Does Physics Teaching Affect Gender-Based Science Anxiety?: M.K. Udo, G.P. Ramsey, S. Reynolds-Alpert, and J.V. Mallow

P1: Vendor/FMN/GOQ
P2: GDW/GDX/GCQ/GAY
Journal of Science Education and Technology
QC:
PP177-340586
June 15, 2001
8:56
Style file version Oct. 23, 2000
Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 10, No. 3, 2001
Does Physics Teaching Affect Gender-Based

Science Anxiety?
M.K. Udo,1 G.P. Ramsey,1 S. Reynolds-Alpert,2 and J.V. Mallow1,3
We present the results of a study designed to measure the level of science anxiety in students
enrolled in physics courses at Loyola University Chicago. We undertook this study with two
objectives: (1) to determine the factors contributing to science anxiety; in particular, to ascertain whether the leading factors identified in an earlier study have remained constant over
time, and (2) to investigate whether science anxiety was affected by a semester of introductory
physics. This is the first study of its kind, analyzing science anxiety in pre- and posttests of a cohort composed entirely of students taking physics courses. We find that the leading factors contributing to science anxiety are nonscience anxiety, gender, and to a much lesser degree, course
of study (major), in agreement with earlier results. In general, males start and end the course
with somewhat less science anxiety (and nonscience anxiety) than females. Post-course responses indicated some improvement in nonscience anxiety and in science anxiety for both
genders. Acute levels of science anxiety were somewhat decreased by exposure to a physics
course. Different pedagogies and gender role models may correlate with anxiety reduction.
KEY WORDS: Science anxiety; physics teaching; gender.
INTRODUCTION
and concluded that those who switched out were as

well prepared, as highly motivated, and as good performers as the ones who stayed. Contrary to popular perceptions, the difficulty of the science field:
pace and workload, low grades, and the competitive
culture, drove away a greater percentage of males
than females. Female students left science largely for
other reasons. These results complement the earlier
work of Tobias (1990) regarding natural inclinations for science. Other causes of gender disparities in
the sciences have been studied, including stereotyping (Rahm and Charbonneau, 1997), teachers and role
models (Mallow, 1995; Neuschatz and Alpert, 1996),
womens learning styles, and the culture of science
(Rosser, 1990, 1995). Schuck (1997) studied factors
contributing to the under-representation of women in
physics-based engineering fields, and concluded that
the physics courses acted as the dominant filter of
women.
Among the many factors proposed to explain
low enrolments of both genders in mathematics
and science, especially physics, is the interaction between emotions and learning. Since the late 1970s,
Over the past one and a half decades, the number of women majoring in science has increased dramatically. In particular, the number of females versus
males studying biology has reached or exceeded parity at many institutions (AAUW, 1992; Hornig, 1987;
Mallow, 1998; NSB, 1996; NSF, 1996; SCI, 1994). Nevertheless, other disparities continue to exist between
numbers and performance of females versus males,
with the largest occurring in physics (Beyer and Reich,
1987; Beyer et al., 1985, 1988; Brush, 1991; Curtin et al.,
1997; Jones and Kirk, 1990; Mallow, 1998; Sjberg and
Imsen, 1988; Mulvey et al., 1997; Pfeiffenberger et al.,
1991; Vedelsby, 1991).
Seymour and Hewitt (1997, 2000) investigated
reasons why women and men left the study of science,
1 Department
of Physics, Loyola University Chicago, 6525

N. Sheridan Road, Chicago, Illinois 60626.
2 Educational Development Center, Newton, Massachusetts 02458.
3 To whom correspondence should be addressed; e-mail: jmallow@
luc.edu
237
C 2001 Plenum Publishing Corporation
1059-0145/01/0900-0237$19.50/0
P1: Vendor/FMN/GOQ
P2: GDW/GDX/GCQ/GAY
QC:
PP177-340586
June 15, 2001
8:56
238
theoretical and practical advances have been made
in correlating students feelings with their ability to
understand the subject matter, as well as with their
career choices (Tobias, 1978; Mallow, 1994, 1998).
Some of these studies have specifically focused on
the connection of gender to the interaction of feelings and cognition. In particular, the role played by
science anxiety in maintaining gender differences in
science learning at all levels has been examined. Once
the phenomenon of science anxiety was first identified by Mallow (1978), he established the Loyola
University Science Anxiety Clinic. Two thirds of the
enrollees then turned out to be female (Mallow, 1987,
1994). Chiarelott and Czerniak (1985, 1987) measured
science anxiety of schoolchildren in fourth through
ninth grade (ages 914). They demonstrated that science anxiety and the gender differences therein begin as early as age nine. The American Association
of Physics Teachers has long recognized the problem
of students lack of confidence, and the gender differences in confidence in physics classes, and has regularly offered a workshop to train teachers in raising
those confidence levels (Fuller et al., 1985 and subsequent updates).
In Denmark, the females and Physics Project
(Beyer, 1991; Beyer and Vedelsby, 1983; Beyer and
Reich, 1987; Beyer et al., 1985, 1988) studied classroom interactions in Danish gymnasia. They implicated science anxiety as a factor creating special
obstacles for female students in both the humanities
and the science field (Beyer et al., 1988; Beyer, 1991,
1992).
Mallow (1994) carried out a binational investigation to ascertain whether science anxiety, as measured by a self-reporting instrument, was related to
gender for groups of American and Danish students
aged 17 and up. The cohort consisted of approximately
equal numbers of science and nonscience majors. The
instrument used was the Science Anxiety Questionnaire developed by Alvaro (1978) as part of her investigation of the effectiveness of the Loyola University Science Anxiety Clinic. The questionnaire, given
in the Appendix, consists of 22 science and 22 nonscience scenarios, with emphasis on analogous situations; e.g., studying for a physics exam versus studying for a history exam. Students are asked to imagine
themselves in certain situations and to rate their
level of anxiety on a 5-degree Likert scale: not at
all, a little, a fair amount, much, and very
much. Based on a survey of 538 Loyola undergraduates enrolled in (but not necessarily majoring in) a
variety of science courses, Alvaro developed factor
Udo, Ramsey, Reynolds-Alpert, and Mallow

