Gender differences in high school students’ interests in physics

Adeyemo, S.A. (2011). The effect of teachers’ perception and students’ perception of physics classroom learning environment on their academic achievement in senior secondary schools physics. International Journal of Educational Research andTechnology, 2(1), 74 – 81.

Akbayır, K. (2002). Öğretmenlik mesleğine yönelmede ailenin ve branş seçiminde cinsiyetin rolü. V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi Dergisi, 2, 1183-1188.

Aktamış, H., Çalışkan S.,& Aktamış, İ. (2012). Ortaöğretim öğrencilerinin fizik problemlerini çözmeye yönelik tutumlarının incelenmesi. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9(20), 395-404.

Appianing, J.,& Richard N. Van Eck. (2015). Gender differences in college students’ perceptions of technology-related jobs in computer science. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 7(1), 28-56.

Arslan, A., Ercan, O.,& Tekbıyık, A. (2012). Fizik Dersi Yeni Öğretim Programına İlişkin Öğretmen Görüşlerinin Çeşitli Değişkenler Açısından Değerlendirilmesi. X. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi. 27 - 30 June, Niğde.

Ayvacı, H. Ş. (2010). Fizik öğretmenlerinin bağlam temelli yaklaşım hakkındaki görüşleri. Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15, 42-51

Baran, M. (2011). Teknoloji ve Proje Tabanlı Öğrenme Yaklaşımı Destekli Düşünme Yolculuğu Tekniğinin Lise 11. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Fizik Başarısı ve Akademik Benlik Tasarımına Etkisi. Doctoral Dissertation, Dicle University, Diyarbakır, Turkey.

Beede, D., Julian, T., Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Khan, B.,& Doms, M.(2011). Women in STEM: A Gender Gap to Innovation. U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration. Retrieved from http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/womeninstemagaptoinnovation8311.pdf date: 22.12.2015

Benckert, S. (2000). Conversation and Context in Physics Education. Retrieved from https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/18144/1/gupea_2077_18144_1.pdf date: 01.12.2015

Brad, A. (2011). A study of the pro4blem solving activity in high school students: strategies and self-regulated learnıng. Acta Didactica Napocensia, (1), 21-30.

Cunningham, B.C., Mulvaney, K. H. ,& Sparks, D., (2015). Gender Diﬀerences in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Interest, Credits Earned, and NAEP Performance in the 12th Grade. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015075.pdf date: 15.12.2015

Cobern, W.W., & Loving, C.C. (2002). Culturally Important Issues and Science: A Gender and Science-Interest Investigation. Paper presented at the 2002 annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.

Cole, A., Conlon, T., Sylvia, J., & Dorothy, W. (1994). Information technology and gender: Problems and proposals. Gender and Education, 6(1), 77-85.

Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. SecondEdition. Retrieved from http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1334586.files/2003_Creswell_A%20Framework%20for%20Design.pdf Date: 10.12.2015

Charles, Maria, & Bradley, Karen. (2005). A matter of degrees: Female underrepresentation in computer science programs cross-nationally. In J.McGrath Cohoon & William C. Aspray (Eds.), Women and Information Technology: Research on the Reasons for Underrepresentation.

Dar-Nimrod, I., & Heine, S. J. (2006). Exposure to scientific theories affects women‟s math performance. Science, 314(5798), 435.

Dweck, C. (2006). Is math a gift? Beliefs that put females at risk. In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 47–55). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Fairbrother, R. (2000). Strategies for learning. In M. Monk & J. Osborne (Eds.) Good practice in science teaching: What research has to say. Buckingham: Open University Press, 7–22 .

Fencl, H.,& Scheel K. (2005). Engaging students: an examination of the effects of teaching strategies on self-efficacy and course climate in a nonmajors physics course. J Coll Sci Teach. 35, 20–24.

Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60, 549-571.

Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St. Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington DC: American Association of University Women. Retrieved from http://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/Why-So-Few-Women-in-Science-Technology-Engineering-and-Mathematics.pdf date: 03.12.2015

Jammula, D.C. (2015). Feminist Physics Education: Deconstructed Physics and Students’ Multiple Subjectivities. Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy under the Executive Committee of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Columbıa Unıversıty.

Joint Council for Qualiﬁcations [JCQ] (2013a) ‘Provisional GCSE (Full Course) Results – June 2013 (All UK Candidates)’, London. http://www.jcq.org.uk/Download/examination-results/gcses/gcse-and-entry-level-certiﬁcate-resultssummer-2013.

Jones, M.G., Howe, A., & Rua, J.M., (2000). Gender differences in students' experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education, 84(2), 180-192.

