Effect of classroom gender composition on students' development of self-regulated learning competencies

International Journal of Engineering Education

Volumn 30, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 333-342

  Stefanou, Candice E ^a   Lord, Susan M ^b   Prince, Michael J ^a   Chen, John C ^c  

^a BUCKNELL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO   (United States)

^c CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Critical mass; Engineering students; Gender differences; Role models; Self regulated learning

Indexed keywords

MODELS; PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS; STUDENTS;

CRITICAL MASS; ENGINEERING CLASSROOMS; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS; GENDER DIFFERENCES; ROLE MODEL; SELF-REGULATED LEARNING; UNDER-REPRESENTED GROUPS; WOMEN IN ENGINEERING;

SOCIAL SCIENCES;

EID: 84898427330     PISSN: 0949149X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (48)

1. M. Hersh, The changing position of women in engineering worldwide, IEEE Transactions of Engineering Management, 47(3), 2000, pp. 345-359.
2. L. Kiwana, A. Kumar, and N. Randerson, An investigation into why the UK has the lowest proportion of female engineers in the EU: A summary of the key issues, Engineer- ingUK, April 2011. Available from http://www.engineering uk.com/-resources/documents/Int-Gender-summary-Engi neeringUK-04-11-.pdf Accessed 13 July 2013.
3. National Science Foundation, Scientists and engineers employed in business or industry, by managerial occupation, sex, race/ethnicity, and disability status: 2008, Women, Mino rities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering, Table 9-37. Available from http://www.nsf.gov/ statistics/ wmpd/tables.cfm. Accessed 16 July 2013.
4. M. T. Gibbons, Engineering by the numbers, ASEE Profiles ofEngineering and Engineering Technology Colleges, 2012 Edition, ASEE, Washington, D.C. Available from http:// www.asee.org/papers-and-publications/publications/11-47. pdf. Accessed 10 October 2013.
5. National Science Foundation, Bachelor's degrees awarded in engineering, by sex, race/ethnicity, and citizenship: 1990-2010, Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilitiesin Science and Engineering, Table 5-13. Available from http://www.nsf.gov/ statistics/wmpd/tables.cfm Accessed 16 July 2013.
6. C. Hill, C. Corbett, and A. St. Rose, Why so Few? Women in Science, Technology Engineering, and Mathematics, AAUW Press, Washington, D.C., 2010.
7. W. Faulkner, Dualisms, hierarchies and gender in engineering, Social Studies of Science, 30(5), 2000, pp. 759-792.
8. W. Faulkner, Nuts and bolts and people: Gender-troubled engineering identities, Social Studies ofScience, 37(3), 2007, pp. 331-356.
9. D. M. Riley, Engineering and Social Justice, Morgan and Claypool, San Rafael CA, 2008.
10. M. M. Camacho and S. M. Lord, The Borderlands of Education: Latinas in Engineering, Lexington Books, Lanham, MD, 2013.
11. C. deCohen Cosentino and N. Deterding, Widening the net: National estimates of gender disparities in engineering, Journal of Engineering Education, 98(3), 2009 pp. 211-226.
12. S. M. Lord, M. M. Camacho, R. A. Layton, R. A. Long, M. W. Ohland and M. H. Wasburn, Who's persisting in engi neering? A comparative analysis of female and male Asian, Black, Hispanic, Native American, and White students, Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 15(2), 2009, pp. 167-190.
13. M.W.Ohland, C.E.Brawner, M.M.Camacho, R.A.Layton, R. A. Long, S. M. LordandM. H. Wasburn, Race, gender, and measures of success in engineering education, Journal of Engineering Education, 100(2), 2011, pp. 225-252.
14. M. M. Camacho, S. M. Lord, C. E. Brawner and M. W. Ohland, Climate in undergraduate engineering education from 1995 to 2009, Proceedings of the 2010 Frontiers in Education Conference, Washington, D.C., October 2010.
15. L. R. Lattuca, P. T. Terenzini and J. F. Volkwein, Engineer ing Change: A Study of the Impact of EC2000, ABET, Baltimore, MD, 2006.
16. E. Seymour and N. M. Hewitt, Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1997.
