%0 Conference Paper %1 1732 %A Paulson, K. %A Hagedorn, L. S. %A Petrides, L. A. %A Wenzel, S. A. %B Annual Meeting of Association for the Study of Higher Education %D 1995 %K active-learning, attitudes, classroom, collaborative-learning cross-institutional, engineering-education, file-import-09-02-13, gender, gender-differences, higher-education, peer-influences, persistence, pipeline, self-concept %P 23+ %T Connecting what we know: The experience of women in engineering education

@inproceedings{1732, added-at = {2009-02-24T19:22:48.000+0100}, author = {Paulson, K. and Hagedorn, L. S. and Petrides, L. A. and Wenzel, S. A.}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2849ddbec6ee4029fa45acd5539d8410e/clachapelle}, booktitle = {Annual Meeting of Association for the Study of Higher Education}, citeulike-article-id = {4046183}, comment = {MT's NOTES: paper brings together four distinct research investigations 1. Analysis of women at end of first year who initially declared eng as intended major at beg of first year of college. (Karen Paulson) 2. Gender diff in perceptions of a preferences for the classroom env.(Linda Serra Hagedorn) 3. Experiences, beliefs and expectations of men and women enrolled in grad eng progs. (Lisa Petrides) 4. Investigation of women engineering faculty (Stacy Wentzel) Stayers vs. leavers surveyed frosh at 19 four year and 4 two year colleges and universities. IPEDS was used to gain a representative sample accroding to size, institution tytpe, ethnicity of student body. N=3,840 students respo rate 76.8\% for fall, 2,685 in spring 69.9\% resp rate. Talked about four domains: perceptions of prejudice, academic integration, social integration, financial aspects. The attrition rate after the first year was lower for women than men, though there were far more men who declared engineering in the beginning (p 5). Women who persisted had higher GPAs, studied more hours, had higher math gains, and were more comfortable with the challenge and diversity of the college env than any other group (inclu mailes) (p 5). Female persisters reported sig higher level of students-related social integration than did male persisters. (p10) Integreation with faculty was lower for all women (leavers and persisters) (p 10). High Gpa in first year was conducive to perseverance. (p 10) The researchers recommend having opportunities for studying together. Minorities dropped out more than white students. (p 10) Low \#s of women in major create an "aura" of discrimination. (p 10). Notes on Part 2 Karen Paulson focuses on classroom environment paper and pencil survey to student in lower division, require pre eng courses at 2 large public research institutions. Examined open endedness, integration of subject matter, student cohgesivenesss, faculty interaction, material env and awareness of gender discrimination. N=400, 88\% response rate *Found that women learn using "connected knowing", particulraly by forming relationships with others. * women more interested in knowing and intractiong with classmates and faculty(p 13) * women preferred integration of subject matter, more rule clarity and better materials environment. *women were "systems thinkers"(p 14) The universities were also part of a larger study done my Penn State Center for the Study of Higher Education. *women like teams, groups, hands-on and interaction with faculty(p 15) Focus: Graduate Expectations and Experiences N=1000 female and male masters and PhD students in engineering (aero, electrical, mach, chem, indus), followed up by 20 unstructured interviews 54\% overal response rate *57\% of both men and women said they had made the decision to study eng during high school, 16\% before high school *both women and men said that job status was important to them (p 16) *grad women were less likely to have a faculty mentor and participate in social activities with peers and faculty (p 17) *women and men were similar in likes and dislike of engineering education (p 17) *women more likely to drop out due to frustration, men more likely to drop out due to job market (p 17) *63\% of women said they did not experience discrim,7\% said yes, 7\% said no, then described a situation of discrim. *women face many uncomfortable situtaions (p 18) *women feel they do twice the amount of work in their programs (p18) Focus: faculty multiple indepth interviews with 8 women faculty who are tenured or on tenure track. *Connectedness very important to women faculty (p 19) *good communication with colleagues viewed as crucial to career (p19) *participants also needed resources, policies and collaborations, including generous start up packages to help them start out (p 19) *like to be part of a supportive department (p 20) *women were aware of role