Kalle Juuti, Jari Lavonen, Anna Uitto, Reijo Byman, and Veijo Meisalo. (2004). Boys’ and Girls’ Interests in Physics in Different Contexts: A Finnish Survey. Retrieved from http://roseproject.no/network/countries/finland/fin-juuti-2003.pdf date: 22.12.2015

Kapucu, S. (2010). Fizik Öğretim Programının Uygulanmasında Yaşanan Sorunlar Ve Çözüm Önerileri, Ed: Bülbül, M. Ş. Türkiye'de fizik eğitimi alanındaki tecrübeler, sorunlar, çözümler ve öneriler, Çevrimiçi Çalıştay

Krapp, A. (2002). Structural and dynamic aspects of ınterest development: theoretical considerations from an ontogenetic perspective. Learning and Instruction, 12(4), 383 – 409.

Uitto, A., Juuti, K., Lavonen, J.,& Meisalo, V. (2006). Students' interest in biology and their out-of-school experiences. Journal of biological education, 40(3),124-129.

Linn, E. (1999). Gender equity and computer technology. Equity Coalition, 5, 14-17.

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd Ed., p. 10-12. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1049-1079.

Ofsted (2011) Girls’ career aspirations, Manchester. Retrieved from http://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/other/girls-career-aspirations Date: 05.12.2015.

Poyraz, B. (2013). Akademi kadınların cenneti mi?: Ankara üniversitesi örneği. Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 4(2), 1-18. DOI:10.1501/sbeder_0000000057

Priyadarshini, S. (2014). Women in science: Leak in the pipeline. Retrieved from http://blogs.nature.com/indigenus/2014/03/women-in-science-wheres-the-leak-in-the-pipeline.html Date: 22.12.2015

Rajakorpi A (2000) Matematiikan ja luonnontieteiden opetuksen kehittämishankkeen toinen lähtötasoarviointi. Peruskoulussa ja lukiossa syksyllä 1999 pidetyn luonnontieteen kokeen tulokset. Arviointi 10/2000. Helsinki. Opetushallitus. Yliopistopaino

Sainz, M. (2011). Factors which influence girls’ orientations to ICT subjects in schools. Evidence from Spain. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 3(2), 387-406.

Schiefele, U. (1999). Interest and learning from text. Sci. Stud. Reading, 3, 257–280.

Sanders, J. (2006). Gender and Technology in Education. A Research Review. In C Skelton, B. Francis, and L. Smulyan (Eds.), Handbook of Gender and Education. London.

Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: a review of the literatüre and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 23-52.

Silim, A., & Crosse, C. (2014). Report Women In Engıneerıng Fıxıng The Talent Pipeline. Institute for Public Policy Research. Retrieved from http://www.ippr.org/files/publications/pdf/women-in-engineering_Sept2014.pdf?noredirect=1 Date: 08.12.2015

Snyder, T.D., Tan, A.G., & Hoffman, C.M. (2004). Digest of Education Statistics 2003 . Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

Tepav, (2011). İstihdam İzleme Bülteni. Retrieved from http://www.tepav.org.tr/upload/files/haber/1325147753-9.Istihdam_Izleme_Bulteni_Aralik_2011_Sonuclari.pdf Date: 11.12.2015

Trujillo, G., & Tanner, K.D. (2014). Considering the Role of Affect in Learning: Monitoring Students' Self-Efficacy, Sense of Belonging, and Science Identity. CBE Life Sci Educ. 13(1), 6–15.

Tsabari, A.B., Yarden, A. (2010). Quantifying the gender gap in science interests. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(3), 523-550.

Walper, L.M., Lange, K., Kleickmann, T.,& Möller, K. (2013). Students’ physıcs-related ınterests ın the transıtıon from prımary to secondary school – how do they change and what ınstructıonal practıces ınfluence them? ESERA 2013, Retrieved from http://www.esera.org/publications/esera-conference-proceedings/science-education-research-for-evidence-/strand-16-science-in-the-primary-school/ date: 20.12.2015

Wilson, B.G. (1996). Introduction: What is a constructivist learning environment? In B.G. Wilson (Ed.). Constructivist Learning Environments (pp.3-8). Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Educational Technology Publications.

Yakıt, E.,& Coşkun, A.M. (2014). The truth of child marriage in a social context: responsibilities of the nurse and midwife. Hemşirelikte Eğitim ve Araştırma Dergisi, 11(3), 3-10.

Zhu, Z. (2007). Learning content, physics self-efficacy, and female students’ physics course-taking. International Education Journal, 8(2), 204-212.