scales to measure various forms of anxiety. She, and
subsequently Hermes (1985), demonstrated that for
several of these factors, significant decreases in anxiety occurred for students in clinic groups over those
in control groups, as measured by the science anxiety
questionnaire, by electromyography, and by related
self-report anxiety instruments: the Math Anxiety
Rating Scale (Richardon and Suinn, 1972), a state
versus trait anxiety measure (Spielberger et al.,
1970), and a general academic test anxiety measure
(Alpert and Haber, 1960).
The binational study based on this questionnaire
(Mallow, 1994) demonstrated that anxiety on nonscience items (nonscience anxiety) was the best predictor of science anxiety. The next best predictor was
gender. Controlling for both nonscience anxiety and
gender, the next most significant predictor was course
of study (major). Science majors, not surprisingly, expressed less science anxiety than did nonscience majors. The nationality of the students appeared to exhibit no relationship to science anxiety, at least based
on a straightforward regression analysis of the 5degree Likert scale. However, for both Danish and
American students, significantly more females articulated acute science anxiety: responses much or
very much anxiety on the Likert scale, than did their
male counterparts. For all groups: Danish females,
Danish males, U.S. females, and U.S. males, about the
same fraction of this acute anxiety (approximately 2/3
of the much and very much answers) was found to
be science-related. A significantly lower level of acute
science anxiety was reported by the Danish students
of both genders, as compared with the Americans.
This finding led to a binational study of student confidence versus teachers styles (Mallow, 1995) using the
teachers self-reporting instrument from the AAPT
Student Confidence Workshop (Fuller et al., 1985).
No obvious correlations were found to account for
the higher rates of reported anxiety of Americans
of both genders. One hypothesis is that much earlier intense exposure to science in Denmark led to
the greater confidence of Danish students (Mallow,
1998), although it did nothing to decrease the gender
bifurcation.
THE PRESENT STUDY

Purpose
This is the first study of its kind, analyzing science
anxiety in pre- and posttests of a cohort composed
P1: Vendor/FMN/GOQ
P2: GDW/GDX/GCQ/GAY
QC:
PP177-340586
June 15, 2001
8:56
Physics Teaching and Gender-Based Science Anxiety
239
entirely of students taking physics courses. We undertook this study with two objectives:
(1) To determine the factors contributing to science anxiety, and to ascertain if the leading factors
identified in the earlier study (Mallow, 1994) held for
a cohort of students taking physics courses. In contrast to that more heterogeneous cohort, our population consisted largely of science majors. Specifically
we wanted to determine if the factors identified in the
previous study continue to have the most bearing on
science anxiety. These factors were nonscience anxiety, gender, and major, in their order of influence on
science anxiety. The proportion of females choosing
to major in physics versus other subjects remains low,
and has not significantly changed in the past decade
(AIP, 2000; Mallow, 1994, 1998). Thus, we might expect, unfortunately, that gender differences in science
anxiety in physics courses (not majors courses necessarily) would also demonstrate that inertia over the
last several years.
(2) To investigate whether science anxiety was
affected (either raised or lowered) by a semester of
introductory physics; in particular, whether this was
instructor dependent. Recent research in physics education has shown that conceptual learning may be
strongly dependent on the teaching methodology and
style of the instructor. In particular, a significant blend
of interactive education (IE) techniques correlates
strongly with student performance on standardized
tests of introductory mechanics, both at the macroscopic level: across U.S. colleges and universities
(Hake, 1998), and the microscopic level: multiple
sections of the same course in a single department
(Gautreau and Novemsky, 1997). It is not clear which
aspects of IE contribute to these apparent gains in
learning. Since our instructors teaching techniques
range from traditional lecture-oriented to highly IE
oriented, we also hoped to ascertain to what degree, if
any, something in the course itself: instructor methodology and style, or simple exposure to physics, might
affect students anxieties about the subject. We were
especially interested in gender differences.
heterogeneous and spans socioeconomic classes and

religions. About 60% of its undergraduate student
body is female. Our cohorts faithfully represent this
diversity.
The science anxiety questionnaire (see Appendix) was administered unannounced on the first
and last days of class. We evaluated all responses in
different courses and in multiple sections of the same
course. The initial data set, consisting of pretest (beginning of semester) responses, was used to determine
the factors contributing to science anxiety, and to compare them with earlier findings. The posttest (end of
semester) data were used to investigate whether taking an introductory physics course affected science
anxiety. We also separately analyzed the data for multiple sections of the same course, to detect any correlation of instructor with changes in level of science
anxiety.
Students in the study ranged in age from approximately eighteen years through the early thirties. They were drawn from a variety of courses, and
included both science and nonscience majors, but
with a preponderance of the former. All were enrolled in an introductory physics course and none
had attended a science anxiety clinic. The cohorts
consisted of students enrolled in two physics courses
for nonscience majors (Liberal Arts Physics, Astronomy); an algebra-based introductory physics course
(College Physics I) and two calculus-based introductory physics courses (University Physics I and General Physics I). Liberal Arts Physics and Astronomy
are usually taken by nonscience majors to satisfy general education requirements. College Physics I is usually taken by premedical students and biology majors.
University Physics I is taken by chemistry majors.
General Physics I is taken by physics majors and
preengineers. This diverse population allowed us to
investigate a wide range of potential factors contributing to science anxiety.
Research Design and Methodology
Determination of the Factors Contributing to

