Reducing gender gaps in physics achievement: The role of constructivist methods

Bagdat Abdikadyr 1 * , Bayan Ualikhanova 1, Daulet Berdaliyev 1, Gulnara Issayeva 2, Samat Maxutov 3
More Detail
1 Zhanibekov University, Shymkent, KAZAKHSTAN
2 Abai Kazakh National Pedagogical University, Almaty, KAZAKHSTAN
3 SDU University, Almaty, KAZAKHSTAN
* Corresponding Author
EUR J SCI MATH ED, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp. 58-76. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/16037
Published Online: 24 February 2025, Published: 01 April 2025
OPEN ACCESS   220 Views   112 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

This study investigates the impact of constructivist teaching methods on achievement and misconceptions in mechanics, with a focus on gender differences. The research involved 88 first-year physics students enrolled in the physics teacher training program. Using a quasi-experimental design, students were divided into experimental (constructivist teaching) and control (traditional teaching) groups, with each group completing a pre- and post-test to assess changes in understanding and misconceptions around key mechanics concepts, particularly the concept of force. Results reveal that the constructivist intervention significantly improved achievement scores, especially for female students, thus reducing the gender gap in physics achievement. However, persistent misconceptions were observed in specific, abstract topics, such as motion in frictionless environments and rocket propulsion, which were less effectively addressed by the constructivist approach alone. These findings contribute to the literature on gender-sensitive instructional strategies and points out that constructivist approaches can be further optimized to support conceptual understanding in complex scientific domains.
Keywords: constructivist teaching, physics education, misconceptions in physics, physics achievement

CITATION

Abdikadyr, B., Ualikhanova, B., Berdaliyev, D., Issayeva, G., & Maxutov, S. (2025). Reducing gender gaps in physics achievement: The role of constructivist methods. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 58-76. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/16037

