Search for: All records

Research-based assessments (RBAs) allow researchers and practitioners to compare student performance across different contexts and institutions. In recent years, research attention has focused on the student populations these RBAs were initially developed with because much of that research was done with “samples of convenience” that were predominantly white men. Prior research has found that the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) behaved differently for men and women using differential item functioning (DIF) analysis. We extend this research in two ways. First, we test the FCI for DIF across the intersection of gender and race for Asian, Black, Hispanic, White, and White Hispanic men and women. Second, we apply the Eaton and Willoughby five-factor model of the FCI to interpret the results of the DIF analysis. We found large DIF on a large number of FCI items. The patterns of items with large DIF follows the five-factor model. The alignment of DIF with this factor structure, along with the measurement invariance of this factor structure across these ten social identities, indicates that the items on the FCI are likely not biased but are instead measuring real differences in physics knowledge among these groups. We frame these differences as educational debts that society owes to these marginalized groups that physics instruction needs to actively repay. 

Education researchers often compare performance across race and gender on research-based assessments of physics knowledge to investigate the impacts of racism and sexism on physics student learning. These investigations' claims rely on research-based assessments providing reliable, unbiased measures of student knowledge across social identity groups. We used classical test theory and differential item functioning (DIF) analysis to examine whether the items on the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) provided unbiased data across social identifiers for race, gender, and their intersections. The data was accessed through the Learning About STEM Student Outcomes platform and included responses from 4,848 students posttests in 152 calculus-based introductory physics courses from 16 institutions. The results indicated that the majority of items (22) on the FCI were biased towards a group. These results point to the need for instrument validation to account for item bias and the identification or development of fair research-based assessments. 

The American Chemical Society holds supporting diverse student populations engaging in chemistry as a core value. We analyzed chemical concept inventory scores from 4,612 students across 12 institutions to determine what inequities in content knowledge existed before and after introductory college chemistry courses. We interpreted our findings from a Quantitative Critical (QuantCrit) perspective that framed inequities as educational debts that society owed students due to racism, sexism, or both. Results showed that society owed women and Black men large educational debts before and after instruction. Society’s educational debts before instruction were large enough that women and Black men’s average scores were lower than White men’s average pretest scores even after instruction. Society would have to provide opportunities equivalent to taking the course up to two and a half times to repay the largest educational debts. These findings show the scale of the inequities in the science education systems and highlight the need for reallocating resources and opportunities throughout the K-16 education system to mitigate, prevent, and repay society’s educational debts from sexism and racism.