Science Anxiety
Loyola University Chicago is an urban institution, drawing about 70% of its students from
Illinois and about 30% from other states and abroad.
Loyola emphasizes a strong liberal arts education,
with the core or general education component typically equaling or exceeding the requirements of the
specialized major. Loyolas population is ethnically
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table I provides a breakdown of the entire cohort at the beginning and at the end of the semester,
by physics course title and section number. These
cohorts, respectively 340 and 273, represent all students who responded to the questionnaire on the first
and/or last days of class. Note that the posttest cohort
P1: Vendor/FMN/GOQ
P2: GDW/GDX/GCQ/GAY
QC:
PP177-340586
June 15, 2001
8:56
240
Table I. Pre- and Posttest Cohorts by Section and Gender

Pretest cohort
Posttest cohort
Course/section
Male
Female
Male
Female
Liberal Arts Physics

Astronomy
College Physics I/sec. A
College Physics I/sec. B
College Physics I/sec. C
College Physics I/sec. D
College Physics I/sec. E
College Physics I/sec. F
University Physics I
General Physics I
Total
12
23
14
8
10
20
27
9
14
9
146
14
30
37
7
34
30
25
10
4
3
194
12
19
14
7
10
10
15
14
10
5
116
12
25
30
5
28
17
20
13
4
3
157
is not entirely a subset of that of pretest: some students were present on only one or the other of the
two test days.
Multiple Regression Analysis

The reliability of the summated scales based on
the 22 science items and the 22 nonscience items was
reported by Mallow (1994). The items on both scales
met the criteria of additivity, with coefficients =
.904 and .850 respectively. His investigation of the
multiple regression analysis over 57 variables demonstrated that anxiety on nonscience items was the best
predictor of science anxiety. Holding nonscience anxiety constant, the next best predictor was gender.
Controlling for both nonscience anxiety and gender,
the next most significant predictor was major, with
science majors expressing the least amount of science anxiety. We performed a standard multiple regression analysis of the pretest questionnaire, in the
order described above. We then altered the order
of the variables, testing the effects of gender, followed by major, and finally by nonscience anxiety.
This allowed rigorous test of the robustness of the
predictors.
Tables II and III show the results of the multiple regression analysis. Table II includes all physics
courses. Table III includes all sections of College
Physics I, for which we wish to investigate the effect
of instructors of different sections. Note that the cohort sizes in Tables II and III are somewhat smaller
that those listed in Table I, because students who gave
invalid or incomplete information (e.g., not listing major) were eliminated from the regression analysis.
The values in Tables II and III reproduce Mallows result (1994) that nonscience anxiety
accounts for the greatest proportion of the variance

in science anxiety. Gender is the next most significant predictor for the total cohort pretest (Table II),
and the College Physics cohort pre- and posttest
(Table III). The total cohort posttest p value is .082,
outside the .05 confidence level; the pretest p value
is .015. We conjecture that this decrease in gender
significance as compared with the total pretest cohort is not due to gender differences, but rather to
the selective absence on the posttest of 29 acutely
science anxious students (see next section), many
of whom probably dropped the physics course. We
would therefore expect the significance of all predictors to have decreased on the posttest, and this is indeed what we see in Table II. Gender and majors (science and social science) have become nonsignificant
predictors, as compared with the pretest. (Interestingly, the 29 acutely anxious drops are gender bifurcated: 11 females and 18 males. The 5-degree Likert
scale analysis fails to detect this. The acute anxiety
measures of the next section do.) Table III, comprising primarily science majors, does not show such an
effect, except for the small group of social science
majors.
Not surprisingly, the choice of major turned out
to be much less significant in predicting science anxiety for our cohort, since it contains relatively few
nonscience majors, as compared with Mallows 1994
study (Mallow, 1994). It is, however, important to note
that our overall results, dealing with students all taking physics, are in agreement with the earlier study,
which investigated a substantial mix of science and
nonscience majors taking a wide range of courses.
Nonscience anxiety and gender remain the best predictors of science anxiety. Their significance for both
the mixed cohort (Mallow, 1994), and the primarily
science-major cohort of the current study suggests
that these anxiety factors are linked to students earlier experiences in life, and to their chosen course of
study in college.
Acute Anxiety
In order to probe gender differences for indications of more acute science anxiety and nonscience
anxiety, we repeated the method of the earlier study
(Mallow, 1994). We retabulated the questionnaires,
with the responses much and very much anxiety
on at least one of the questions registered as acute
anxiety. This approach distinguished the nonanxious
(NGA)those who gave much or very much
P1: Vendor/FMN/GOQ
P2: GDW/GDX/GCQ/GAY
QC:
PP177-340586
June 15, 2001
8:56
241
Table II. Regression Analysis Results for the Total Cohort

a Pretest
b Posttest
Variable
SE B
SE B
Gender
Sci. major
Bio. major
Soc. S. major
Other major
Nonscience anxiety
Constant
0.100
0.153
0.013
0.142
0.116
0.882
0.213
0.041
0.069
0.059
0.068
0.077
0.049
0.097
0.097
0.111
0.012
0.106
0.071
0.709
0.083
0.072
0.101
0.152
0.120
0.790
0.347
0.047
0.091
0.088
0.095
0.097
0.055
0.121
0.083
0.063
0.097
0.122
0.088
0.666
Note. Undeclared majors are the excluded category. B: regression coefficient; SE B:

standard error in B; : standardized regression coefficient. Npretest = 314, Nposttest = 242.
a Pretest: multiple R = 0.728, R2 = 0.530, Adjusted R2 = 0.520.
b Posttest: multiple R = 0.711, R2 = 0.505, Adjusted R2 = 0.492.
p < .05; p < .001.
responses to no itemsfrom the generally anxious

