* [41] Lozano-Perez, Spatial planning: A configuration space approach, IEEE Transactions on Computers C-32 (2) (1983) 108–120.  doi:10.1109/TC.1983.1676196.
  * [42] S. Cameron, R. Culley, Determining the minimum translational distance between two convex polyhedra, in: Proceedings. 1986 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 3, 1986, pp. 591–596.
  * [43] D. Schulz, W. Burgard, Probabilistic state estimation of dynamic objects with a moving mobile robot, Robotics and Autonomous Systems 34 (2-3) (2001) 107–115.
  * [44] E. Rimon, S. P. Boyd, Obstacle collision detection using best ellipsoid fit, Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems 18 (2) (1997) 105–126.
  * [45] M. Grötschel, L. Lovász, A. Schrijver, Geometric Algorithms and Combinatorial Optimization, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1988.


# Gender Equity in Physics Labs: A Review

Danny Doucette<EMAIL_ADDRESS>he/him/his Department of Physics,
St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, B2G 2W5, Canada
Chandralekha Singh  Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of
Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260, USA

###### Abstract

This review article provides an overview of research on the topic of gender
equity in educational physics labs. As many institutions and instructors seek
to evolve or transform physics lab learning, it is important that changes are
made that improve equity for all students along multiple axes of identity,
including gender. The studies highlighted in this review article describe the
existence of complex gender-based differences, e.g., in opportunities to
tinker with lab equipment, as well as differences in grades, conceptual
understanding, and motivational outcomes across a broad range of lab curricula
and contexts. The studies also illustrate and explore social interactions and
structures that can impact students’ experiences based on their gender
identities. Although there has been less scholarship focused on proposals to
reduce gender-based inequities in labs, this review article also provides an
overview of some relevant proposals as well as associated research results.
This overview of research on gender equity in physics labs helps to make clear
that future scholarship on equity in physics labs should adopt gender
frameworks that allow researchers to transcend binary gender identities and
student deficit framing of research results. Likewise, a case is made that
future research is needed on equity along other axes of identity, as well as
research that accounts for intersectionality of different identities, in the
physics lab context.

##  I Introduction

This paper provides a review of research on gender equity in educational
physics labs. Lab-work has long been a key component of physics learning in
Western-style education systems [1]. However, despite decades of access, there
continue to be challenges facing people who do not have a masculine identity
when they enroll in physics lab courses. Our goal is to present two aspects of
this story: first, to summarize research focused on identifying gender-based
differences in physics labs, and second, to provide an overview of scholarship
that addresses proposals to reduce gender inequities in physics labs.

Since this review summarizes prior research on gender equity in the physics
lab context, we would like to start by explaining what we mean by equity in
physics learning. Our conceptualization of equity in physics learning includes
three pillars: equitable access and opportunity to learn physics, an equitable
and inclusive learning environment, and equitable outcomes (e.g., [2]). Thus,
by equity in physics learning in the lab context, we mean that all students
should have equitable opportunities to learn and equitable access to
resources. The learning environment needs to have appropriate support so that
all students can engage in all aspects of learning and developing skills
(including specific lab-related skills) in a meaningful and enjoyable manner.
Likewise, the learning outcomes should be equitable. By equitable outcomes, we
mean that students from all demographic groups (e.g., regardless of their
gender identity or other identities) who have the pre-requisites to enroll in
physics courses have comparable learning outcomes including the opportunity to
develop lab-related skills. The learning outcomes, in this sense, could refer
to grades, results from concept inventories, etc. as well as motivational
outcomes such as self-efficacy and skill-development. This conceptualization
of equitable outcomes is consistent with Rodriguez et al.’s equity of parity
model (i.e., students from all demographic groups have similar end-of-term
outcomes) and is different from the equal gains in outcomes model (i.e., all
students improve by the same amount so those who started ahead at the
beginning of a course remain ahead at the end) [3].

Ensuring equitable outcomes based upon the equity of parity model requires an
equitable and inclusive learning environment and intentional focus on ensuring
that students from all demographic groups are provided opportunities to engage
in and learn from all aspects of lab. We rely on Cochran’s description of
inclusion as being “concerned with what being included in that organization or
environment means” [4], rather than the simple issue of whether all students
are allowed to participate. Inclusiveness of learning environment is essential
for it to be equitable but unless outcomes are equitable, the learning
environment is not equitable. Equity of parity in outcomes typically requires
modifications to instruction so that all students are given opportunities to
engage in all aspects of physics labs in an equitable and inclusive learning
environment. This type of environment can elevate the outcomes of groups (and
ensure growth of all individuals in the group) regardless of whether they
initially have had less relevant opportunities and had, e.g., lower-levels of
prior preparation or self-efficacy. When we refer to past studies that compare
the outcomes for women and men, we are employing an equity of parity framework
to deem the outcomes equitable. We note that several of the studies we
describe outcomes by simply making comparisons between students from two
gender groups. This is not aligned with our framework of equity, which
requires analysis of issues of access and the learning environment, in
addition to comparing performance on some metric of different demographic
groups, e.g., women and men. Scholarship that consists of gender comparisons
without an analysis of the learning environment and social dynamics is
inadequate and counterproductive [5].

We focus in this paper on physics labs in a broad sense. This includes
different educational levels, such as high school, college, ‘beyond the first
year’ of physics studies at university, and research labs that include an
educational element (such as labs that train graduate students). We include
studies with different lab configurations: separate or standalone lab courses,
as well as integrated ‘studio physics’-style courses. The studies we cite
below focus on a wide range of different curricula, including skills-based
labs, conceptual inquiry-based labs, project-based labs, computational labs,
and more [6]. Physics lab learning is an essential component of physics
education that includes instruction related to the epistemology and skills
associated with experimental physics. Compared with lecture-based learning,
lab-work offers students a different way of developing a sense of oneself as a
physicist, and so can be important for students’ physics identity development.

Regardless of the configuration or curricula, physics labs tend to be spaces
in which students are expected to work collaboratively with their peers. As a
consequence, physics labs are a place in which the culture of physics is
learned, practiced, and deployed. By the culture of physics, we are referring
to the constellation of stereotypes and ideas about what counts as physics and
who counts as a physicist. This includes stereotype threat [7, 8], brilliance
attributions [9], and media portrayals of physicists [10]. Physics differs
from other disciplines because of the depth to which it is committed to
masculinity [11, 12], especially in lab settings where collaboration and norms
make gender-based biases and stereotypes especially prevalent and impactful
[13]. Gender-based inequities are a significant issue in physics lab
education, as they undermine our shared conviction that people from all
demographic groups should have the opportunity to develop skills (including
those specific to labs that have the potential to increase their self-efficacy
related to science in general and experimental science in particular) as well
as learn physics concepts in an equitable and inclusive learning environment.
Lack of equity and inclusion in physics lab learning environments can deprive
students, e.g., those from traditionally marginalized groups such as women, of
the opportunities to develop those skills that could also have negative
consequences on their academic outcomes as well as future career path. Thus,
scholarship about the origins of gender-based inequities in physics labs, and
especially scholarship focused on proposals to reduce and eliminate
inequities, is necessary.

Our approach to gender and gender-focused research acknowledges gender as a
fluid, non-binary, complex aspect of identity [14]. In the context of physics
learning, Danielsson et al. posited gender as a practice [15]: gender is
something we do [16], in a context-dependent way, as well as a framing through
which we interact with people and social systems around us. Within this
perspective, we further acknowledge the prevalence of two particular genders
(man and woman) and their associated structuring practices [17] (i.e.,
masculinity and femininity). Masculinity, then, is the pattern of ways that
men seek to behave as men, and the social norms and ideas that emerge from
that. Other gender identities exist, but these two are common enough to have
motivated substantial scholarship. These two genders have been employed in a
binary form by many scholars of past research. In this paper, we choose to
respect the authorial decisions of the scholars we cite by using their
terminology while describing their work. We hope that the reader can make it
through the resulting mish-mash, e.g., of gender and sex being used
interchangeably even though ‘’female’ and ‘male’ describe the sex of an
individual rather than socially constructed gender, and use of gender binary
even though gender is a fluid non-binary construct. We also use the phrase
gender gap, which is employed by researchers to describe differences between
the physics lab outcomes of women and men. We note that in all of the
scholarship described below men outperformed women according to the relevant
outcome in any case of a gender-based difference in that outcome.

Prior research suggests that a major underlying cause of most gender
differences observed in physics labs is the masculine culture of physics [18,
19]. The masculine culture serves as the foundation for relationships between
peers in physics settings, sets the tone for instructor-student interactions,
and shapes norms and policies. The fact that masculinity dominates physics
culture is true for all of the national contexts described in the studies we
review, although the mechanisms for this domination may vary somewhat.
Likewise, the ways that physics culture show up vary for different types of
institution, and so it is important not to over-generalize the results from
one study [20]. Within our framework, however, we reject claims about gender
differences in physics labs that are rooted in biological differences and do
not focus on how the interplay of social dynamics and gender affects student
outcomes.

This review focuses on only one dimension of identity, i.e., gender, rather
than treating equity along other student identities in a multi-dimensional
space as well as intersectionality. This is necessitated by the shortage of
scholarship focused on equity in physics labs along other dimensions such as
race, ethnicity, disability, class, and sexuality. We return to address this
important research scarcity in Discussion and Conclusion.

##  II Methods

In writing this review article, we have tried to cast as wide a net as
possible in seeking out relevant scholarship on the issue of gender equity in
physics labs. We have searched through Physical Review: Physics Education
Reearch, The Physics Teacher, the American Journal of Physics, the European
Journal of Physics, Physics Education, and the proceedings of the Physics
Education Research Conference (PERC), as well as via Google Scholar and with
the NCSU library search engine, for combinations of the terms “gender” or
“women” alongside “physics lab” or “physics experiment”. The NCSU library
search engine, QuickSearch, is a customized tool that parses through articles,
books, journals, and other resources [21]. We included publications available
up to March, 2023. All publications that were deemed to fit the intent of this
review were included, and are cited in the references of this manuscript.

There are six different types of outcome measure used by the studies we
review: (1) lab-specific skills and experiences using instruments like ECLASS,
(2) indicators of conceptual understanding such as grades and concept
inventory scores, (3) academic measures such as passing rates and degree
persistence, (4) motivational factors such as self-efficacy and agency,
assessed via validated surveys, (5) measures of task division and peer
interactions, and (6) qualitative outcomes such as students describing their
experiences in lab courses. There is the potential of unexamined gender bias
in these measures [22], which have not been evaluated for bias in the same way
as some more commonly used instruments [23].

Our intention is to provide an overview of research that has addressed the
issue of gender in physics labs up to this point, not to write a meta-
analysis. However, in order to provide some structure to this paper, we have
tried to draw together some overarching themes from the reviewed scholarship
in the Discussion and Conclusion section of this paper. We cannot claim that
the references here are a complete representation of research relating to
gender in physics labs, but we believe they provide as comprehensive and
thorough an overview as possible.

We acknowledge that our positionality played a role in the process of
searching out, reading, and analyzing the papers described below [24]. Danny
is a white man who teaches physics, a discipline that pays him unearned
‘wages’ [25] because of his identities. His 2021 Ph.D. thesis (with
Chandralekha) focused on gender equity in labs, and his involvement in physics
education organizations led to conversations with other scholars interested in
gender equity in physics labs, many of whose work is included in this review
paper. Chandralekha is an Asian woman who has worked with Danny to make
physics lab learning environments equitable and inclusive.

We feel that it is important to distinguish between scholarship that is
primarily focused with identifying and elucidating gender differences in
physics labs on one hand, and evaluation of proposals intended to remedy
gender inequities on the other hand. For that reason, the remainder of the
paper is divided into three sections. In Section III, we review papers that
are primarily concerned with the uncovering of the existence and causes of
gender differences in physics labs. In Section IV, we review papers that
present and evaluate proposals to reduce the effect of inequities in physics
labs. In Section V, we attempt to pull together some overarching themes from
the papers and present our vision of avenues for future research.

##  III Manifestations and Causes

Before reviewing the range of studies of gender in physics labs, it may be
useful to look at three ‘early’ studies from the early 2000s. These studies
are informative because they illustrate the scope, as well as some of the
shortcomings, of research that has thus far been conducted on gender in
physics labs.

As part of a Ph.D. dissertation completed in 1997, Kostas analyzed a variety
of lab manuals from secondary school physics and other disciplines.
Hypothesizing that different types of experimental work might provide
different benefits for girls than for boys, Kostas found that the lab manuals
in fact provided a balanced combinations of different types of experimental
work [26]. This null result highlights the challenge of determining causal
factors in the physics lab that can be identified as primary causes for gender
differences. This result also illustrates the importance of starting with a
reliable gender framework while designing research projects, rather than
relying on assumptions rooted in biological essentialism. As argued in papers
referenced later, it is instead likely that gender differences in outcomes
arise in a complex way from an entanglement of social, cultural, motivational,
and pedagogical factors.

In a 1998 paper, Brown, Slater, and Adams noted that the women (there were 28)
in their class of 221 were more likely than the men to use a “naive method”
when prompted to connect an electric circuit [27]. This finding is valuable,
they claim, because “we are often at a loss to identify specific things we do
in our classrooms that place females at a disadvantage” [27]. This research is
built on the troublesome assumptions that gender differences are inherent
rather than primarily social in nature, and that physics instruction is (and
was) equitable for men and women. In a letter to the editor responding to the
Brown, Slater, and Adams paper, Wainwright attributed the gender difference to
anxiety and self-confidence and shared pedagogical approaches that can help
all students learn to build electric circuits effectively [28]. The response
by Wainwright illustrates how gender-focused studies built on a student
deficit framing [29, 30, 31] like Brown, Slater, and Adams tend to overlook
the role of underlying causes while providing little actionable guidance for
instruction. This study and the previous should be seen as examples of how not
to conduct gender-focused scholarship.

A 2001 PERC paper by Potter et al. claimed that the transformation of an
introductory physics course to a studio format helped to improve gender parity
in final grade distributions [32] compared with a traditional format. However,
in a follow-up publication in 2004, the authors expressed continued
uncertainty about the mechanisms by which a switch to active learning may have
impacted the social component of learning [33]. This scholarship anticipated
research results that were generally positive, if uneven and hard to qualify,
focused on studio-style courses.

###  III.1 Surveys

A number of validated surveys have been developed for use in physics lab
courses, including the Physics Measurement Questionnaire (PMQ) [34], the
Concise Data Processing Assessment (CDPA) [35], the Colorado Learning
Attitudes about Science Survey for experimental physics (ECLASS) [36], the
Physics Lab Inventory of Critical thinking (PLIC) [37], and the Survey of
Physics Reasoning on Uncertainty Concepts in Experiments (SPRUCE) [38]. Data
from several of these surveys have been analyzed in order to identify binary
gendered trends in student responses. Day et al. found significant gender gaps
in performance on the CDPA that persisted from pre-test to post-test [39].

In an analysis of data from the ECLASS, Wilcox and Lewandowski found similar
aggregate gender differences that persisted from pre-test to post-test.
However, when they disaggreated their student population, the gender
differences disappeared for some categories of students (e.g, physics majors
in beyond first year lab courses) and persisted for others (e.g., physics non-
majors in first year lab courses) [40].

###  III.2 Lab Curricula

The ECLASS and PLIC have both been used to analyze gender differences in labs
with different curricula. For example, Doucette et al. reported gender
differences in post ECLASS scores for a conceptual inquiry-based introductory
physics lab course [41].

In another analysis, Wilcox and Lewandowski found that post-instruction ECLASS
scores in skills-based labs eliminated (or even reversed, in specific cases)
the pre-instruction ‘gender gap’ [42]. A study by Walsh et al. compared both
ECLASS and PLIC results, finding that students of all genders had higher post-
instruction scores in skills-based labs than in concepts-focused labs [43],
controling for pre-instruction scores. A study by Sulaiman et al., focusing on
a lab transformation to a skills-based approach, identified some ECLASS items
that had different responses from men than for women, suggesting that gender
identity can play a role in how students perceive their lab [44].

###  III.3 Integrated Labs

Introductory physics courses that integrate lecture and lab components
together, also known as studio physics, have also been analyzed with an eye on
gender. Kohl and Kuo reported that a transition to studio physics narrowed
gender differences in course grades, DFW rates and, in particular, scores on a
concept inventory of electricity and magnetism concepts [45]. Potter et al.
reported eliminating gender differences in grade outcomes after transitioning
to a studio-style approach, attributing the evening out of grades to the
features of the transformed course [32]. Laws et al. reported that women in a
workshop physics class were equally likely as men to choose to major in
physics [46].

Analysis by Beichner et al. indicated that the SCALE-UP approach was
associated with significant reduction in failure rates for integrated
introductory physics classes, with the reduction for women outpacing the
reduction for men [47]. Meanwhile, Brahmia demonstrated that the ISLE approach
combined with mathematical reasoning skill-developing activities in a
specially-designed course is associated with an increase in the passing rate
of a first-year physics course, eliminating earlier gender differences [48].

Focusing on university-level Modeling Instruction, analysis by Traxler and
Brewe found equitable outcomes for men and women on an attitudinal survey
[49], with no gender-inequitable impacts on long-term measures such as
persistence to degree or failure of upper division classes [50]. However,
there was an increase in the ‘gender gap’ as measured by a concept inventory,
which increased between pre and post [51] for those university-level Modeling
Instruction classes, with no clear dependence on the instructor’s gender [52].

###  III.4 Online Labs

Prior to the adoption of remote instruction as a result of the COVID-19
pandemic starting in 2020, Kepple analyzed student attitudes and performance
in online physics labs using the IOLab device. Kepple reported gains on a
concept inventory for both men and women (although the gains for men were
greater), and reported that both men and women achieved higher grades in the
online lab and also that both men and women would prefer to take an online lab
if they had an option to do so [53]. A study by Rosen and Kelly, focused on
socialization, physics epistemology, and help-seeking beliefs, found no gender
difference between men and women in the cases of both online and in-person
labs [54], also using the IOLab device. Further, they suggest that self-
selection into either online or in-person labs may be responsible for reducing
‘gender gaps’ in these factors (implying that perhaps gender gaps may
previously have emerged because of students being required to learn in
unfavorable contexts).

Based on data collected as a result of the switch to remote instruction as a
result of the COVID-19 pandemic, Radulović et al. suggested that online labs
may have been somewhat more effective than in-person labs at helping female
students learn physics concepts and develop a (self-reported) sense of
confidence about conducting experiments [55]. Furthermore, this study showed
no difference between male and female students on a separate measure of self-
efficacy, which suggests that gender differences in some motivational factors
may be partially affected by lab format.

###  III.5 High School Labs

Three studies lend insight into the impact of high school physics labs on
gender inequities. Using a national dataset for the USA, Burkam et al. found
that hands-on lab activities (which they suggest to be relatively rare) had a
positive impact on students’ performance, with an especially strong impact for
girls [56]. Based on another national dataset for the USA, Hazari et al.
reported that, among other things, male high school students were more likely
to report that labs addressed beliefs they held about the world [57].

Meanwhile, Stoeckel’s analysis of one AP physics class identified labs as
being especially important for the development of students’ sense of
confidence, which has been implicated in gender differences [58].

###  III.6 Upper Division Labs

In her Ph.D. thesis, Thomas used quantitative and qualitative methods to
explore the impact of a novel series of lab experiences that supplement
instruction for most courses in the traditional physics major program. This
scholarship identified factors in the design of these lab experiences as being
essential to the development of students’ senses of belonging and
identification with physics, as well as their persistence [59]. Observing
gender dynamics in an intermediate astrophysics lab course, Gunter et al.
noted that a lack of meaningful discussions about physics concepts, as well as
division of labor in which men tended to adopt the hands-on activities, led to
gaps in students’ understanding. Notably, they also observed that women who
were physics majors were viewed as competent and took on leadership roles in
groups in which they were paired with men who were not physics majors [60].

###  III.7 Masculinities in Research Labs

In an ethnographic study of physics research labs in the USA and Japan,
Traweek noted the impact of gender and masculinity on the physics research
being conducted [61]. Beyond their focus on scientific exploration, research
labs are also a space for education, which inspired three parallel streams of
scholarship by Gonsalves, Danielsson, and Pettersson, who used ethnographic
approaches to understand the impact of different aspects of masculinity on
research labs in the USA, Canada, and Sweden [13]. Pettersson described the
role of a ‘boys and their toys’ attitude, as well as the significance of large
machines and opportunities for students to get their hands dirty, as important
factors in a plasma physics lab [62, 13]. Gonsalves noted that devices are
often constructed with in-built assumptions about the physical bodies (arm
length, physical strength, manual dexterity) that will operate them. She also
found that women often engage in gender negotiation in physics lab spaces,
such as rejecting traditional gender norms or seeking out unique ways to gain
recognition for skilled work [13]. Danielsson’s interviews revealed the
significance of tinkering and ‘female masculinity’ in the development of
students’ identity as a physicist [63, 64, 13].

###  III.8 Motivational Factors

A wide variety of studies have investigated the impact of physics labs on
gender differences in motivational constructs. Kalender et al. explored the
role of agency (“the capacity to guide one’s actions towards achieving a
goal”) in labs, finding a lower level of agency for women in a physics majors’
lab but not in an engineering majors’s lab course [65, 66]. Kinnischtzke and
Smith noted a tight relationship between agency and self-efficacy in physics
labs [67]. Laws et al. found that women were less confident than men about
their lab skills in a studio physics class [46]. Likewise, Stoeckel’s work in
a high school classroom illustrated the importance of hands-on lab work for
developing students’ confidence [58].

Stump and Holmes found that students, and especially men, often do not
recognize ‘managing the group progress’ as part of doing physics, which might
be problematic as managerial roles are often adopted by women in mixed-gender
groups [68]. Meanwhile, Doucette and Singh described a physics student whose
identity as a scientist was boosted by the recognition she received as a
member of a physical chemistry research group [69]. Perceived recognition can
be a key factor that impacts students’ self-efficacy and physics identity
[70].

Gunawan et al. explored the role of creativity in a virtual physics lab for
high school students [71]. Other investigations into motivational factors in
lab, such as Funkhouser’s work on identity in a transformed college physics
lab [72] and Lassen et al.’s work on project ownership [73], have not
addressed the gender dimension directly but still shine light indirectly on
the role of gender in physics lab learning.

###  III.9 Student Interactions

Social interactions between students can be an important way in which gender
differences can influence students’ motivational and learning outcomes. Jeon
et al. explored the role of student interactions and ‘inchargeness’ in group
work, finding that gender equity in group-work could not be simply predicted
by these factors [74]. Investigations using social network analysis by
Sundstrom et al. indicated that student demographics and course structure
impacted the interactions students had in their lab courses, and also that in
some cases students may have been more likely to interact with same-gender
peers [75]. In another study focusing on a reformed lab, Sundstrom et al.
found that students from all-male groups were more likely to interact with
peers from other groups than were students from mixed-gender or all-female
groups [76].

In a study of a workshop physics program, Laws et al. reported troubling
social dynamics: “women complained of domineering partners, clashes in
temperament, being subjected to ridicule, fears that their partners didn’t
respect them, and feelings that their partners understood far more than they”
[73]. Similar issues emerged in a study by Doucette and Singh, which
documented women describing being ignored, talked over, and not taken
seriously in physics labs [77].

###  III.10 Task Division

One prominent way in which student interactions have been observed to result
in gender differences is through task division. Holmes et al. presented data
suggesting that men in mixed gender pairs may be more likely than women to use
lab equipment [78]. Quinn et al. found that gendered task division was
particularly pronounced in less-structured inquiry-style labs [79, 80]. Dew et
al. found that task division was reduced when it came to equipment handling
for remote labs in which students constructed their own apparatus [81]. Van
Domelen investigated gender differences in perceptions of technology use in a
lab setting [82], finding subtle differences between men and women. Akubo et
al. presented two case studies in which positioning/power dynamics influenced
the ways that students self-assigned different aspects of their lab-work [83].

Doucette et al. used ethnographic observations to propose that in mixed gender
groups, women may be pushed toward secretarial and managerial (’Hermione’)
work while men are inclined toward tinkering and wasting their time on
cellphones and other distractions not related to the physics lab [84]. Based
upon individual interviews and ethnographic classroom observations of mixed-
gender and same-gender groups from the beginning of the semester when the
groups first formed, they proposed a model for how the gendered roles
solidified in many mixed-gender groups compared to the same-gender groups
[84]. In this model based upon typical gender dynamics, a student’s
initiative—their willingness to do work—in the lab is plotted horizontally,
while the vertical axis shows a student’s gender [84]. The model shows that
typically when a high-initiative woman begins to work with a low-initiative
man she adopts a Hermione role and he becomes a person who is often distracted
from the lab work unless she insists that he does certain tasks. On the other
hand, when a woman with lower initiative begins to work with a high-initiative
man: he tends increasingly to take over the experiment, adopting the Tinkerer
role, and she tends more toward the Secretary role. The type of gender
dynamics that drives this task division is observed throughout the lab period,
but is especially pronounced during the first hour that a pair of students is
beginning to work together. Their observations suggest that unlike in mixed-
gender groups, the ‘phase separation’ into different roles generally does not
seem to occur in same-gender groups. In fact, in their observations, the
general contrast between the mixed-gender and same-gender groups in this
regard was striking [84].

Studies of women who take on a leadership role in collaborative lab-work have
shown that this role can have some positive impact on their identity
development [85, 86]. For example, in one study, women who were group leaders
described that they felt valued as leaders and liked the lab much more than
the physics lectures since their team would not successfully complete the lab
work without their leadership role [86]. However, it is worrisome that many of
them conveyed low overall physics self-efficacy and the belief that their male
peers were better at tinkering in the lab or physics in general, which may at
least partly be due to stereotypes about who can excel in physics. For
example, one female lab group leader whose male peer routinely dominated
tinkering with the equipment stated, “He’s very good at equipment, so even if
he doesn’t necessarily read the lab, he’s just one of those people that has
very good problem-solving skills when there’s hands-on things” [86].
Critically, as shown by Holmes et al., the emergence of gender-based
inequities such as task division cannot be attributed to gender differences in
student preferences about collaborative work [87].

##  IV Proposals to reduce inequities

Whether we consider the role of gender-based task division, the impact of
masculinities in physics labs, or the reasons that students with different
gender identities achieve different outcomes in labs, research studies
presented here suggest that a central underlying cause of gender-based
inequity is the masculine culture of physics. Prior scholarship has proposed
or evaluated the success of different approaches to reducing gender-based
inequities in physics labs. A wide variety of approaches has been suggested
[88], including the use of course-based undergraduate research experiences
[89], explicitly discussing equity issues [90], and social-belonging
interventions [91]. In this section, we report only on scholarship focused
specifically on studies that have examined strategies for reducing inequities
in physics labs.

###  IV.1 Reducing Isolation

In a physics lab, women may become isolated in two different ways: they may be
excluded if students are allowed to choose their own groups [92, 70], or they
may find that their group-mates do not value their expertise or ignore their
contributions [77]. Past scholarship (e.g., Gillibrand’s study of single sex
classes in mixed schools [93]) suggests that one solution to reducing
isolation is by ensuring that groups of 3 or more students are formed in such
a way as to include either 0 or 2 or more women; in other words, avoiding
forming groups with exactly 1 woman. In this physics context, this suggestion
appears to originate from Heller et al. [94], and was subsequently
incorporated in other curricular projects (e.g., SCALE-UP [47]) and
scholarship (e.g., McCullough’s column in The Physics Teacher [95]).

However, some students may find a ‘no isolated woman’ group formation strategy
to be disconcerting. Instructors may instead choose to focus on ways that they
can structure and support group-work in ways that helps students develop
equitable and fair collaboration practices, such as via group-work contracts
[96], interventions [97], and making group-work an assessed course outcome
[98]. As an example of how the gender composition of groups may not play a
significant role for well-structured work, Callan et al. reported that in
their studio-style physics classes there were no differences in students’
grades, conceptual understanding, or experimental beliefs when comparing
mixed-gender groups with single-gender groups [99].

###  IV.2 Assigned Group Roles

If students are inclined to divide up group-work tasks, one strategy that
might improve equity is to explicitly assign, and then rotate, group roles.
For example, Heller and Heller devised a scheme by which students would rotate
through the roles of manager, recorder, skeptic, and summarizer in cooperative
problem-solving and lab-work [100]. Students may be asked to reflect on their
role participation, in order to show students that group-work roles are
important (e.g., [77]).

While roles may offer a way for students to participate in all aspects of the
lab-work, Holmes et al. have reported that students prefer to share, rather
than split up, their lab-work [87]. Furthermore, sharing rather than splitting
up group work can serve to boost the self efficacy of women in mixed gender
groups [101, 102].

###  IV.3 Attending to the Intersubjective Space

In a case study of a particular physics department, Johnson described efforts
by faculty to provide structural support for the development of students’
physics identity. These efforts included teaching students how to collaborate
in their lab-work, using evidence-informed instruction, and communicating a
growth mindset to the students [103].

Indeed, instructors can have a powerful impact on the experiences that serve
to shape their students’ physics identities. A strong body of research (e.g.,
[104, 105, 106]) has drawn connections between the masculine culture of
physics, students’ motivational characteristics such as physics identity and
self-efficacy, and gender-based inequities in physics outcomes. A key aspect
of this connection is the intersubjective space; that is, the space of
relationships between people that includes concerns (e.g., ‘I wonder what he
thinks about my physics ability’) that can strongly impact students’ beliefs
about themselves and their abilities. Thus, it has been suggested that
instructors might be able to indirectly impact the motivational
characteristics of students by addressing the intersubjective space. An
intersubjective space that is more focused on collaboration, caring, and hard
work can, as Johnson notes, help to lift stereotype threat that women often
face in physics settings [103].

For example, Doucette and Singh described how two women who struggled in
physics and physical chemistry labs were able to persist and succeed by
seeking out recognition and mentorship from beyond their peer groups [69].
Gosling described the positive impact of providing choice to high school
students for a 5-week lab project [107]. The intersubjective space can also be
addressed through ecological interventions, such as the ecological belonging
intervention pioneered by Binning et al. [91].

###  IV.4 Preparing Student Instructors

Particularly in large research-focused universities, physics labs are often
taught by graduate or undergraduate students who may have little pedagogical
training. As early as 1940, Sister Ambrosia advocated for an approach to lab
instruction that would improve learning outcomes for women in mixed gender
physics labs by giving the students opportunities to serve as “partner-
instructors” to classmates who are about to start an experiment that they had
previously completed, themselves [108]. Turpen et al. explored how
undergraduate learning assistants diagnose and respond to inequitable teamwork
in a project-based engineering course [109]. Several efforts to improve and
transform the preparation of graduate student lab instructors have included
teaching practices focused on responding to inequitable student groupwork
[110, 111, 112].

###  IV.5 Does Studio Physics Reduce Gender Inequities?

While evidence-based active learning instruction generally produces better
academic outcomes on average [113], the impact of active learning instruction
on gender differences is less clear. Some studies suggest that active learning
can reduce or eliminate ‘gender gaps’ in grades and motivational outcomes
(e.g., [114, 115, 116]), while other studies suggest that active learning
instruction may preserve or even expand ‘gender gaps’ [117, 118, 8].

As a form of highly engaging active learning, studio physics might be expected
to provide some answers to the question of whether active learning instruction
can reliably reduce gender differences. For example, an expanded introductory
physics course closed ‘gender gaps’ in final grades [119], and a transformed
studio physics course saw the ‘gender gap’ in final grades disappear [32]. On
the other hand, an investigation of a studio physics course by Laws et al.
reported that some women found the course unpleasant and also noted that while
there were no gender differences in grades, women were less confident about
their laboratory skills than men [46]. The other studies described in Section
IIC similarly shed light on this question.

Likely, as these studies suggest, what matters for gender equity in active
learning and physics labs is not the curriculum by itself, but the structure
of student interactions, the nature of grading and feedback, the ways in which
instructors interact and model behavior for students, and many other factors.
Thus, integrated or studio physics may be more or less equitable, depending on
details of the course design and implementation.

##  V Discussion and Conclusions

###  V.1 Research Results

A core research result that emerges across the scholarship we reviewed is the
salience and persistence of gender-based inequities in educational physics
labs. The different ways that students practice gender have a dramatic and
important impact on their perceptions of experimental science, on skill-based
and conceptual outcomes, on students’ experiences in lab courses, on students’
views of themselves as physicists, and on the work they perform in labs. The
central outcomes parallel results from the rich tradition of research in
lecture-based physics courses [14, 88], which has likewise identified gender
differences in outcomes, experiences, and attitudes. Many different aspects of
the physics lab, as an educational setting, serve to subvert the goal of
equity of parity and deprive students (especially women and gender minorities)
of opportunities to learn to their full capacity and to come to see themselves
as capable of doing experimental physics work.

Several other key ideas emerge from a consideration of the scholarship
described in this paper. First, while different lab curricula may have an
impact on gender differences in lab-related skills, conceptual understanding,
grades, and motivational factors, the success of lab curriculum
transformations appears to depend heavily on the details: the structure of
student work and interactions, grading policies and expectations, the role of
lab instructors, and so on. This suggests that efforts to transform lab
instruction to improve equity will hinge on reconciling the insight and
institutional knowledge of those who have intimate knowledge of how a
particular lab works (e.g., lab coordinators) with the perspective and
experience of experts on gender-based effects in educational spaces (e.g.,
researchers). Instead of searching for a panacea, we should focus on
deliberate, sustained, evidence-based improvements to our physics labs in
order to improve gender equity.

Second, there are subtle yet important factors associated with different lab
environments (high school, upper division, online) and curricula (skills-
based, conceptual inquiry, studio physics) that current scholarship suggests
may be important. Findings that are relevant at the introductory college level
may not translate to high school; for example, a grouping strategy that seems
to improve gender-based equity in an introductory college physics lab context
may not have the same effect in a high school classroom.

Third, student interactions such as task division appear to play an important
role in how gender impacts students’ experiences in, and beliefs about,
physics labs. Lab instructors should (be taught to) look for inequitable
student interactions, and should (be taught to) respond effectively to these
interactions.

Fourth, physics lab spaces, and especially research spaces, are often
masculinized, which can pose challenges especially for people whose gender
identities do not align with masculinity. Particularly in research labs that
train physics majors and graduate students, physicists should consider how the
work required of students and the climate of the lab may be gendered in
physical, ideational, or intersubjective ways.

Fifth, while some strategies to reduce gender inequities in labs have been
advanced and investigated, there is a substantial need for more creativity,
insight, and scholarship applied to addressing the problem of gender inequity
in physics lab spaces.

###  V.2 Limitations and Future Directions

One limitation to this overview stems from the lack of statistical rigor
available in the referenced studies. Few of the studies provide a quantitative
analysis that includes effect sizes, for example. Further, when effect sizes
are either included or can be determined, they often disagree: Cohen’s d for
women vs. men in a first-year lab is -0.4 in one study [40] and -0.1 in
another [41]. As yet, there has not be satisfactory quantitative replication
of broad gendered patterns across institutions and contexts.

It is important to note not only what scholarship has been conducted, but also
what dimensions of physics lab instruction have not been put under the
scrutiny of a gender equity analysis. As with much of the field of physics
education research [20], introductory college physics labs at large research-
focused universities have been studied more extensively than physics labs at
high schools and two-year colleges, labs at minority-serving institutions,
‘beyond the first year’ and graduate level physics labs, or physics lab
courses outside the USA. Similarly, much focus has been applied to gender
differences, but there has been very little scholarship about the
effectiveness of different strategies for improving gender equity in physics
labs.

We found no studies that specifically reported on the physics lab experiences
of students with non-binary gender identities. Most of the studies come from
universities in the USA, and large research universities are strongly over-
represented. Thus, we urge the reader to be cautious to avoid over-
generalizing the results of any one study, or even our holistic analysis,
beyond the study’s original context.

In some cases, the focus on gender differences in the scholarship described
previously has had the effect of collapsing the complex, multi-faceted issue
of gender inequity into a simple binary comparison. There is value in
comparing the outcomes of men and women in lab settings, for example comparing
sense of belonging for men and women, especially when studies can be conducted
with large populations that allow for the use of model-based analysis (such as
structural equation modeling or network analysis). However, it is important
that such studies avoid implicit assumptions in the framing of research
questions (e.g., student deficit framing [29]) and in drawing conclusions
based on comparative results.

However, it is essential that gender-focused research also addresses ways in
which gender identity transcends fixed, binary categorization. There is a need
for more scholarship that investigates the experiences and outcomes for
students with a more sophisticated and complex gender framing. Future
scholarship will need to be thoughtful and imaginative about employing
frameworks such as masculinity that provide a foundation for researchers to
analyze deeply the causes and mechanisms that underlie their observations.

While there has been some scholarship focused on gender in physics labs, very
little focus has been directed toward other aspects of identity. More than
anything else, we recommend that future scholarship on equity in physics labs
adopts intersectional analyses that also account for race, ethnicity,
disability status, class, sexuality, and other dimensions of identity. A
report written by Dounas-Frazer et al. for the AAPT Committee on Laboratories
that calls for the investment of time, energy, and resources to increase
accessibility for physics labs [120] is an important first step in this
direction. Likewise, the intersectional (gender and race) analysis by Akubo at
al. of the negotiation of group roles for students in small lab groups [83] is
an important benchmark for future intersectional work.

We encourage researchers to pursue scholarship that investigates students’
experiences and outcomes in high school physics labs, in two year college
physics labs, in intermediate and advanced undergraduate lab courses, and in
physics lab courses both in and outside of the USA at different types of
academic institutions. We also encourage researchers to conduct research that
focuses on the experiences of students who navigate gender in non-traditional
ways, as well as research that investigates the impact of other axes of
identity, as well as intersectionality of identities, on students’ experiences
and outcomes in physics labs.

## References

  * DeBoer [1991] G. DeBoer,  _A History of Ideas in Science Education_ (Teachers College Press, 1991).
  * Cwik and Singh [2023] S. Cwik and C. Singh, Framework for and review of research on assessing and improving equity and inclusion in undergraduate physics learning environments, in  _International Handbook of Physics Education Research: Special Topics_, edited by M. F. Taşar and P. R. L. Heron (AIP Publishing, Melville, New York, 2023) pp. 2–1—2–26.
  * Rodriguez  _et al._ [2012] I. Rodriguez, E. Brewe, V. Sawtelle, and L. H. Kramer, Impact of equity models and statistical measures on interpretations of educational reform, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020103 (2012).
  * Cochran [2018] G. Cochran, Guest post: The problem with diversity, inclusion, and equity, The Scholarly Kitchen 28 (2018).
  * Gutiérrez [2008] R. Gutiérrez, Research commentary: A gap-gazing fetish in mathematics education? problematizing research on the achievement gap, Journal for research in mathematics education 39, 357 (2008).
  * Holmes and Lewandowski [2020] N. G. Holmes and H. J. Lewandowski, Investigating the landscape of physics laboratory instruction across North America, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020162 (2020).
  * Steele [2011] C. M. Steele,  _Whistling Vivaldi: How stereotypes affect us and what we can do_ (WW Norton & Company, 2011).
  * Maries  _et al._ [2018] A. Maries, N. I. Karim, and C. Singh, Is agreeing with a gender stereotype correlated with the performance of female students in introductory physics?, Physical Review Physics Education Research 14, 020119 (2018).
  * Leslie  _et al._ [2015] S.-J. Leslie, A. Cimpian, M. Meyer, and E. Freeland, Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines, Science 347, 262 (2015).
  * Weitekamp [2017] M. A. Weitekamp, The image of scientists in The Big Bang Theory, Physics Today , 40 (2017).
  * Wertheim [1997] M. Wertheim,  _Pythagoras’ Trousers: God, Physics, and the Gender Wars_ (WW Norton & Company, 1997).
  * Hasse [2002] C. Hasse, Gender diversity in play with physics: The problem of premises for participation in activities, Mind, Culture, and Activity 9, 250 (2002).
  * Gonsalves  _et al._ [2016] A. J. Gonsalves, A. Danielsson, and H. Pettersson, Masculinities and experimental practices in physics: The view from three case studies, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020120 (2016).
  * Traxler  _et al._ [2016] A. L. Traxler, X. C. Cid, J. Blue, and R. Barthelemy, Enriching gender in physics education research: A binary past and a complex future, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020114 (2016).
  * Danielsson and Linder [2009] A. T. Danielsson and C. Linder, Learning in physics by doing laboratory work: Towards a new conceptual framework, Gender and Education 21, 129 (2009).
  * West and Zimmerman [1987] C. West and D. H. Zimmerman, Doing gender, Gend. Soc. 1, 125 (1987).
  * Connell [2005] R. W. Connell,  _Masculinities_ , 2nd ed. (University of California Press, 2005).
  * Hall and Sandler [1982] R. M. Hall and B. R. Sandler,  _The Classroom Climate: A Chilly One for Women?_ , Tech. Rep. (Association of American Colleges, 1982).
  * Seymour and Hewitt [1997] E. Seymour and N. M. Hewitt,  _Talking about Leaving_ (Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1997).
  * Kanim and Cid [2020] S. Kanim and X. C. Cid, Demographics of physics education research, Physical Review Physics Education Research 16, 020106 (2020).
  * [21] K. Beswick, J. Boyer, and C. Lown, Quicksearch, https://www.lib.ncsu.edu/projects/quicksearch.
  * Malespina and Singh [2022] A. Malespina and C. Singh, Impact of grade penalty in first-year foundational science courses on female engineering majors, International Journal of Engineering Education 38, 1021 (2022).
  * Traxler  _et al._ [2018] A. Traxler, R. Henderson, J. Stewart, G. Stewart, A. Papak, and R. Lindell, Gender fairness within the force concept inventory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010103 (2018).
  * Milner IV [2007] H. R. Milner IV, Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen, unseen, and unforeseen, Educational Researcher 36, 388 (2007).
  * Roediger [1991] D. R. Roediger,  _The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class_ (Verso, 1991).
  * Kostas [1998] N. A. Kostas,  _A Gender Analysis of Secondary School Physics Textbooks and Laboratory Manuals_ , Ph.D. thesis, Lehigh University (1998).
  * Brown  _et al._ [1998] T. R. Brown, T. F. Slater, and J. P. Adams, Gender differences with batteries and bulbs, The Physics Teacher 36, 526 (1998).
  * Wainwright [1999] C. L. Wainwright, Gender indifference, The Physics Teacher 37, 131 (1999).
  * Cotner and Ballen [2017] S. Cotner and C. J. Ballen, Can mixed assessment methods make biology classes more equitable?, PLoS One 12, e0189610 (2017).
  * Exarhos [2020] S. Exarhos, Anti-deficit framing of sociological physics education research, The Physics Teacher 58, 461 (2020).
  * Nair and Sawtelle [2019] A. Nair and V. Sawtelle, Operationalizing relevance in physics education: Using a systems view to expand our conception of making physics relevant, Physical Review Physics Education Research 15, 020121 (2019).
  * Potter  _et al._ [2001] W. H. Potter, C. D. Leone, C. M. Ishikawa, J. Blickenstaff, and P. L. Hession, Significant reduction in gender grade disparities in a reformed introductory physics course, in  _Physics Education Research Conference 2001_ , PER Conference (Rochester, New York, 2001).
  * McKinnon and Potter [2004] M. L. McKinnon and W. H. Potter, Preliminary results of gender equity variations in a large active-learning introductory physics course due to laboratory activity instructions, in  _Physics Education Research Conference 2004_ , PER Conference, Vol. 790 (Sacramento, California, 2004) pp. 129–132.
  * Volkwyn  _et al._ [2008] T. S. Volkwyn, S. Allie, A. Buffler, and F. Lubben, Impact of a conventional introductory laboratory course on the understanding of measurement, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010108 (2008).
  * Day and Bonn [2011] J. Day and D. Bonn, Development of the concise data processing assessment, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 7, 010114 (2011).
  * Wilcox and Lewandowski [2016a] B. R. Wilcox and H. J. Lewandowski, Students’ epistemologies about experimental physics: Validating the colorado learning attitudes about science survey for experimental physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010123 (2016a).
  * Walsh  _et al._ [2019] C. Walsh, K. N. Quinn, C. Wieman, and N. G. Holmes, Quantifying critical thinking: Development and validation of the physics lab inventory of critical thinking, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010135 (2019).
  * Vignal  _et al._ [2023] M. Vignal, G. Geschwind, B. Pollard, R. Henderson, M. D. Caballero, and H. J. Lewandowski, Survey of physics reasoning on uncertainty concepts in experiments: An assessment of measurement uncertainty for introductory physics labs (2023).
  * Day  _et al._ [2016] J. Day, J. B. Stang, N. G. Holmes, D. Kumar, and D. A. Bonn, Gender gaps and gendered action in a first-year physics laboratory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020104 (2016).
  * Wilcox and Lewandowski [2016b] B. R. Wilcox and H. Lewandowski, Research-based assessment of students’ beliefs about experimental physics: When is gender a factor?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020130 (2016b).
  * Doucette  _et al._ [2022] D. Doucette, R. Clark, and C. Singh, Students’ attitudes toward experimental physics in a conceptual inquiry-based introductory physics lab, Canadian Journal of Physics 100, 292 (2022).
  * Wilcox and Lewandowski [2017] B. R. Wilcox and H. J. Lewandowski, Developing skills versus reinforcing concepts in physics labs: Insight from a survey of students’ beliefs about experimental physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010108 (2017).
  * Walsh  _et al._ [2022] C. Walsh, H. J. Lewandowski, and N. G. Holmes, Skills-focused lab instruction improves critical thinking skills and experimentation views for all students, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010128 (2022).
  * Sulaiman  _et al._ [2023] N. Sulaiman, A. Werth, and H. J. Lewandowski, Students’ views about experimental physics in a large-enrollment introductory lab focused on experimental scientific practices, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010116 (2023).
  * Kohl and Kuo [2009] P. B. Kohl and V. Kuo, Introductory physics gender gaps: Pre- and post-studio transition, in  _Physics Education Research Conference 2009_ , PER Conference, Vol. 1179 (Ann Arbor, Michigan, 2009) pp. 173–176.
  * Laws  _et al._ [1999] P. W. Laws, P. J. Rosborough, and F. J. Poodry, Women’s responses to an activity-based introductory physics program, Am. J. Phys. 67, 32 (1999).
  * Beichner [2007] R. Beichner, The student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (scale-up) project, in  _Research-Based Reform of University Physics_ , Vol. 1, edited by E. F. Redish and P. Cooney (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, 2007).
  * Brahmia [2008] S. W. Brahmia, Improving learning for underrepresented groups in physics for engineering majors, AIP Conference Proceedings 1064, 7 (2008).
  * Traxler and Brewe [2015] A. Traxler and E. Brewe, Equity investigation of attitudinal shifts in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020132 (2015).
  * Rodriguez  _et al._ [2016] I. Rodriguez, G. Potvin, and L. H. Kramer, How gender and reformed introductory physics impacts student success in advanced physics courses and continuation in the physics major, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020118 (2016).
  * Brewe  _et al._ [2010] E. Brewe, V. Sawtelle, L. H. Kramer, G. E. O’Brien, I. Rodriguez, and P. Pamelá, Toward equity through participation in modeling instruction in introductory university physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 010106 (2010).
  * McPadden and Brewe [2014] D. R. McPadden and E. Brewe, The impacts of instructor and student gender on student performance in introductory modeling instruction courses, in  _Physics Education Research Conference 2014_ , PER Conference (Minneapolis, MN, 2014) pp. 183–186.
  * Kepple [2017] C. M. J. Kepple,  _Distance Learning in Physics: An Investigation of Possible Benefits to Female Students in an Online Laboratory Environment_ , Master’s thesis, Portland State University (2017).
  * Rosen and Kelly [2020] D. J. Rosen and A. M. Kelly, Epistemology, socialization, help seeking, and gender-based views in in-person and online, hands-on undergraduate physics laboratories, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020116 (2020).
  * Radulović  _et al._ [2022] B. Radulović, V. Županec, M. Stojanović, and S. Budić, Gender motivational gap and contribution of different teaching approaches to female students’ motivation to learn physics, Scientific Reports 12, 18224 (2022).
  * Burkam  _et al._ [1997] D. T. Burkam, V. E. Lee, and B. A. Smerdon, Gender and science learning early in high school: Subject matter and laboratory experiences, American Educational Research Journal 34, 297 (1997).
  * Hazari  _et al._ [2008] Z. Hazari, P. M. Sadler, and R. H. Tai, Gender differences in the high school and affective experiences of introductory college physics students, The Physics Teacher 46, 423 (2008).
  * Stoeckel [2020] M. R. Stoeckel, Gender, self-assessment, and classroom experiences in AP Physics 1, The Physics Teacher 58, 399 (2020).
  * Thomas [2023] D. Thomas,  _Exploring the Contextually Situated Experiences, Perceptions, Beliefs, and Intentions of College Physics Majors in Physics Courses that Incorporate an Interactive Instructional Approach_ , Ph.D. thesis, North Carolina State University (2023).
  * Gunter  _et al._ [2010] R. Gunter, G. Spiczak, and J. Madsen, Cosmic collaboration in an undergraduate astrophysics laboratory, American Journal of Physics 78, 1035 (2010).
  * Traweek [1988] S. Traweek,  _Beamtimes and Lifetimes_ (Harvard University Press, 1988).
  * Pettersson [2011] H. Pettersson, Making masculinity in plasma physics: Machines, labour and experiments, Science & Technology Studies 24, 47 (2011).
  * Danielsson [2009] A. T. Danielsson,  _Doing Physics–Doing Gender: An Exploration of Physics Students’ Identity Constitution in the Context of Laboratory Work_ , Ph.D. thesis, Uppsala University (2009).
  * Danielsson [2012] A. T. Danielsson, Exploring woman university physics students ‘doing gender’and ‘doing physics’, Gender and Education 24, 25 (2012).
  * Kalender  _et al._ [2021] Z. Y. Kalender, E. Stump, K. Hubenig, and N. G. Holmes, Restructuring physics labs to cultivate sense of student agency, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020128 (2021).
  * Kalender  _et al._ [2020] Z. Y. Kalender, M. M. Stein, and N. G. Holmes, Sense of agency, gender, and students’ perception in open-ended physics labs, in  _Physics Education Research Conference 2020_ , PER Conference (Virtual Conference, 2020) pp. 259–265.
  * Kinnischtzke and Smith [2021] M. Kinnischtzke and E. M. Smith, Investigating relationships between emotional states and self-efficacy, agency, and interest in introductory labs, in  _Physics Education Research Conference 2021_ , PER Conference (Virtual Conference, 2021) pp. 209–214.
  * Stump and Holmes [2022] E. M. Stump and N. G. Holmes, Student views of what counts as doing physics in the lab, in  _Physics Education Research Conference 2022_ , PER Conference (Grand Rapids, MI, 2022) pp. 444–450.
  * Doucette and Singh [2020] D. Doucette and C. Singh, Why are there so few women in physics? Reflections on the experiences of two women, The Physics Teacher 58, 297 (2020).
  * Li and Singh [2023] Y. Li and C. Singh, The impact of perceived recognition by physics instructors on women’s self-efficacy and interest, arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.07239 (2023).
  * Gunawan  _et al._ [2018] G. Gunawan, N. Suranti, N. Nisrina, L. Herayanti, and R. Rahmatiah, The effect of virtual lab and gender toward students’ creativity of physics in senior high school, in  _Journal of Physics: Conference Series_ , Vol. 1108 (IOP Publishing, 2018).
  * Funkhouser [2019] K. M. Funkhouser,  _Examining Physics Identity in Laboratory Settings through Survey Development_ (Michigan State University, 2019).
  * Lassen  _et al._ [2021] I. C. Lassen, A. Arielle-Evans, L. Ríos, H. J. Lewandowski, and D. Dounas-Frazer, Student ownership and understanding of multi-week final projects, in  _Physics Education Research Conference 2021_ , PER Conference (Virtual Conference, 2021) pp. 221–226.
  * Jeon  _et al._ [2020] S. M. Jeon, Z. Y. Kalender, E. Sayre, and N. G. Holmes, How do gender and inchargeness interact to affect equity in lab group interactions?, in  _Physics Education Research Conference 2020_ , PER Conference (Virtual Conference, 2020) pp. 240–245.
  * Sundstrom  _et al._ [2022a] M. Sundstrom, A. Schang, A. B. Heim, and N. G. Holmes, Understanding interaction network formation across instructional contexts in remote physics courses, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020141 (2022a).
  * Sundstrom  _et al._ [2022b] M. Sundstrom, D. G. Wu, C. Walsh, A. B. Heim, and N. G. Holmes, Examining the effects of lab instruction and gender composition on intergroup interaction networks in introductory physics labs, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010102 (2022b).
  * Doucette and Singh [2023] D. Doucette and C. Singh, Making lab group work equitable and inclusive, Journal of College Science Teaching 52 (2023).
  * Holmes  _et al._ [2014] N. Holmes, I. Roll, and D. Bonn, Participating in the physics lab: Does gender matter?, Physics in Canada, Special Issue on Physics Education Research 70, 84 (2014).
  * Quinn  _et al._ [2020] K. N. Quinn, M. M. Kelley, K. L. McGill, E. M. Smith, Z. Whipps, and N. G. Holmes, Group roles in unstructured labs show inequitable gender divide, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010129 (2020).
  * Quinn  _et al._ [2018] K. N. Quinn, K. L. McGill, M. M. Kelley, E. M. Smith, and N. G. Holmes, Who does what now? how physics lab instruction impacts student behaviors, in  _Physics Education Research Conference 2018_ , PER Conference (Washington, DC, 2018).
  * Dew  _et al._ [2022] M. Dew, A. M. Phillips, S. Karunwi, A. Baksh, E. M. Stump, and N. Holmes, So unfair it’s fair: Equipment handling in remote versus in-person introductory physics labs, in  _Physics Education Research Conference, 2022_ (American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT), 2022) pp. 144–150.
  * Van Domelen [2010] D. Van Domelen, Gender effects of computer use in a conceptual physics lab course, The Physics Teacher 48, 534 (2010).
  * Akubo  _et al._ [2022] M. Akubo, M. Sundstrom, and N. G. Holmes, Exploring diverse students’ negotiation of lab roles through positioning, in  _Physics Education Research Conference 2022_ , PER Conference (Grand Rapids, MI, 2022) pp. 30–36.
  * Doucette  _et al._ [2020a] D. Doucette, R. Clark, and C. Singh, Hermione and the secretary: How gendered task division in introductory physics labs can disrupt equitable learning, European Journal of Physics 41, 035702 (2020a).
  * Stump  _et al._ [2023] E. M. Stump, M. Dew, S. Jeon, and N. G. Holmes, Taking on a manager role can support women’s physics lab identity development, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010107 (2023).
  * Doucette and Singh [2021] D. Doucette and C. Singh, Views of female students who played the role of group leaders in introductory physics labs, European Journal of Physics 42, 035702 (2021).
  * Holmes  _et al._ [2022] N. G. Holmes, G. Heath, K. Hubenig, S. Jeon, Z. Y. Kalender, E. Stump, and E. C. Sayre, Evaluating the role of student preference in physics lab group equity, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010106 (2022).
  * Blue  _et al._ [2019] J. Blue, A. Traxler, and G. Cochran, Resource letter: Gp-1: Gender and physics, American Journal of Physics 87, 616 (2019).
  * Werth  _et al._ [2022] A. Werth, C. G. West, and H. J. Lewandowski, Impacts on student learning, confidence, and affect in a remote, large-enrollment, course-based undergraduate research experience in physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010129 (2022).
  * Lock and Hazari [2016] R. M. Lock and Z. Hazari, Discussing underrepresentation as a means to facilitating female students’ physics identity development, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020101 (2016).
  * Binning  _et al._ [2020] K. R. Binning, N. Kaufmann, E. M. McGreevy, O. Fotuhi, S. Chen, E. Marshman, Z. Y. Kalender, L. Limeri, L. Betancur, and C. Singh, Changing social contexts to foster equity in college science courses: An ecological-belonging intervention, Psychological Science 31, 1059 (2020).
  * Doucette  _et al._ [2020b] D. Doucette, B. D’Urso, and C. Singh, Lessons from transforming second-year honors physics lab, American Journal of Physics 88, 838 (2020b).
  * Gillibrand  _et al._ [1999] E. Gillibrand, P. Robinson, R. Brawn, and A. Osborn, Girls’ participation in physics in single sex classes in mixed schools in relation to confidence and achievement, International Journal of Science Education 21, 349 (1999).
  * Heller and Hollabaugh [1992] P. Heller and M. Hollabaugh, Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups, Am. J. Phys. 60, 637 (1992).
  * McCullough [2007] L. McCullough, Gender in the physics classroom, The Physics Teacher 45, 316 (2007).
  * Brannen  _et al._ [2021] S. F. Brannen, D. Beauchamp, N. M. Cartwright, D. M. Liddle, J. M. Tishinsky, G. Newton, and J. M. Monk, Effectiveness of group work contracts to facilitate collaborative group learning and reduce anxiety in traditional face-to-face lecture and online distance education course formats., International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 15, 5 (2021).
  * Lewis  _et al._ [2019] N. A. Lewis, D. Sekaquaptewa, and L. A. Meadows, Modeling gender counter-stereotypic group behavior: A brief video intervention reduces participation gender gaps on STEM teams, Social Psychology of Education 22, 557 (2019).
  * AAPT Committee on Laboratories [2015] AAPT Committee on Laboratories,  _AAPT Recommendations for the Undergraduate Physics Laboratory Curriculum_ (AAPT, 2015).
  * Callan  _et al._ [2017] K. E. Callan, B. Wilcox, and W. Adams, Testing group composition within a studio learning environment, in  _Physics Education Research Conference 2017_ , PER Conference (Cincinnati, OH, 2017) pp. 72–75.
  * Heller and Heller [2001] P. Heller and K. Heller,  _Cooperative Group Problem Solving in Physics_ (Brooks/Cole Publishing Company New York, 2001).
  * Doucette  _et al._ [2020c] D. Doucette, R. Clark, and C. Singh, What makes a good physics lab partner?, in  _Physics Education Research Conference 2020_ , PER Conference (Virtual Conference, 2020) pp. 124–130.
  * Doucette and Singh [2022] D. Doucette and C. Singh, Share it, don’t split it: Can equitable group work improve student outcomes?, The Physics Teacher 60, 166 (2022).
  * Johnson [2020] A. Johnson, An intersectional physics identity framework for studying physics settings, in  _Physics education and gender: identity as an analytic lens for research_ , edited by A. J. Gonsalves and A. T. Danielsson (Springer, 2020) pp. 53–80.
  * Marshman  _et al._ [2018] E. M. Marshman, Z. Y. Kalender, T. Nokes-Malach, C. Schunn, and C. Singh, Female students with A’s have similar physics self-efficacy as male students with C’s in introductory courses: A cause for alarm?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 020123 (2018).
  * Kalender  _et al._ [2019] Z. Y. Kalender, E. Marshman, C. D. Schunn, T. J. Nokes-Malach, and C. Singh, Why female science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors do not identify with physics: They do not think others see them that way, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020148 (2019).
  * Hazari  _et al._ [2020] Z. Hazari, D. Chari, G. Potvin, and E. Brewe, The context dependence of physics identity: Examining the role of performance/competence, recognition, interest, and sense of belonging for lower and upper female physics undergraduates, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 57, 1583 (2020).
  * Gosling [2004] C. Gosling, Challenges facing high school physics students: An annotated synopsis of peer-reviewed literature addressing curriculum relevance and gender, Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online 2, 1 (2004).
  * Ambrosia [1940] S. M. Ambrosia, Teaching physics to women, American Journal of Physics 8, 289 (1940).
  * Turpen  _et al._ [2018] C. Turpen, A. Gupta, J. Radoff, A. Elby, H. Sabo, and G. Quan, Successes and challenges in supporting undergraduate peer educators to notice and respond to equity considerations within design teams, in  _2018 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition_ (Salt Lake City, UT, 2018).
  * Alicea-Muñoz  _et al._ [2021] E. Alicea-Muñoz, C. Subiño Sullivan, and M. F. Schatz, Transforming the preparation of physics graduate teaching assistants: Curriculum development, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020125 (2021).
  * Wan  _et al._ [2021] T. Wan, C. M. Doty, A. A. Geraets, C. A. Nix, E. K. H. Saitta, and J. J. Chini, Evaluating the impact of a classroom simulator training on graduate teaching assistants’ instructional practices and undergraduate student learning, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010146 (2021).
  * Doucette  _et al._ [2020d] D. Doucette, R. Clark, and C. Singh, Professional development combining cognitive apprenticeship and expectancy-value theories improves lab teaching assistants’ instructional views and practices, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020102 (2020d).
  * Freeman  _et al._ [2014] S. Freeman, S. L. Eddy, M. McDonough, M. K. Smith, N. Okoroafor, H. Jordt, and M. P. Wenderoth, Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 8410 (2014).
  * Espinosa  _et al._ [2019] T. Espinosa, K. Miller, I. Araujo, and E. Mazur, Reducing the gender gap in students’ physics self-efficacy in a team- and project-based introductory physics class, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010132 (2019).
  * Lorenzo  _et al._ [2006] M. Lorenzo, C. H. Crouch, and E. Mazur, Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom, American Journal of Physics 74, 118 (2006).
  * Good  _et al._ [2019] M. Good, A. Maries, and C. Singh, Impact of traditional or evidence-based active-engagement instruction on introductory female and male students’ attitudes and approaches to physics problem solving, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020129 (2019).
  * Karim  _et al._ [2018] N. I. Karim, A. Maries, and C. Singh, Do evidence-based active-engagement courses reduce the gender gap in introductory physics?, Eur. J. Phys. 39, 025701 (2018).
  * Maries  _et al._ [2020] A. Maries, N. I. Karim, and C. Singh, Active learning in an inequitable learning environment can increase the gender performance gap: The negative impact of stereotype threat, The Physics Teacher 58, 430 (2020).
  * Etkina  _et al._ [1999] E. Etkina, K. Gibbons, B. Holton, and G. Horton, Lessons learned: A case study of an integrated way of teaching introductory physics to at-risk students at rutgers university, American Journal of Physics 67, 810 (1999).
  * Dounas-Frazer  _et al._ [2022] D. R. Dounas-Frazer, D. Gillen, C. M. Herne, E. Howard, R. S. Lindell, G. I. McGrew, J. R. Mumford, N. H. Nguyen, L. Osadchuk, J. P. Crane, _et al._ ,  _Increase Investment in Accessible Physics Labs: A Call to Action for the Physics Education Community_ , Tech. Rep. (American Association of Physics Teachers, 2022).