REFERENCES

  • Adak, S. (2017). Effectiveness of constructivist approach on academic achievement in science at secondary level. Educational Research and Reviews, 12(22), 1074–1079. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2017.3298
  • Agyei, E. D., & Agyei, D. D. (2021). Enhancing students’ learning of physics concepts with simulation as an instructional ICT tool. European Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Education, 2(2), Article e02111. https://doi.org/10.30935/ejimed/11259
  • Aina, J. K. (2017). Developing a constructivist model for effective physics learning. International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development, (1), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.31142/ijtsrd85
  • Akimkhanova, Z., Turekhanova, К., Fedus, K., & Karwasz, G. (2020). Teaching physics using modern technologies: Computer-controlled experiments. Journal of Educational Sciences, al-Farabi Kazakh National University, (1), Article 62. https://doi.org/10.26577/JES.2020.v62.i1.12
  • Applefield, J. M., Huber, R., & Moallem, M. (2001). Constructivism in theory and practice: Toward a better understanding. High School Journal, 84(2), 35–53.
  • Balta, N., & Asikainen, M. A. (2019). A comparison of Olympians’ and regular students’ approaches and successes in solving counterintuitive dynamics problems. International Journal of Science Education, 41(12), 1644–1666. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1624990
  • Balta, N., Japashov, N., Abdulbakioglu, M., & Oliveira, A. W. (2019). High-school students’ cognitive responses to counterintuitive physics problems. Physics Education, 55(1), Article 015003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/ab4df9
  • Balta, N., Japashov, N., Mansurova, A., Tzafilkou, K., Oliveira, A. W., & Lathrop, R. (2023). Middle-and secondary-school students’ STEM career interest and its relationship to gender, grades, and family size in Kazakhstan. Science Education, 107(2), 401–426. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21776
  • Banet, E., & Ayuso, G. E. (2003). Teaching of biological inheritance and evolution of living beings in secondary school. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 373–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210145716
  • Baviskar, S. N., Hartle, R. T., & Whitney, T. (2009). Essential criteria to characterize constructivist teaching: Derived from a review of the literature and applied to five constructivist-teaching method articles. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 541–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701731121
  • Bostock, S. J. (1998). Constructivism in mass higher education: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 29(3), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00066
  • Burrowes, P. A. (2003). A student-centered approach to teaching general biology that really works: Lord’s constructivist model put to a test. The American Biology Teacher, 65(7), 491–501. https://doi.org/10.2307/4451548
  • Bybee, R. (1993). Instructional model for science education in developing biological literacy. Biological Sciences Curriculum Studies.
  • Caleon, I., & Subramaniam, R. (2010). Development and application of a three-tier diagnostic test to assess secondary students’ understanding of waves. International Journal of Science Education, 32(7), 939–961. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902890130
  • Cervetti, G., Pardales, M. J., & Damico, J. S. (2001). A tale of differences: Comparing the traditions, perspectives, and educational goals of critical reading and critical literacy. Reading Online, 4(9), 80–90.
  • Chang, W. (2002). The impact of constructivist teaching on students’ perceptions of teaching and learning. ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED476252
  • Daineko, Y., Ipalakova, M., Tsoy, D., Bolatov, Z., Baurzhan, Z., & Yelgondy, Y. (2020). Augmented and virtual reality for physics: Experience of Kazakhstan secondary educational institutions. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 28(5), 1220–1231. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22297
  • Docktor, J., & Heller, K. (2008). Gender differences in both force concept inventory and introductory physics performance. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1064(1), 15–18. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3021243
  • Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X023007005
  • Dubrovskiy, A. V., Broadway, S., Jang, B., Mamiya, B., Powell, C., Shelton, G., Walker, D., Weber, R., Williamson, V. M., Villalta-Cerdas, A., & Mason, D., (2022). Is the STEM gender gap closing? Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 5(1), 47–68. https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.512
  • Folashade, A., & Akinbobola, A. O. (2009). Constructivist problem-based learning technique and the academic achievement of physics students with low ability level in Nigerian secondary schools. Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education, 1(1), 45–51. https://doi.org/10.51724/ijpce.v1i1.100
  • Fosnot, C. T. (2005). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. Teachers College Press.
  • Gafoor, A. K., & Akhilesh, P. T. (2008). Misconceptions in physics among secondary school students. Journal of Indian Education, 34(1), 77–90.
  • 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
  • Hammer, D. (1996). Misconceptions or p-prims: How may alternative perspectives of cognitive structure influence instructional perceptions and intentions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(2), 97–127. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0502_1
  • Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2343497
  • Huffman, D., Goldberg, F., & Michlin, M. (2003). Using computers to create constructivist learning environments: Impact on pedagogy and achievement. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 22(2), 151–168.