(GA)those of the total sample who gave much or
very much responses to one or more items, whether
science or nonscience. GA + NGA = N, the size of
the total cohort which took both pre- and posttest.
This generally anxious (GA) group was further divided into the science anxious (SA)those of the
generally anxious population who gave much or
very much responses to one or more of the science items, and the nonscience anxious (NSA)those
whose anxiety was only due to nonscience items. That
is, GA = NSA + SA. Table IV summarizes these tabulations. It shows the pre- and posttest distribution of
these categories for females and males of the entire
cohort. For each gender we calculated the percentage
of the cohort exhibiting GA and SA and the fraction
of the GA population which is SA. We carried out a
chi-square analysis to determine if the proportion of
science-anxious females was significantly higher than
the proportion of science-anxious males. Of the total
cohort, about 8% more females than males are GA

(P .2) and of the GA subset, 2% more females than
males are SA (P .7). Taking the customary standard for significance as P < .05, these percentages are
therefore not statistically different for females and
males; i.e., fairly comparable proportions of both genders are acutely anxious about both science and nonscience items. The overall percentages of the cohort
reporting acute anxiety were found to be somewhat
lower in the present study (although not significantly)
than in the American population studied by Mallow
(1994). The preponderance of science majors in our
pretest cohort has likely depressed the gender bifurcations, as compared with the earlier studies, with its
larger proportion of nonscience majors, many of them
female.
The posttest results, demonstrate about the same
non-significant difference in GA percentages as in
pretest results: 8% higher for females than males
(P .2). But the percentage of the GA population
Table III. Regression Analysis Results for College Physics I

a Pretest
Variable
Gender
Sci. major
Bio. major
Soc. S. major
Other major
Nonscience anxiety
Constant
B
0.112
0.156
0.037
0.203
0.072
0.852
0.237
b Posttest
SE B
SE B
0.049
0.088
0.064
0.086
0.138
0.054
0.107
0.109
0.137
0.107
0.084
0.101
0.078
0.731
0.447
0.055
0.111
0.107
0.123
0.142
0.062
0.146
0.141
0.100
0.089
0.076
0.041
0.654
0.102
0.037
0.135
0.026
0.733
Note. Undeclared majors are the excluded category. B: regression coefficient; SE B:

standard error in B; : standardized regression coefficient. N pretest = 208, Nposttest = 167.
a Pretest: multiple R = 0.755, R2 = 0.570, Adjusted R2 = 0.558.
b Posttest: multiple R = 0.729, R2 = 0.532, Adjusted R2 = 0.514.
p < .05; p < .001.
P1: Vendor/FMN/GOQ
P2: GDW/GDX/GCQ/GAY
QC:
PP177-340586
June 15, 2001
8:56
242
Table IV. GA and SA Distribution for the Entire Pre-and Posttest

Cohorts(Table I)
Total
GA/N
SA/GA
cohort N NGA GA (%) NSA SA
(%)
Pretest
Female
Male
p
Posttest
Female
Male
p
194
146
157
116
65
61
59
53
129
85
98
63
66.5
58.2
0.2
29
21
62.4
54.3
0.2
9
17
100
64
89
46
77.5
75.3
0.7
90.8
73.0
0.005
Note. p values are for chi square differences in fraction of female

and male cohorts with acute anxiety.
that is SA is significantly higher for the females than

for the males: 90.8% versus 73.0% (P < .005). How
can this be explained? Have the physics courses selectively raised the anxiety of females? A comparison of
pretest and posttest cohorts show that this is not the
case. There were 37 fewer GA females on the posttest
than the pretest; of these, only 11 were SA. The corresponding GA male drop rate between pre- and
posttest was 30, but of these, over half, 18, were SA.
Thus the increase in female SA/GA percentage from
77.5 to 90.8% is almost entirely attributable to the
larger proportion of anxious females remaining in the
posttest cohort. Since class attendance reflects course
drop rates, this suggests that whatever drives women
to drop physics, it is not due to science anxiety. On the
contrary, science anxiety appears to correlate better
with male drop rates. This somewhat surprising result is in fact consistent with the findings of Seymour
and Hewitt (1997, 2000) that women do not leave science for what appear to be the most obvious reasons.
The females who remain do so in spite of a significant
level of science anxiety, attesting to their high level of
motivation.
We analyzed the pretest data for each course/
section to see if there was any correlation with
acute levels of GA or SA. For students in most
courses, we did not observe significant deviations
from the composite results shown in Table IV. The
exception was physics/engineering majors, who displayed the least acute GA and virtually no acute
SA, for both genders. This result is not unexpected,
given that those students were self-selected in their
choice of major, and/or were probably likely to
self-report lower anxiety levels. Chi-square differences in acute anxiety by gender for the other
courses/sections were nonsignificant. The rather small
size of some of these subcohorts was an obstacle to
probing such differences. It is however worthwhile
to note that in all studies to date, females report more acute anxiety than males, even if not at
the level of statistical significance. A meta-analysis
would likely demonstrate the reality of this gender
bifurcation.
The Effect of a Physics Course on Acute Science
Anxiety
As we have seen from Table IV, the changes in
acute science anxiety percentages over the semester
were not statistically significant for males, and their
significance for females was not due to increased anxiety, but to a decrease in the nonanxious female cohort. Nevertheless, we can still examine more closely
the absolute effects (if any) of a physics course on
acute science anxiety. In particular, we can investigate two cases: (1) whether overall acute (much and
very much) anxieties changed and (2) whether distinct levels of acute anxiety (much or very much)
changed. The cohort is shown in Table V. It consists
of those students who were identifiably the same in
both the pre- and posttests. For case (1) we took the
total counts of Likert scale 4s and 5s for science and
nonscience questions and calculated the differences
between pre- and post-responses. A decrease in the
total number of acute responses would imply that
the overall NSA and/or SA had diminished. However, the change (or lack thereof) in the total
numbers could be due to a positive change in
level 4 coupled with a negative change in level 5
(or vice versa). Therefore, in the second part of our
analysis, case (2), we account for this possibility by
tabulating 4s and 5s separately. The aggregate results for combined 4s + 5s are shown in Table VI;
the separate results for 4s and 5s are shown in
Table VII.
Table V. Cohort of Students Who Completed Both Pre- and
Posttest
Course/section
Male
Female

Astronomy
General Physics I
Total
9
7
8
6
7
6
4
5
8
4
64
9
23
21
4
25
14
15
5
1
0
117
P1: Vendor/FMN/GOQ
P2: GDW/GDX/GCQ/GAY
QC:
PP177-340586
June 15, 2001
8:56
243
Table VI. Changes in Acute Anxiety for Combined Levels 4 and 5 (Cohort of Table V)
Male
Female
Section total
Course/section
Cohort
1NSA
1SA
1NSA
1SA
1NSA
1SA

Astronomy
Total
18
30
29
10
32
20
19
10
9
177
1
0
+7
+15
1
+5
0
+3
+1
+29
4
1
+20
+2
0
+1
1
3
0
+14
+9
+3
+6
+2
+6
+4
+5
+1
+1
+37
2
+1
5
3
+16
+10
4
9
+3
+7
+8
+3
+13
+17
+5
+9
+5
+4
+2
+66
6
0
+15
1
+16
+11
5
12
+3
+21
In these analyses, we did not include the

physics/engineering majors class, General Physics I.
As discussed above, they did not fit the typical profile of our cohort, because of the small sample size
and very low reported science anxiety. They normally
enter the course with the greatest exposure to, and expertise in mathematics and science courses from high
school. From the beginning, there is almost no anxiety
of any type. Although the numbers are small, it is clear
that there is a large difference in the confidence level
of these students, as compared with the remainder of
the cohort.
In Table VI, as a measure of change in anxiety we
define 1NSA for each course/section as the pretest
total minus the posttest total of Likert scale 4s and
5s for the nonscience questions; 1SA is defined in a
similar way for the science questions. Thus, a positive
1NSA or 1SA implies that there is a decrease in
anxiety of that type after taking the physics course.
In this analysis, we are measuring the class levels of
acute anxiety rather than the numbers or percentage
of students with the acute anxiety, i.e., our focus now
shifts from the individual students to the group as a

whole.
As seen in the last row of the table, the changes
1NSA and 1SA were positive for the whole cohort;
i.e., anxiety decreased. 1NSA is generally positive for
both genders, with females showing the most consistent improvement. In almost all cases, 1NSA >
1SA. This result is somewhat surprising, since we expect that one possible outcome from taking a physics
course should be to lessen the specific uneasiness toward science. The improvement in NSA may imply
that experience with the type of thinking required
for physics gives students more confidence in general. This agrees with earlier findings (Alvaro, 1978;
Mallow, 1985) that both state anxiety: SA, and
trait anxiety: NSA (Spielberger et al., 1970), can
be lowered by a science anxiety clinic, part of whose
program is science skills training.
A chi-square analysis of the data in Table VI
found no obvious pattern of changes in acute SA
or NSA for individual courses. Males in the general
education physics classes (Liberal Arts Physics and
Table VII. Changes in Acute Anxiety Tabulated Separately for Levels 4 and 5 (Cohort of Table V)
Males
Females
Course/section
Cohort
1NSA4
1NSA5
1SA4
1SA5
1NSA4
1NSA5
1SA4
1SA5

Astronomy
Total
18
30
29
10
32
20
19
10
9
177
0
0
2
+8
0
+5
0
+4
5
+10
1
0
+9
+7
1
0
0
1
+4
+17
3
1
+16
0
2
+3
+1
+2
4
+12
1
0
+4
+2
+2
3
2
5
5
8
+7
+4
+4
+6
+3
1
+4
+2
+1
+30
+2
1
+2
4
+3
+5
+1
1
0
+7
5
+2
7
5
+17
+1
4
4
+3
2
+3
1
+2
+2
1
+12
0
5
0
+12
P1: Vendor/FMN/GOQ
P2: GDW/GDX/GCQ/GAY
QC:
PP177-340586
June 15, 2001
8:56
244
Astronomy) exhibited slight changes in NSA and SA,
whereas the females showed improvement of NSA
(+12), but little change in SA. For the (algebra-based)
College Physics sections, there were isolated cases
of significant changes: the largest change in SA was
for males in section A (+20); the largest change in
NSA occurred with males in section B (+15). SA
improvement was most notable in females of sections
C (+16) and D (+10). A marked increase in SA (9)
was observed for the 5 females in section F. Although
this is not statistically significant due to the small sample, it is worth noticing that this is a large increase in
SA level per student. Nevertheless, we are encouraged by the 21 measured decreases in SA and the 66
decreases in NSA. For a cohort of 177 students, this
is not negligible. Some students appear indeed to be
reaping emotional as well as cognitive benefits from
their physics course.
In Table VII we distinguish between the changes
in the two levels of acute anxiety, 4 and 5. The table
lists the changes in the levels of acute anxiety, by section and gender. The quantities 1NSA and 1SA follow the definitions used previously, with the subscripts
4 and 5 representing the categories of much anxiety
and very much anxiety responses, respectively.
A chi-square analysis of the data in Table VII
found no significant course section correlation with
improvement in anxiety from level 5 or level 4. However, some obvious changes in anxiety can be seen
from the table. The most dramatic shifts were those in
SA for males of College Physics section A (1SA4 =
+16), and females of College Physics section C
(1SA4 = +17). These two sections also showed the
largest decreases in combined (4 + 5) science anxiety
from Table VI, for males and females respectively.
Section A was taught by the male instructor whose
methods are the most interactive, as defined by Hake
(1998). His teaching appeared to lower male science
anxiety, but not female. Section C, where the female
anxiety was lowered, was taught by a female faculty
member, who is also an interactive instructor. In both
cases we are probably observing the synergy between
interactive pedagogy and gender role modeling.
Since positive numbers indicate incidences of
amelioration of anxiety, the following observations
can be made from Table VII:
(1) The aggregate (1NSA + 1SA) changes in 5s
(28 decreases from an original 202 reports, or 13%)
and the corresponding changes in 4s (50 decreases
from an original 376 reports, or 14%) are comparable.
Thus, both levels of acute anxiety can be ameliorated
by one semester of physics.

(2) The changes in acute levels of anxiety (bottom row) as shown in the Table, add up to a total of
88 instances of decreased anxiety, compared to only
10 increases. These numbers are quite encouraging.
A semester of physics seems to lower, albeit modestly, the acute anxiety of a fair number of students:
both their science anxiety and their nonscience anxiety. Interestingly, the aggregate number of incidences
in Table VII of lowered nonscience anxiety was substantially higher than that of science anxiety (+64 and
+14 respectively). This result is not unexpected. The
regression analysis demonstrated the high correlation
between NSA and SA. Furthermore, as noted earlier,
the studies of Alvaro (1978) and Hermes (1985) confirmed that methods employed in the Science Anxiety Clinic lowered both science and nonscience anxiety. Since a good part of the clinic involved science
skills learning, it is not surprising that a physics course
would have a similar effect on both. Finally, the SA
students manifest NSA as well; thus, the instances of
NSA are substantially higher than SA, and their relative reduction rates reflect this.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

We have analyzed the results of science anxiety
questionnaires administered at the beginning and end
of a variety of introductory physics courses. Multiple regression analysis confirmed results of the earlier
study of Mallow (1994): The best predictor of science
anxiety is nonscience anxiety; the next best is gender.
Our pre- and posttest results showed that an introductory physics course tended to somewhat ameliorate
acute science and nonscience anxiety across the range
of pedagogies, although males in an interactive course
taught by a male instructor reaped some additional
benefit. Similarly, females reaped some benefit from
an interactive course taught by a female instructor.
The significance of gender in the College Physics
sections (Table III) is notable because the population
is almost entirely prehealth students, predominantly
biology majors, with more females than males. This
despite the gender bifurcation in science anxiety. If
science anxiety does not deter females from the biology major, why do they avoid the physics major? The
population of biology majors comprises a majority of
women; these women persist in spite of more science
anxiety than their male counterparts; furthermore,
their physics course tends to modestly lower science
anxiety for both genders. Then science anxiety cannot
be the primary culprit in the large gender disparity
P1: Vendor/FMN/GOQ
P2: GDW/GDX/GCQ/GAY
QC:
PP177-340586
June 15, 2001
8:56
245
in physics majors. There are numerous other causes

(Mallow, 1998). One is simply lack of earlier exposure: a greater emphasis on biology in lower grades
(due to curriculum developers and teachers science anxiety?) and a subsequent avoidance of physics
in high school (with, we believe from anecdotal
data, the tacit collusion of female students academic
advisors).
Seymour and Hewitt (1997, 2000) have shown
that once into a science major, females do not drop
out for the stereotypically obvious reasons. However,
critical mass is essential: the larger the proportion of
females within a major, the lower the dropout rate.
The disproportionate numbers of females in biology
versus physics are dramatic confirmation of this precept. Breaking the vicious cycle for physics majors
remains a difficult problem. Our study at least demonstrates that science anxiety may afflict females somewhat more than males, but it can be overcome, and
should not prevent them from choosing any science
major. Our admittedly small General Physics cohort,
with its lack of anxiety for either gender, lends support
to the validity of this conjecture.
The acute anxiety results (Table IV) match the
broad outlines of the regression analysis (Table II).
Gender bifurcation is present, but not necessarily
statistically significant. Both genders exhibit considerable acute anxiety. The apparent increase in percent of posttest science anxious females is because
of their larger presence in the posttest cohort, not
to an increase in their anxiety over the semester.
This gender bifurcation was not detected in the regression analysis, in which the absence of a substantial number of acutely science anxious students in
the posttest cohort simply depressed the significance
of all predictors, including gender. We might therefore say that this anomaly confounded both the re-
gression and the chi-square analyses, but in opposite

ways.
Net changes in acute anxiety (4s + 5s) from
pre- to posttest, summarized in Table VI, showed
some improvement in levels of nonscience anxiety,
and to a lesser extent, in science anxiety. Table VII
showed that improvements occurred for individuals
whose responses were both 4s and 5s. We found no
simultaneous improvement of both genders for any
section of any course. However, there were isolated
cases of substantial science anxiety reduction in two
interactive pedagogy sections, where the gender of
the teacher matched that of the students whose anxiety was lowered. This suggests that physics courses
appear to produce some decrease in both science and
nonscience anxiety, and that interactive education
(IE) methods, as well as gender role models, may
have a beneficial effect. However, as Chiarelott and
Czerniak (1985, 1987) have shown, the emotional
baggage of science anxiety is acquired long before
students encounter college physics.
Although the decreases in both science and
nonscience anxiety were modest, they were in
fact decreases, suggesting the salubrious effect of
a physics course in this regard. Nevertheless, the
acutely science anxious student would profit more
from a concerted effort to address his or her anxiety,
as was demonstrated in the Science Anxiety Clinic
(Alvaro, 1978; Hermes, 1985; Mallow, 1986). An
interesting possibility might be a prephysics-course
summer workshop, incorporating both modern
pedagogies and science anxiety reduction techniques.
Students enrolling in such a workshop could then
be followed throughout their year of physics, and
both their science anxiety and their performance
compared with the control group of their fellow
students who were not in the workshop.
APPENDIX
Science Anxiety Questionnaire
Date: Name:
The items in the questionnaire refer to things and experiences that may cause fear or apprehension. For each
item, place a check mark on the line under the column that describes how much YOU ARE FRIGHTENED
BY IT NOWADAYS.
Item
1. Learning how to convert Celsius to Fahrenheit degrees as you
travel in Canada.
2. In a Philosophy discussion group, reading a chapter on the
Categorical Imperative and being asked to answer questions.
Not at all
A little
A fair amount
Much
Very much
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
(Continued )
P1: Vendor/FMN/GOQ
P2: GDW/GDX/GCQ/GAY
QC:
PP177-340586
June 15, 2001
8:56
APPENDIX (Continued )
Item
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
Not at all
Asking a question in a science class.

Converting kilometers to miles.
Studying for a midterm exam in Chemistry, Physics, or Biology.
Planning a well balanced diet.
Converting American dollars to English pounds as you travel
in the British Isles.
Cooling down a hot tub of water to an appropriate temperature
for a bath.
Planning the electrical circuit or pathway for a simple light
bulb experiment.
Replacing a bulb on a movie projector.
Focusing the lens on your camera.
Changing the eyepiece on a microscope.
Using a thermometer in order to record the boiling point of a
heating solution.
You want to vote on an upcoming referendum on student
activities fees, and you are reading about it so that you might
make an informed choice.
Having a fellow student watch you perform an experiment in the
lab.
Visiting the Museum of Science and Industry and being asked
to explain atomic energy to a 12-year old.
Studying for a final exam in English, History, or Philosophy.
Mixing the proper amount of baking soda and water to put on
a bee sting.
Igniting a Coleman stove in preparation for cooking outdoors.
Tuning your guitar to a piano or some other musical instrument.
Filling your bicycle tires with the right amount of air.
Memorizing a chart of historical dates.
In a Physics discussion group, reading a chapter on Quantum
Systems and being asked to answer some questions.
Having a fellow student listen to you read in a foreign language.
Reading signs on buildings in a foreign country.
Memorizing the names of elements in the periodic table.
Having your music teacher listen to you as you play an
instrument.
Reading the Theater page of Time magazine and having one of
your friends ask your opinion on what you have read.
Adding minute quantities of acid to a base solution in order to
neutralize it.
Precisely inflating a balloon to be used as apparatus in a Physics
experiment.
Lighting a Bunsen burner in the preparation of an experiment.
A vote is coming up on the issue of nuclear power plants, and you
are reading background material in order to decide how to vote.
Using a tuning fork in an acoustical experiment.
Mixing boiling water and ice to get water at 70 degrees
Fahrenheit.
Studying for a midterm in an History course.
Having your professor watch you perform an experiment in the lab.
Hav ing a teaching assistant watch you perform an experiment
in the lab.
Focusing a microscope.
Using a meat thermometer for the first time, and checking
the temperature periodically till the meat reaches the
desired doneness.
Having a teaching assistant watch you draw in Art class.
Reading the Science page of Time magazine and having one of
your friends ask your opinion on what you have read.
Studying for a final exam in Chemistry, Physics, or Biology.
Being asked to explain the artistic quality of pop art to a 7th
grader on a visit to the Art Museum.
Asking a question in an English Literature class.
246
A little
A fair amount
Much
Very much
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
P1: Vendor/FMN/GOQ
P2: GDW/GDX/GCQ/GAY
QC:
PP177-340586
June 15, 2001

