TEACHING STRATEGIS DESIGNED TO CHANGE THE UNDERGRADUATE EXPERIENCE FOR COLLEGE WOMEN LEARNING CHEMISTRY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A college for women has been cited as one of the most productive origins of female physical science doctorates in the United States. A case study was conducted to investigate teaching strategies that support the retention of women in the physical sciences, based on evidence from one of the college's most notable instructors and her teaching strategies. The strategies this teacher used included a personal “contract”, confidence building techniques, and science internships. Data were collected from classroom documents, classroom observations, teacher interviews, student focus groups, student feedback sheets, Likert-response student surveys, and student final exams. Evidence from the Likert-response survey and focus groups suggested that the contract increased students' likelihood of success in the course and that confidence-building strategies improved students' confidence in their ability to succeed in science. An analysis of students' final exam scores indicated that student marks improved after the introduction of the aforementioned teaching innovations: 4% of students taking the same science course with the same teacher earned less than a C-, compared to a previous three-year average of 18% of students with below C- grades. In addition, notably fewer minority women dropped the course than they had in the past. The findings of this study suggest that this teacher's strategies may have played a part in retaining these women in the physical sciences. Based on the data, a theoretical model is proposed that suggests how switching or “fading” out of the course may have been addressed and how multiple teaching strategies can work in concert with each other to contribute to women's positive experiences in the physical sciences.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".