Diversity in Education
Diversity in Education
  • Overview
  • K-12 Integration, Desegregation, and Segregation Archive
  • K-16 STEM Archive
  • Browse
    • By Method of Analysis
    • By Unit of Analysis
    • By Data Type
    • By Journal Name or Institutional Affiliation
    • By Keyword
    • By Methodology
    • By Region
    • By Research
    • By Scholarship
    • By Sample Type
  • Help
  • Contact Us

Filter

  • Sort by

  • Filtered Search Term

  • Archive

  • Keywords

  • Research Designs

  • Analysis Methods

  • Researchers

2016 - Gender Differences in Learning Outcomes from the College Experiences of Engineering Students

Attribution: Kyoung Ro, Hyun, & Knight, David B.
Researchers: David B. KnightHyun Kyoung Ro
University Affiliation:
Email: hro@bgsu.edu
Research Question:
1) How do curricular emphases differently affect engineering learning outcomes by gender? 2) How do instructional approaches differently affect engineering learning outcomes by gender? 3) How does participation in co-curricular experiences differently affect engineering learning outcomes by gender?
Published: Yes
Journal Name or Institutional Affiliation: Journal of Engineering Education
Journal Entry: Vol. 105, No. 3, Pp. 1-30
Year: 2016
Findings:

– Curricular emphases, instructional approaches, and co-curricular participation that affected learning outcomes differently by gender.
– Greater curricular emphasis on professional skills and a greater frequency of student-centered teaching led to greater self-reported design skills for women.
– Being more active in nonengineering clubs increased female students’ self-reports of fundamental, design, and communication skills.
– Women self-reported lower fundamental and design skills than men, after controlling for other student characteristics and experiences.
– Design skills, which are the ability to solve more ill-structured and open-ended problems, had a weaker but negative relationship with women.
– Small-group experiences enhance the attitudes and achievements of women in STEM fields.
– Female students that more often reported that their instructors used student-centered teaching methods reported higher design skills, unlike the relationship between this pedagogy and design skills for male students.
– Women self-reported higher communication skills, but not leadership and teamwork skills, after controlling for other student characteristics.
– As with fundamental and design skills, women who engaged more actively in nonengineering clubs had higher self-assessments of communication skills. These results demonstrate the value in offering such co-curricular experiences to promote women engineers’ learning outcomes.
– Men reported higher leadership skills than women when students experienced a curriculum emphasizing core engineering thinking.
– Women reported higher leadership skills when they had curricula with stronger emphasis on professional skills, men reported higher leadership skills when they had curricula more strongly focused on core engineering thinking.

* Differences in gender within different Engineering curriculums.

Scholarship Types: Journal Article Reporting Empirical ResearchKeywords: Co-curricular activitiesCollegeContextCurriculumEngineeringGenderRegions: NationalMethodologies: QuantitativeResearch Designs: SurveyAnalysis Methods: Descriptive StatisitcsHierarchal Logistic Regression Sampling Frame:Engineering Students and Colleges
Sampling Types: Nationally RepresentativeAnalysis Units: CollegeStudentData Types: Quantitative-Cross Sectional
Data Description:

Data were collected from 31 four-year colleges and universities that were representative of four-year United States engineering schools that offer Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET)-accredited programs in seven engineering disciplines. The student population for the study was defined as all sophomore, junior, and senior students in one of the seven targeted engineering disciplines. The sample was composed of the resultant weighted responses of 4,901 students (an overall response rate of 16%) in 31 colleges of engineering during the 2009 spring and summer terms.

Dependent variables: Seven student learning outcomes were chosen as criterion measures: Fundamental skills (three-item scale) and design skills (12-item scale). Fundamental skills are critical engineering skills. In addition, they investigated contextual competence (all engineering undergraduates must be prepared to solve engineering problems in real-world contexts, four-item scale). They also investigated students’ interdisciplinary skills (eight-item scale); this learning outcome aligns with the notion that engineers of the future must combine a strong understanding of their disciplines with the ability to work across disciplines both within and outside engineering.

Three engineering professional skills were also included as variables by means of students’ self-assessments of their teamwork, communication, and leadership abilities. The teamwork skills scale consisted of self-assessments of working in teams of people who had different skills and background and people from fields outside engineering (five-item scale).The communication skills scale measured students’ self-assessments of oral and written communication skills and effective communication skills with persons from different cultures or countries and outside engineering (six-item scale). The leadership skills scale contained students’ self-ratings of their abilities to develop plans, take responsibility, and monitor processes to ensure goals are being met (six-item scale).

IVs:
– Gender
– Three sets of college experience variables (curricular emphases, instructional approaches, and co-curricular experiences) were also independent variables for these analyses. Curricular experiences scales measured students’ perceptions of the emphasis placed on three different aspects of engineering knowledge and skills in their courses. Instructional approaches contained students’ reports of the extent to which they experienced different instructional techniques throughout their engineering programs. Co-curricular experiences consisted of three single-item measures of the extent to which students reported being active in engineering clubs or student chapters of a professional society, engineering-related clubs, or programs for women and minority students, and nonengineering clubs or activities as an undergraduate.
– All analyses controlled for the effects of students’ race/ethnicity, parents’ education, and high school achievement as reflected in students’ average SAT scores and high school GPA.
– Program-level variables were averages of curricular emphasis on core engineering thinking, professional skills, broad and systems perspectives, student-centered learning, group learning pedagogies, and participation in co-curricular programs.
– The authors created a dummy variable with five categories of students’ academic majors: mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, civil engineering, electrical engineering, and others.
– Two institutional-level control variables: undergraduate enrollment size and highest degree awarded by the institution.

Theoretical Framework:
Relevance:Gender and STEM
Archives: K-16 STEM Abstracts
Skip to toolbar
  • Log In