  • Irsaliev, S., Kultumanova, A., Tulekov, E., Buldybaev, T., Nurmuhametova, Z., Kussidenova, G., & Ismurzina, G. (2017). National report on the state and development of educational system of the Republic of Kazakhstan (for the years of independence of Kazakhstan) Astana. GEM-Report. https://gem-report-2020.unesco.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Kazakhstan.pdf
  • Japashov, N., Abdikadyr, B., Balta, N., Maxutov, S., Postiglione, A., & Tzafilkou, K. (2024). Analysing the structure of Kazakhstan university undergraduate students’ knowledge about the force concept: Findings from a three-tier FCI survey. Physics Education, 59(2), Article 025003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/ad1656
  • Kaltakci, D., & Didis, N. (2007). Identification of pre-service physics teachers’ misconceptions on gravity concept: A study with a 3-tier misconception test. AIP Conference Proceedings Volume, 899(1), 499–500. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2733255
  • Kaltakci-Gurel, D., Eryilmaz, A., & McDermott, L. C. (2017). Development and application of a four-tier test to assess pre-service physics teachers’ misconceptions about geometrical optics. Research in Science & Technological Education, 35(2), 238–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2017.1310094
  • Kirbulut, Z. D., & Geban, O. (2014). Using three-tier diagnostic test to assess students’ misconceptions of states of matter. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10(5), 509–521. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1128a
  • Klionsky, D.J. (1998). Constructing knowledge in the lecture hall. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31(4), 246–251.
  • Kurbanbekov, B. A., Turmambekov, T. A., Baizak, U. A., Saidakhmetov, P. A., Abdraimov, R. T., Bekayeva, A. E., & Orazbayeva, K. O. (2016). Students’ experimental research competences in the study of physics. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(18), 13069–13078.
  • Lord, T. R. (1994). Using constructivism to enhance student learning in college biology. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23(6), 346–348.
  • 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
  • McDermott, L. C. (1991). Millikan lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned–Closing the gap. American Journal of Physics, 59(4), 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.16539
  • Mehisto, P., Kambatyrova, A., & Nurseitova, K. (2014). Three in one? Trilingualism in policy and educational practice. In D. Bridges (Ed.), Educational reform and internationalisation: The case of school reform in Kazakhstan (pp. 152–176). Cambridge University Press.
  • Mukhtarkyzy, K., Abildinova, G., & Sayakov, O. (2022). The use of augmented reality for teaching Kazakhstani students physics lessons. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 17(12), 215–235. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v17i12.29501
  • Neidorf, T., Arora, A., Erberber, E., Tsokodayi, Y., Mai, T., Neidorf, T., & Mai, T. (2020). Review of research into misconceptions and misunderstandings in physics and mathematics. In Student misconceptions and errors in physics and mathematics. IEA research for education, vol 9 (pp. 11–20). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30188-0_2
  • Nieminen, P., Savinainen, A., & Viiri, J. (2010). Force concept inventory-based multiple-choice test for investigating students’ representational consistency. Physical Review Special Topics–Physics Education Research, 6(2), Article 020109. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.020109
  • Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. Orion Press.
  • Pramesti, Y. S., Mahmudi, H., & Setyowidodo, I. (2021). Using three-tier test to diagnose students’ level of understanding. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1806, Article 012013. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1806/1/012013
  • Resbiantoro, G., & Setiani, R. (2022). A review of misconception in physics: The diagnosis, causes, and remediation. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 19(2), 403–427.
  • Road Map. (2015). Road map of trilingual education development for 2015–2020. NOA. http://nao.kz/loader/fromorg/2
  • Rose, A. (2018). Utilization of constructivist instructional method in teaching physics in secondary schools: Interaction effects of method and location. World Journal of Innovative Research, 5(2), 11–15.
  • Sadler, P. M., & Sonnert, G. (2016). Understanding misconceptions: Teaching and learning in middle school physical science. American Educator, 40(1), 26–32.
  • Savinainen, A., & Scott, P. (2002). Using the force concept inventory to monitor student learning and to plan teaching. Physics Education, 37(1), Article 53. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/37/1/307
  • Savinainen, A., & Viiri, J. (2008). The force concept inventory as a measure of students conceptual coherence. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6, 719–740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9103-x
  • Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1994). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0302_1
  • Stoen, S. M., McDaniel, M. A., Frey, R. F., Hynes, K. M., & Cahill, M. J. (2020). Force concept inventory: More than just conceptual understanding. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 16(1), Article 010105. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.010105
  • Ukozor, F. I. (2011). Effect of constructivist teaching strategy on senior secondary school students’ achievement and self-efficacy in physics. African Journal of Science, Technology and Mathematics Education, 1(1), 141–160.
  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  • Watkins, J., & Mazur, E. (2013). Retaining students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(5), 36–40.
  • Weil-Barais, A. (2001). Constructivist approaches and the teaching of science. Prospects, 31(2), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03220060
  • Yager, R. E. (1991). The constructivist learning model. The Science Teacher, 58(6), Article 52.
  • Zacharia, Z. C., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.03.001