These are my thoughts on
M. Dew, E. M. Stump, and N. G. Holmes, Structuring groups for gender equitable equipment usage in labs, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010162 (2025).
Listenable on the PaperCast at https://open.spotify.com/episode/6ZG4lZH9dXpUHODtij31Bo?si=bbb689ca533640f4
I would like to examine some of the citations within the introduction. Also, the paper does not discuss the alternative educational goal for a first-semester mechanics lab: cohort formation, which is why we rotate groups. I would be curious to see the impact of semester-long groups on this cohort formation process. However, I am already starting to think that, first, forming our own groups as we currently do is the best approach, and second, that some sort of final exam at the end is almost certainly beneficial. The authors indicate that even in some other studies with group formation that resulted in equitable equipment usage, there was still inequitable computer usage. This phenomenon of inequitable computer usage is definitely something I have observed in the Physics 181 lab. Therefore, some sort of lab practical involving computer usage along with other basic skills seems helpful in establishing equitable use.
Following up, I think there is value in asking students to list people with whom they would like to work, as well as those with whom they would prefer not to be partnered. Finally, I do like the question of whether they would prefer to be in a majority-woman group, a majority-man group, or have no preference. The self-described category will be difficult to manage because of the numbers. We will need to think about an effective way to address that.
The paper seems to suggest that rotating groups is generally detrimental to equitable equipment usage. However, they cite a prior paper by the same author that shows this effect can be mitigated by using partner agreements in conjunction with a lab practical exam. I have already considered implementing a lab practical exam for the 181 lab this coming semester. I also see some value, particularly in the first semester, in rotating groups to facilitate cohort cohesion. Moreover, my groups remain the same for three weeks, as opposed to the two-week duration used in this study. It seems to me that the most optimal system for my particular course and goals would be to rotate groups every experiment—that is, every three weeks—and to include some time at the beginning for a partner agreement. Teaching students how to create and use partner agreements also has value beyond the 181 lab. These students will be working in pairs and groups throughout their undergraduate curriculum, so teaching them how to facilitate those interactions is, in itself, a valuable skill.
In short, I believe the best solution is fixed groups, which I was already planning to implement, combined with partner agreements. I should look up that earlier paper and see exactly how those partner agreements were structured, along with incorporating the lab practical I was already considering.