Conceptual Instruction in Physics and Gender Equity: Experiences from Swedish Upper Secondary Schools
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.5161Keywords:
Conceptual Physics Instruction, Gender Equity in Science Education, Pedagogical Continuity, Normalized ChangeAbstract
This study examines how sustained conceptual instruction influences gender disparities in physics understanding among Swedish upper secondary students. Drawing on Ausubel’s Meaningful Learning Theory and Vergnaud’s Conceptual Field Theory, the research explores how instructional design interacts with students’ cognitive development, prior knowledge, and sociocultural context. Using a quasi-experimental design, 852 students from 38 classes were assessed using a gender-balanced version of the Force Concept Inventory (G-FCI). Normalized change was applied to measure conceptual gains across instructional methods and genders. Findings confirm persistent gender gaps under traditional instruction, favoring male students. However, in cohorts with sustained conceptual teaching across Physics 1 and 2, female students outperformed male peers—a statistically significant shift not observed under traditional methods. While conceptual instruction improved learning for all, its equity potential was most evident when implemented consistently. These results highlight the importance of pedagogical continuity for promoting gender equity in physics education. Nevertheless, instructional change alone is insufficient; broader interventions addressing classroom climate, stereotype threat, and identity development are needed. The study contributes empirical evidence to the international discourse on gender and science education and underscores the value of conceptually grounded pedagogy as part of a systemic strategy for equitable physics learning.
References
Abraham, J., & Barker, K. (2023). Students’ Perceptions of a “Feminised” Physics Curriculum. Research in Science Education, 53(4), 1367–1388. (Open access) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10128-3
Ausubel, D. P. (2012). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view. Springer Science & Business Media.
Bauernfeind, R. H., & Olson, C. J. (1973). Is the Hawthorne effect in educational experiments a chimera?. The Phi Delta Kappan, 55(4), 271-273. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20297533
Baye, A., & Monseur, C. (2016). Gender differences in variability and extreme scores in an international context. Large-scale Assessments in Education, 4, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-015-0015-x
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The journal of the learning sciences, 2(2), 141-178. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2
Burkholder, E., & Salehi, S. (2022). Exploring the pre-instruction gender gap in physics. PLoS ONE, 17(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271184
Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American journal of physics, 69(9), 970-977. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1374249
Docktor, J., & Heller, K. (2008, October). Gender differences in both force concept inventory and introductory physics performance. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1064, No. 1, pp. 15-18). American Institute of Physics. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3021243
Eccles, J. S. (1986). Gender-roles and women's achievement. Educational Researcher, 15(6), 15-19. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015006015
Francis, B., Archer, L., Moore, J., DeWitt, J., MacLeod, E. & Yeomans, L. (2017). The construction of physics as a quintessentially masculine subject: Young people’s perceptions of gender issues in access to physics. Sex Roles, 76(3-4), 156-174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0669-z
Francois, S., Tossavainen, T. & Lehto, N. (2024). Challenges and opportunities with conceptual physics teaching in Swedish upper secondary school – A qualitative case study. Journal of Science Teacher Education. (unpublished manuscript under review)
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. Science education, 91(6), 847-876. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20223
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics. 66(1), 64-74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809
Harding, S. G. (1986). The science question in feminism. Cornell University Press.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The physics teacher, 30(3), 141-158. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2343497
Hofer, S.I. (2015). The interplay between gender underachievement, and conceptual instruction in physics. (Doctoral dissertation, ETH Zurich)
Kelly, A. (Ed.). (1981). The missing half: Girls and science education. Manchester University Press.
Konicek-Moran, R., & Keeley, P. (2015). Teaching for conceptual understanding in science. Arlington: NSTA Press, National Science Teachers Association.
