ArticleJournal of microbiology & biology education2022
Participation and Performance by Gender in Synchronous Online Lectures: Three Unique Case Studies during Emergency Remote Teaching.
Article in Journal of microbiology & biology education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- To participate or not to participate? A qualitative investigation of students' complex motivations for verbal classroom participation.PloS one · 2024Article
- Actual and perceived gender differences in virtual tumor board participation.Surgery open science · 2023Article
- Mixed methods study of student participation and self-efficacy in remote asynchronous undergraduate physics laboratories: contributors, lurkers, and outsiders.International journal of STEM education · 2023Article
- Global perspectives of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on learning science in higher education.PloS one · 2023Article
- Opportunities and Challenges of Online Instruction and Effective Pedagogy That Blurs the Lines between Online and On-Site Teaching and Learning.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Studies have documented that men's voices are generally heard more than women's voices in face-to-face undergraduate biology classes, and some performance gaps have also been documented. Some of the few studies on gender equity in traditional online biology education suggest that women participate more and perform better in asynchronous online courses compared to men. While much is known about emergency remote teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbating existing inequities generally, studies are needed about the impact of specific emergency remote teaching practices on specific groups such as women. In this study, we performed an in-depth investigation of three life sciences classrooms that utilized synchronous online lectures during the pandemic. We observed each class throughout the semester, quantified participation behaviors, and investigated the role of student gender. We also compared final course grades by gender. On average, we found that men participated more than women both verbally and by chat. These differences were not significant for each class individually, but the differences align with the face-to-face patterns seen in this population previously. Our results also hint that men's chat comments may be more likely to be acknowledged than women's chats by peers. We found evidence of greater performance disparities favoring men than seen previously before the pandemic, but not in all classes. We discuss implications for instructors conducting emergency remote teaching as well as the need for larger studies to test the replicability of our results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.