The contribution of office-hours-type interactions to female student satisfaction with the educational experience in engineering

ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 2279-2289

  Lancaster, Stephen M ^a   Waiden, Susan E ^a   Trytten, Deborah A ^a,b   Murphy, Teri J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA   (United States)

^b USA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CURRICULA; INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING; PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS; STUDENTS; TEACHING;

EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE; FEMALE STUDENTS; OFFICE-HOURS-TYPE INTERACTIONS; PROFESSOR-STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS;

ENGINEERING EDUCATION;

EID: 22544464730     PISSN: None     EISSN: 21535965     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (27)

1. Seymour, E., Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences. Westview Press. pp 247, 266-273, 308-313.
2. Margolis, J., Fisher, A. (2002). Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp 5, 77-92.
3. Johnson, G.R. (1979). Verbal Interaction in Junior/Community College and University Classrooms: Do Disciplines and Settings Differ? Research in Education, Aug 1979.
4. Bostian, Charles W. (1991), The Mechanics of Effective Classroom Teaching. Engineering Education, 81, 9-11.
5. Felder, Richard M. (2002), The Effective, Efficient Professor. Chemical Engineering Education, 36, 114-15.
6. Ediger, Marlow (1999), Improving Community College Teaching. Research in Education, June 1999.
7. Gallego, Juan C. (1992), The Structure of the Office Hour Consultation: A Case Study. Research in Education, Sept. 1997.
8. Dry, J. & Braskamp, L. (1988). Involvement and Growth of Students in Three Academic Programs. Research in Higher Education., 28, 116-129.
9. Terenzini, P. & Wright, T. (1987). Influences on Students' Academic Growth During Four Years of College. Research in Higher Education, 26, 161-179
10. Baxter, Magolda M. (1987). The Affective Dimension of Learning: Faculty-Student Relationships that Enhance Intellectual Development. College Student Journal, 21, 46-58.
11. Terenzini, Patrick T. (1993). Influences Affecting the Development of Students' Critical Thinking Skills. Paper presented at the Association for Institutional Research, May 1993, in New Orleans, LA.
12. Jaasma, M.A., Koper, R.J. (1999). The Relationship of Student/Faculty Out-of-Class Communication to Instructor Immediacy and Trust and to Student Motivation. Communication Education, 48, 41-47.
13. Crockett, D.S. (1985).Academic Advising. In L. Noel, R. Levitz, and D. Saluri (Eds.), Increasing Student Retention (pp 244-263). San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
14. Beal, P.E., Noel, L. (1980). What Works in Student Retention. Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program and the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.
15. Roueche, J.E., Baker, G.A., III, OmahaBoy, N.H., and Mullins, P.L. (1987), Access and Excellence: The Open-Door College. Washington, D.C.: The Community College Press.
16. Jones, M.G., Wheatly, J. (1990). Gender Differences in Teacher-Student Interactions in Science Classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27: 861-874.
17. Kahle, J.B. (1990). "Real Students Take Chemistry and Physics." In K. Tobin, J.B. Kahle, and B.J. Fraser, eds., Windows into Science Classrooms: Problems Associated with Higher-Level Cognitive Learning, New York, NY: Falmer Press.
18. Tobin, K., Garnett, P. (1987). Gender-Related Differences in Science Activities. Science Education, 71:91-103.
19. Morse, L.W., Handley, H. M. (1985). "Listening to Adolescents: Gender Differences in Science Classrooms. In L.C. Wlkinson and C.B. Marrett, eds., Gender Influences in Classroom Interactions, Madison, WI: Academic Press.
20. Gallego, Juan C. (1995). A Survey of Native and Nonnative TA's Office Hours: Importance, Attendance, and Content. Research in Education, Sept. 1997.
21. Ware, N.C., Dill, D. (1986). Persistence in Science Among Mathematically Able Male and Female College Students with Pre-College Plans for a Scientific Major. San Fransisco, CA: Paper presented at the annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
22. Valverde, L.A. (1985). Low-Income Students. In L. Noel. R. Levitz. and D. Saluri (Eds.). Increasing Student Retention (pp 78-94). San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
23. Linn, M.C., Kessel, C. (1995). Success in Mathematics: Increasing Talent and Gender Diversity Among College Majors. Paper presented at the AERA Annual Meeting, Division D Symposium, April 21, in San Fransisco, CA.
24. Tinto, V. (1985). Dropping Out and Other Forms of Withdrawl from College. In L. Noel, R. Levitz, and D. Saluri (Eds.), Increasing Student Retention (pp 78-94). San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
25. Roueche, J.E., Roueche, S.D. (1985). Teaching and Learning. In L. Noel, R. Levitz, and D. Saluri (Eds.), Increasing Student Retention (pp 283-301). San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
26. Office of the Vice President and Provost. University of Oklahoma. http://www.ou.edu/provost/ir/Factbook_2004/
27. We would like to thank the reviewers. In particular, one reviewer observed that departments with a higher student-to-faculty ratio than IE at OU might be expected to have fewer good office hours experience stories to report. While we agree with that observation, our research indicates that the quality of the office hours experience is more significant to female students than to male students. If a high student-to-faculty ratio does diminish the quality of the office hours experiences of students, as the reviewer reasonably suggests, it may lead more female students to attrite from these majors than male students. For departments with gender parity as a priority, this suggested relationship between student-faculty ratio and the disproportionate impact of student-faculty interactions on females could provide sound footing for seeking additional faculty lines.