Psychology of Education 16 (3): 377–397. doi:10.1007/s11218-013-9218-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rennie, L. J., and L. H. Parker. 1996. “Placing Physics Problems in Real-Life Context: Students’ Reactions and Performance.” Australian Science Teachers Journal 42 (1): 55–59.
   Google Scholar
• Richman, L. S., M. VanDellen, and W. Wood. 2011. “How Women Cope: Being a Numerical Minority in a Male-Dominated Profession.” Journal of Social Issues 67 (3): 492–509. doi:10.111/j.1540-4560.2011.01711.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riegle-Crumb, C., B. King, E. Grodsky, and C. Muller. 2012. “The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same? Prior Achievement Fails to Explain Gender Inequality in Entry to STEM College Majors over Time.” American Educational Research Journal 49 (6): 1048–1073. doi:10.3102/0002831211435229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodd, M., M. Reiss, and T. Mujtaba. 2013. “Undergraduates Talk about Their Choice to Study Physics at University: What Was Key to Their Participation?” Research in Science & Technological Education 31 (2): 153–167. doi:10.1080/02635143.2013.811072.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan, R. M., and E. L. Deci. 2000. “Self-determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well Being.” American Psychologist 55 (1): 68–78. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saldaña, J. 2015. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Sawtelle, V., E. Brewe, and L. H. Kramer. 2012. “Exploring the Relationship between Self-Efficacy and Retention in Introductory Physics.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 49 (9): 1096–1121. doi:10.1002/tea.21050.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider, M. B. 2001. “Encouragement of Women Physics Majors at Grinnell College: A Case Study.” The Physics Teacher 39 (5): 280–282. doi:10.1119/1.1375465.
   Google Scholar
• Sonnert, G., M. F. Fox, and K. Adkins. 2007. “Undergraduate Women in Science and Engineering: Effects of Faculty, Fields, and Institutions over Time.” Social Science Quarterly 88 (5): 1333–1356. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00505.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tolmie, A., and C. Howe. 1993. “Gender and Dialogue in Secondary School Physics.” Gender and Education 5 (2): 191–204. doi:10.1080/0954025930050206.
   Google Scholar
• Wall, C., S. Glenn, S. Mitchinson, and H. Poole. 2004. “Using a Reflective Diary to Develop Bracketing Skills during a Phenomenological Investigation.” Nurse Researcher 11 (4): 22–29. doi:10.7748/nr2004.07.11.4.20.c6212.
   Google Scholar
• Whitten, B. L., S. R. Foster, M. L. Duncombe, P. E. Allen, P. Heron, L. McCullough, K. A. Shaw, B. A. Taylor, and H. M. Zorn. 2004. “‘Like a Family’: What Works to Create Friendly and Respectful Student-Faculty Interactions.” Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 10 (3): 229–242. doi:10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.v10.i3.30.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, K. 2000. “Understanding, Communication Anxiety, and Gender in Physics: Taking the Fear Out of Physics Learning.” Journal of College Science Teaching 30 (4): 232–237.
   Google Scholar
• Xie, Y., and K. A. Shauman. 2003. Women in Science: Career Processes and Outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zeldin, A. L., and F. Pajares. 2000. “Against the Odds: Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Women in Mathematical, Scientific, and Technological Careers.” American Educational Research Journal 37 (1): 215–246. doi:10.3102/00028312037001215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zohar, A., and B. Bronshtein. 2005. “Physics Teachers’ Knowledge and Beliefs regarding Girls’ Low Participation Rates in Advanced Physics Classes.” International Journal of Science Education 27 (1): 61–77. doi:10.1080/0950069032000138798.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar