Is Chemistry as hard for women as for men? A case study in Biological Pharmaceutical Chemistry Bachelor at Autonomous Metropolitan University Campus Xochimilco in Mexico, City.

  • Irma Rojas-Oviedo Department of Biological Systems, Autonomous Metropolitan University - Xochimilco (UAMX), Mexico City, Mexico
  • Arcelia Meléndez-Ocampo Department of Preventive Dentistry and Public Health, Division of Graduate Studies and Research, Dental School, National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), Mexico City, Mexico
  • Nancy Herrera-García Official Preparatory School Module, San José, Mexico

Abstract

Few would deny that teachers play a decisive role in the learning-teaching process of students. The learning-teaching process with a gender equity perspective is an important tool to improve the participation and success of women in chemistry. The learning-teaching process with a gender equity perspective was analyzed using the final scores of two taught modules along with molecular models, students’ drawing of flow diagrams, and open-book examinations. Data collected over a 15 years’ period were subject to χ2 testing using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences Software. Results found that the interaction effect between final scores and gender was statistically significant in the module of organic chemistry of drugs but not in the case of the module on drug production, which dealt with physical chemistry subjects. The significance of this study indicates that the teaching methodology used could help female students to learn both chemistry and physical-chemistry with better or similar outcomes than male students.

References

Reporte Anual de la Rectoria General UAM. (1974/1980/1990/2000/2010) [Annual Report of General Rectory UAM.Statistical Yearbook]. Mexico, City.

Ayalon, H., Livneh, I. (2013). Educational standardization and gender differences in mathematics achievement: A comparative study. Social Science Research, 42, 432-445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.10.001

Bodner, G.M., Guay, R.B. (1997).The Purdue Visualization of rotations test. The Chemical Educator, 2(4),1-17. h t t p : / / j o u r n a l s . s p r i n g e r - n y . c o m / c h e d r 10.10007/s00897970138a

Brightwell, R., Daniel, J.H. & Stewart, A. (2004)- Evaluation_ is an open book examination easier? Bioscience Education, 3(1),1-10. DOI: 10.3108/beej.2004.03000004

D´Andola, C. (2016). Women in chemistry- where we are today. Chemistry European Journal, 22, 3523-3528. DOI : 10.1002/chem.201600474

Dori, Y., Barak, M. (2000). Computerized Molecular Modeling: Enhancing Meaningful Chemistry Learning. In B. Fishman & S. O'Connor-Divelbiss (eds) Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences. Mahwah, NJ_ Erlbaum 185-192

Grove, N.P., Bretz, S.L. (2012). A continuum of learning: form rote memorization to meaningful learning in organic chemistry. Chem Educ Res Pract ,13, 201-208.

Harsh, J.A., Maltese, A.V., & Tai, R.H. (2012). A perspective of gender differences in chemistry and physics undergraduate research experiences. J Chem Educ, 89, 1364-1370.

Hatch, E. and Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. Boston, MA: Newbury House.

Heijne-Penninga, M. (2010). Open-book tests assessed: quality, learning behaviour, test time and performance (Doctoral dissertation).Retrieved from http://www.rug.nl/research/portal Groningen University, Netherlands.

Hoffman, M., Gneezy, U.,& List, J.A. (2011). Nurture affects gender differences in spatial abilities. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(35),14786-14788. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1015182108

Moss-Racusin, C.A., Dovidio, J.F., Brescoll, V.L., Graham, M.J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty´s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(41), 16474-16479. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1211286109

Nordvik, H. and Amponsah, B. (1998). Gender differences in spatial abilities and spatial activity among university students in an egalitarian educational system. Sex Roles, 38(11/12), 1009-1023.

Ross, J.A., Scott, G., & Bruce, C.D. (2012). The gender confidence gap in fractions knowledge: gender differences in student belief-achievement relationships. Sch Sci Math, 112(5), 278-288. DOI:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00144.x

Sato, B.K., He, W., Warschauer, M., & Kadandale, P. (2015). The grass isn´t always greener: Perceptions of and performance on open-note exams. CBE Life Sci Educ, 14(2), 1-10. DOI:10.1187/cbe.14-08-0121

Shibley, I.A. Jr., Milakofsky, L., Bender, D.S., & Patterson, H.O. (2003). College Chemistry and Piaget: An analysis of gender difference, cognitive abilities, and achievement measures seventeen years apart. J Chem Educ, 80(5), 569-573.

Sorby, S.A. (2009). Educational research in developing 3-D spatial skills for engineering students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(3), 459-480. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690802595839

Tang, K.P., Xie, S. (2017, April). Pedagogical analysis of exam question format of multiple choice or open response in organic chemistry. 253rd ACS National Meeting & Exposition, San Francisco, CA. United States, CHED-787

Turner, R.C. and Lindsay, H.A. (2003). Gender differences in cognitive and noncognitive factors related to achievement in organic chemistry. J Chem Educ, 80(5), 563-568.

UNESCO Institute for Statistics, UIS (2017) eAtlas of gender inequality in education 2013. http://www.uis.unesco.org/data-centre. Accessed 15th September 2017.

Published
2018-11-30