概念第一篇论文的附录：学生赤字模型在理解人口统计学等级差距方面是站不住脚的
Addendum to Concepts First Paper: A Student Deficit Model is Untenable in Understanding a Demographic Grade Gap
摘要：
本附录表明，最好使用课程赤字模型而不是更常见的学生赤字模型来理解人口统计学上的年级差距。来自概念第一课堂的学生参加了与同时提供的其他三个班级相同的期末考试，因此可以比较每个班级不同人口统计组之间的成绩差距。它被发现，学生识别为一个种族/族裔群体的成员在物理学中代表性不足有更高的期末考试成绩比他们的同龄人从相同的概念第一类，而不是通常的情况下，考试成绩低于他们的同龄人，发现在其他三个类。在控制了对微积分和牛顿力学的理解之后，发现第一类概念中的人口统计差距与其他三类的差异超过四个标准误差。此外，值得注意的是，虽然学生的传入的理解是有用的，在解释组内的差异，他们不解释组间的差异，这表明学生赤字模型不解释（组间）的人口学等级差距。
英文摘要：
This addendum shows that a demographic grade gap is best understood using a course deficit model rather than the more common student deficit model. Students from a concepts-first class took the same final exam as the three other classes that were offered at the same time so the grade gaps between different demographic groups from each class can be compared. It is found that students identifying as members of a racial/ethnic group underrepresented in physics had higher final exam grades than their peers from the same concepts first class rather than the usual case, lower exam grades than their peers, found in each of the other three classes. After controlling for demonstrated incoming understanding of calculus and Newtonian mechanics this demographic gap in the concepts first class is found to differ from that of the other three classes by over four standard errors. In addition, it's noted that while students' incoming understandings are useful in explaining within-group differences they do not explain between-group differences suggesting that a student deficit model does not explain (between-group) demographic grade gaps.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
