Girls in the physics classroom: a review of the research on the participation of girls in physics

By P. Murphy, E. Whitelegg. 2006

198 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/85ec6256716b45a55656ef7ad59626190f056968

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Girls’ biology, boys’ physics: evidence from free‐choice science learning settings (2008, background): “This gender-gap in interest is also apparent among female students who are interested in science, as can be inferred from the polarized enrolment in elective biology and physics courses (Zohar 2003; Murphy and Whitelegg 2006) within the science-attentive students’ body.”
More useful or not so bad? Examining the effects of utility value and cost reduction interventions in college physics. (2020, background): “…to relate STEM course material to one’s life in subjects such as biology and psychology compared with subjects such as college-level physics or mathematics, which focus on solving computational problems that may seem quite disconnected from one’s everyday experiences (Murphy & Whitelegg, 2006).”
The Impact of Gender on Interest in Science Topics and the Choice of Scientific and Technical Vocations (2011, background): “As females usually have better marks in languages than in hard sciences, their self-concept in science is low compared to that of males even if they have the same competencies (Lips, 2004, as quoted in Murphy & Whitelegg, 2006, p. 7; Möller & Köller, 2004).”
Mathematics and science inequalities in the United Kingdom: when elitism, sexism and culture collide (2011, background): “These different patterns with Northern Ireland and Scotland appearing to offer more equal opportunities are repeated in relation to physics, the subject with the most serious inequities in participation (Murphy & Whitelegg, 2006).”