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Professor Kenneth Johnson of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Loyola
University Chicago for helpful discussions and clarifications of the statistical analysis. This work was supported in part by a Loyola University Chicago research grant.
REFERENCES
AAUW (1992). How Schools Shortchange Girls, American Association of University Women, Wellesley College Center for
Research on Women, Wellesley, MA, and AAUW Educational
Foundation, Washington, DC.
AIP (2000). Women in physics, 2000, American Institute of Physics
Report. R-430, College Park, MD.
Alpert, R., and Haber, R. N. (1960). Anxiety in academic achievement situations. Journal of Abnormal psychology 61: 207215.
Alvaro, R. (1978). The Effectiveness of a Science-Therapy Program
on Science-Anxious Undergraduates. PhD. dissertation, Loyola
University, Chicago.
Beyer, K. (1991). Gender, science anxiety and learning style. In The
Sixth GASAT Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
Beyer, K. (1992). Det er ikke tnkning det hele. (Thinking isnt
everything.) In A. Chr. Paulsen and Nielsen, H. (Eds.), Om
Undervisning i Fysikden Konstruktivistiske Ide (On Physics
Education: The Constructivist Idea. In Danish), Gyldendal,
Copenhagen, DK, pp.118158.
Beyer, K., Blegaa, S., Olsen, B., Reich, J., and Vedelsby, M. (1988).
Piger og Fysik (Females and Physics. In Danish), IMFUFA
Texts, Roskilde University Center, Roskilde, DK.
Beyer, K., Blegaa, S., and Vedelsby, M. (1985). Sex-roles and physics
education. In Contributions to the Third GASAT Conference,
London, UK.
Beyer, K., and Reich, J. (1987). Why are many girls inhibited from
learning scientific concepts in physics? In Contributions to the
Fourth GASAT Conference, Ann Arbor, MI.
Beyer, K., and Vedelsby, M. (1983). Girls and physicsa Danish
project. In Contributions to the Second GASAT Conference,
Oslo, NO.
Brush, S. G. (1991). Women in Science and Engineering. American
Scientist 79: 404419.
Chiarelott, L., and Czerniak, C. (1985). Science anxiety among elementary school students: An equity issue. Journal of Education
Equity and Leadership 5: 291308.
Chiarelott, L., and Czerniak, C. (1987). Science anxiety: Implications for science curriculum and teaching. The Clearing House
60: 202205.
Curtin, J., Blake, G., and Cassagnau, C. (1997). 199596 Academic
workforce report. R-392.2, American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD.
Fuller, R., Agruso, S., Mallow, J., Nichols, D., Sapp, R., Strassenburg,
A., and Allen, G. (1985). Developing Student Confidence in
Physics, American Association of Physics Teachers, College
Park, MD.
Gautreau, R., and Novemsky, L. (1997). Concepts firstA small
group approach to physics learning. American Journal of
Physics 65: 418428.
Hake, 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:
6474.
Hermes, J. (1985). The Comparative Effectiveness of a Science Anxiety Group and a Stress Management Program in the Treatment
8:56
247
of Science-Anxious College Students. PhD. dissertation, Loyola
University Chicago.
Hornig, L. (1987). Gender and science. Contributions to the Fourth
GASAT Conference, Ann Arbor, MI.
Jones, A. T., and Kirk, C. M. (1990). Gender differences in students
interests in applications of school physics. Physics Education
25: 308313.
Mallow, J. V. (1978). A science anxiety program. American Journal
of Physics 46: 862.
Mallow, J. V. (1986). Science Anxiety, H&H Publ., Clearwater, FL.
Mallow, J. V. (1987). Science anxiety and gender. Bulletin of Science
and Technology and Society 7: 958962.
Mallow, J. V. (1994). Gender-related science anxiety: A first binational study. Journal of Science Education and Technology 3:
227238.
Mallow, J. V. (1995). Students confidence and teachers styles: A
binational comparison. American Journal of Physics 63: 1007
1011.
Mallow, J. V. (1998). Student attitudes and enrolments in physics,
with emphasis on gender, nationality, and science anxiety. In
Jensen, J. H., Niss, M., and Wedege, T. (Eds.), Justification and
Enrolment Problems in Education Involving Mathematics or
Physics, Roskilde University Press, Roskilde, DK, pp. 237258.
Mulvey, P. J., Dodge, E., and Nicholson, S. (1997). Enrollments
and degrees report. R-151.33, American Institute of Physics,
College Park, MD.
Neuschatz, M., And Alpert. L. (1996). Overcoming inertia: high
school physics in the 1990s. R-397, American Institute of
Physics, College Park, MD.
NSB (1996). Science and engineering indicators 1996. NSB96-21, National Science Board, U.S. Govt. Printing Office,
Washington, DC.
NSF (1996). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in
science and engineering: 1996. NSF 96-311, National Science
Foundation, Washington, DC.
Pfeiffenberger, W., Zolandz, A. M., and Jones, L. (1991). Testing physics achievement: Trends over time and place. Physics
Today 44: 3037.
Rahm, I., and Charbonneau, P. (1997). Probing stereotypes through
students drawings of scientists. American Journal of Physics
65: 774778.
Richardon, R. C., and Suinn, R. M. (1972). The Mathematics Anxiety Rating Scale: Psychometric data. Journal of Counselling
and Psychology 19: 551554.
Rosser, S. V. (Ed.) (1990). Female-Friendly Science, Pergamon
Press, Elmsford, NY.
Rosser, S. V. (Ed.) (1995). Teaching the Majority, Teachers College
Press, NY.
Schuck, J. (1997). Factors contributing to the under-representation
of women in physics-based engineering fields, A. P. Sloan Fdn.
Report , Ithaca, NY.
SCI (1994). Women in science: Comparisons across cultures. Science 263: 13891391, 14671496, and references therein.
Seymour, E., and Hewitt, N. (1997, 2000). Talking About Leaving:
Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences, Westview Press,
Boulder, CO. Hardcover (1997), Paperback (2000).
Sjberg, S., and Imsen, G. (1988). Gender and science education I.
In Fensham, P.(Ed.), Development and Dilemmas in Science
Education, Falmer Press, East Sussex, UK, pp. 218248.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., and Lushene, R. E. (1970).
STAI Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Consulting Psychologist Press, CA.
Tobias, S. (1978). Overcoming Math Anxiety, Norton, NY.
Tobias, S. (1990). Theyre Not Dumb, Theyre Different: Stalking the
Second Tier, Research Corporation, Tucson, AZ.
Vedelsby, M. (1991). Myter og Realiteter: Kvinder i naturvidenskabelige og teknologiske uddannelser (Myths and Realities:
Women in Scientific and Technological Education. In Danish),
Forskningspolitisk Rad,
Copenhagen, DK.

Does Physics Teaching Affect Gender-Based Science Anxiety?: M.K. Udo, G.P. Ramsey, S. Reynolds-Alpert, and J.V. Mallow

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Does Physics Teaching Affect Gender-Based Science Anxiety?: M.K. Udo, G.P. Ramsey, S. Reynolds-Alpert, and J.V. Mallow

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

P1: Vendor/FMN/GOQ

Journal of Science Education and Technology

June 15, 2001

Style file version Oct. 23, 2000

Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 10, No. 3, 2001