Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37906692›Full record

ArticleCBE life sciences education2023

Gendered Performance Gaps in an Upper-Division Biology Course: Academic, Demographic, Environmental, and Affective Factors.

Victoria S Farrar, Bianca-Yesenia Cruz Aguayo, Natalia Caporale

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CBE life sciences education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Victoria S FarrarDepartment of Neurobiology, Physiology and Behavior, University of California Davis, Davis, CA 95616.
Bianca-Yesenia Cruz AguayoDepartment of Neurobiology, Physiology and Behavior, University of California Davis, Davis, CA 95616.
Natalia CaporaleDepartment of Neurobiology, Physiology and Behavior, University of California Davis, Davis, CA 95616.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the existent gender parity in undergraduate biology degree attainment, gendered differences in outcomes are prevalent in introductory biology courses. Less is known about whether these disparities persist at the upper-division level, after most attrition is assumed to have occurred. Here, we report the consistent presence of gender equity gaps across 35 offerings (10 years) of a large-enrollment upper-division biology course at a research-intensive public university. Multilevel modeling showed that women's grades were lower than men's, regardless of prior GPA. These gender gaps were present even when controlling for students' race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, first-generation college-going status, international status, and transfer status. Class size, gender representation in the classroom, and instructor gender did not significantly relate to course grades. Student questionnaires in a subset of offerings indicated gendered differences in course anxiety, science identity, and science self-efficacy, which correlated with grade outcomes. These results suggest that women experience differential outcomes in upper-division biology, which may negatively influence their persistence in STEM fields postgraduation. Our findings suggest that gender disparities are a systemic problem throughout the undergraduate biology degree and underscore the need for further examination and transformation of upper-division courses to support all students, even at late stages of their degrees.

Indexed as

Sex CharacteristicsStudentsBiologyDemographyFemaleHumansMaleSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID37906692
PMCPMC10756041

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.