At the very root of the development of interest: using human body contexts to improve women’s emotional engagement in introductory physics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In physics, women find contexts concerning human biology, medical applications, or natural phenomena highly relevant (Hoffmann, 2002), and the rareness or absence of these in physics curricula may make it more difficult for women to develop and maintain their interest in physics. To date, research in physics education addressing student’s interest mainly employed subjective or contextual data, mostly questionnaires containing statements about different scientific topics. However, no index has been used to identify the triggering of interest as it is happens in real time and, more importantly, in action. Psychophysiological data, in this case electrodermal activity, allow non-intrusive recordings of student’s arousal that serve as a more direct and objective way to observe their interest while they solve physics problems. The onset of interest with arousal must be investigated given that a strong, positive emotional engagement is an essential first step in developing interest in a discipline (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). This study compares the emotional engagement of 13 female college and university students while solving physics problems involving either technical or human body contexts. Results show that the emotional engagement of women in the subject was, in part, significantly greater and more positive when they were solving problems involving the human body context rather than the technical context.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".