of gender, but not sure whether their complaint stemmed from gender directlky, or from the nature of their profession (p 21) *women recognized that behaving professionally meant behaving like a man. (p 21) ******************************************************************************************************************* KB's notes: This paper presents several studies on women in different stages of academic engineering post-high school, trying to get a better sense of where and how women leave the "pipeline." Like others in the field, they feel that the emphasis should be placed on retaining women, rather than on recruitment. Hagedorn took a subsample of the National Study of Student Learning (NSSL), a three-year longitudinal study of 3800 students at 23 colleges conducted by a center at Penn State. Based on those who initially declared engineering as their major, she broke the subsample into four groups: female persisters, male persisters, female switchers, and male switchers. She found that both female groups reported had more cooperative study behavior than both the male groups. Female persisters had the highest GPAs of any group, spent more time studying than any other group, and "reported the most comfort with college challenge and diversity (significant;ly higher than male persisters)" *p.5). Women reported less positive interactions with faculty than their male peers, emphasizing the author's claim of a "chilly" classroom environment for women. Paulson's study focused on the undergraduate engineering classroom environment. She distributed a paper survey to students enrolled in lower-level, pre-engineering courses at 2 large public research universities. Men and women were asked to rate statements about the classroom environment on a scale that ranged from Almost Never (occurs) to Very Often. Survey topics included: open-endedness of in-class problems, integration of subject matter, rule clarity, students cohesiveness, faculty intereaction, material environment and awareness of gender discrimination. From the n of 643, the response rates were 88 and 50 percents at each school. There were significant differences between men and women in all areas except perceptions of open-endedness. Women were more aware of discrimination in the classroom environment, felt a stronger need to connect what goes on in the classroom with the "real world" (ie. "connected knowing"), liked hands-on learning and valued social interactions with peers and faculty. Men were more comfortable with fewer rules and less class specificity. Paulsen theorizes that men are socialized to be free thinkers whereas women are trained to follow the rules (pp.13-14). Petrides surveyed 1000 male and female Masters and PhD students in five engineering programs at a highly prestigious provate engineering university, with an additional 20 unstructured interviews. She had a 54\% response rate (52 for men, 59 for women). Petrides asked questions about their expectations, beliefs, adn experiences in engineering. Interestingly, the backgrounds of the men and women were similar, in terms of GPAs and GRE scores. They also had similar perceptions of the pay and status of their profession. 57\% of both said they made the decision to become an engineer in high school (p.16). However, 39\% of women and 27\% of men experiences social isolation. Harassment was identified by both groups as occurring more among students than from faculty (p.17). Women were more aware of harassment, and said discrimination overall was more subtle. Women felt they had to assimilate to the traditionally male engineering culture (p.18). These findings led the author to conclude that the institutions, not the women, need to change to be more open and accomodating (p.18). The need for women to have a more open engineering environment whch will provide them with interpersonal, intellectual, and institutional connections was also found in the study of women tenure or tenure track engineering faculty, Wenzel conducted multiple, in-depth, open-ended interviews with eight female faculty members who all seemed to express a interest in more connectedness to collleagues, in order to access information.}, interhash = {844af0bd23e98383dc70a34a6813929a}, intrahash = {849ddbec6ee4029fa45acd5539d8410e}, keywords = {active-learning, attitudes, classroom, collaborative-learning cross-institutional, engineering-education, file-import-09-02-13, gender, gender-differences, higher-education, peer-influences, persistence, pipeline, self-concept}, location = {Orlando, FL}, pages = {23+}, posted-at = {2009-02-13 21:45:45}, priority = {2}, timestamp = {2009-02-24T19:49:32.000+0100}, title = {Connecting what we know: The experience of women in engineering education}, year = 1995 }