Kost, L. E., Pollock, S. J., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2009). Characterizing the gender gap in introductory physics. Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.010101
Kreutzer, K., & Boudreaux, A. (2012). Preliminary investigation of instructor effects on gender gap in introductory physics. Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.010120
Lorenzo, M., Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2006). Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom. American Journal of Physics, 74(2), 118-122. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2162549
Lynch, A., Cauchi, M., & Walshe, G. (2024). Development, evaluation, and gender differences in a novel workshop intervention to narrow the physics gender gap. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., 20. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.020109
Madsen, A., McKagan, S. B., & Sayre, E. C. (2013). Gender gap on concept inventories in physics: What is consistent, what is inconsistent, and what factors influence the gap?. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 9(2), 020121. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1307.0912
Marx, J. D., & Cummings, K. (2007). Normalized change. American Journal of Physics, 75(1), 87-91. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2372468
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual. Prentice Hall.
McCaskey, T. L., Dancy, M. H., & Elby, A. (2004, September). Effects on assessment caused by splits between belief and understanding. In 2003 Physics Education Research Conference (Vol. 720, pp. 37-40). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1807248
McCullough, L., & Meltzer, D. (2001). Differences in male/female response patterns on alternative-format versions of the force concept inventory. In Proceedings of the 2001 Physics Education Research Conference, 103-106. https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2001.pr.013
McCullough, L. (2004). Gender, context, and physics assessment. Journal of International Women's Studies, 5(4), 20-30. https://vc.bridgew.edu/jiws/vol5/iss4/2
Meinck, S., & Brese, F. (2019). Trends in gender gaps: Using 20 years of evidence from TIMSS. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 7(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-019-0076-3
Merrett, F. (2006). Reflections on the Hawthorne effect. Educational Psychology, 26(1), 143-146. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500341080
Miyake, A., Kost-Smith, L. E., Finkelstein, N. D., Pollock, S. J., Cohen, G. L., & Ito, T. A. (2010). Reducing the gender achievement gap in college science: A classroom study of values affirmation. Science, 330(6008), 1234-1237.
Nygren, T., (2021 red). Vetenskapsteori och forskningsmetoder i utbildningsvetenskap. Natur & Kultur.
Pollock, S. J. (2008, October). Comparing student learning with multiple research‐based conceptual surveys: CSEM and BEMA. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1064, No. 1, pp. 171-174). American Institute of Physics. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3021246
Pollock, S. J., Finkelstein, N. D., & Kost, L. E. (2007). Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom: How sufficient is interactive engagement? Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.010107
Radulović, B., Županec, V., Stojanović, M., & Budić, S. (2022). Gender motivational gap and contribution of different teaching approaches to female students’ motivation to learn physics. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 18224. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-23151-7
Ruiz‐Primo, M. A., & Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 569-600. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199608)33:6%3C569::AID-TEA1%3E3.0.CO;2-M
Schneps, M. H., & Sadler, P. M. (1987). A private universe, video, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Science Education Department, Science Media Group, Annenberg/CPB, Washington, DC. https://www.learner.org/series/a-private-universe/
Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving (Vol. 34). Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
The ethical Review Act https://www.onep.se/media/2348/the_ethical_review_act.pdf (2024-09-03)
Tossavainen, T., Rensaa, R. J., Haukkanen, P., Mattila, M., & Johansson, M. (2020). First-year engineering students’ mathematics task performance and its relation to their motivational values and views about mathematics. European Journal of Engineering Education, 46(4), 604–617. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2020.1849032
Treagust, D.F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10(2), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069880100204
Vergnaud, G. (1982). Cognitive and developmental psychology and research in mathematics education: Some theoretical and methodological issues. For the learning of mathematics, 3(2), 31-41.
Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J. J., & Novak, J.D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. Handbook of research on science teaching and learning, 177-210.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Articles may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Authors alone are responsible for the contents of their articles. The journal owns the copyright of the articles. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of the research material.
The author(s) of a manuscript agree that if the manuscript is accepted for publication in the journal, the published article will be copyrighted using a Creative Commons “Attribution 4.0 International” license. This license allows others to freely copy, distribute, and display the copyrighted work, and derivative works based upon it, under certain specified conditions.
Authors are responsible for obtaining written permission to include any images or artwork for which they do not hold copyright in their articles, or to adapt any such images or artwork for inclusion in their articles. The copyright holder must be made explicitly aware that the image(s) or artwork will be made freely available online as part of the article under a Creative Commons “Attribution 4.0 International” license.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