17. Y. Min, G. Zhang, R. A. Long, T. J. Anderson and M. W. Ohland, Nonparametric survival analysis of undergraduate engineering student dropout, Journal ofEngineering Educa tion, 100(2), 2011, pp. 349-373.
18. S. Brainard and L. Carlin, A six-year longitudinal study of undergraduate women in engineering and science, Journal of Engineering Education, 87, 1998, pp. 369-375.
19. R. Felder, G. Felder, M. Mauney, C. Hamrin and J. Dietz, A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention. III. Gender differences in student performance and attitudes, Journal of Engineering Education, 84(2), 1995, pp. 151-163.
20. S. M. Lord, M. J. Prince, C. R. Stefanou, J. D. Stolk and J. C. Chen, The effect of different active learning environ ments on student outcomes related to lifelong learning, International Journal of Engineering Education, 28(3), 2012, pp. 606-620.
21. C. Stefanou, J. Stolk, M. Prince, J. C. Chen, and S. M. Lord, Self-regulation and autonomy in problem- and project-based learning environments, Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(2), 2013, pp. 109-122.
22. J. Walter, The impact of gender and pedagogy on the develop ment ofself-regulated learning strategies in undergraduate engineering classrooms (Unpublished master's thesis), Buck- nell University, Lewisburg, PA, 2012.
23. J. Boulware, The role model effect in higher education: A report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master ofArts, Department of Economics, Kansas State University, 2011, available from KREx.k-state.edu/ dspace/bitstream/2097/.../JessicaBoulware2011.pdf Accessed November 2012.
24. P. R. Pintrich, A conceptual framework for assessing moti vation and self-regulation in college students, Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 2004, pp. 385-W7.
25. A. Heikkila and K. Lonka, Studying in higher education: Students' approaches to learning, self-regulation, and cog nitive strategies, Studies in Higher Education, 31(1), 2006, pp. 99-117.
26. B. J. Zimmerman, A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning, Journal ofEducational Psychology, 81, 1989, pp. 329-339.
27. J. Ferla, M. Valcke and G. Schuyten, Student models of learning and their impact on study strategies, Studies in Higher Education, 34(2), 2009, pp. 185-202.
28. P. Oliver, G. Marwell and R. Teixeira, A theory of the critical mass. I. Interdependence, group heterogeneity, and the production of collective action, The American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 1985, pp. 522-556.
29. R. M. Kanter, Men and Women ofthe Corporation, Basic Books, Inc., New York, NY, 1977.
30. H. Etzkowitz, C. Kemelgor, M. Neuschatz, B. Uzzi and J. Alonzo, The paradox of critical mass for women in science, Science, 266, 1994, pp. 51-54.
31. D. Dahlerup, From a small to a large minority: Women in Scandinavian politics, Scandinavian Political Studies, 11(4), 1988, pp. 275-297.
32. Thirty Percent Coalition, available from http://www.30per centcoalition.org. Accessed on 13 July 2013.
33. H. Etzkowitz, C. Kemelgor, M. Neuschatz and B. Uzzi, Barriers to women in academic science and engineering, In Who will do science? Educating the Next Generation (ed. W. Pearson Jr. and I. Fechter), Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, 1994, pp. 43-67.
34. J. Robst, J. Keil and D. Russo, The effect of gender composition of faculty on student retention, Economics of Education Review, 17(4), 1998, pp. 429-439.
35. E. P. Bettinger and B. T. Long, Do faculty serve as role models? The impact of instructor gender on female students, American Economic Review, 95(2, ), 2005, pp. 152-157.
36. S. E. Carrell, M. E. Page and J. E. West, Sex and science: How professor gender perpetuates the gender gap, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(3), 2010, pp. 1101-1144.
37. F. Hoffmann and P. Oreopoulos, A professor like me: The influence of instructor gender on college achievement, Jour nal of Human Resources, 44(2), 2009, pp. 479-494.
38. S. E. Widnall, Digits of Pi: Barriers and enablers for women in engineering, The Bridge, National Academy of Engineer ing, 30(3 and 4), pp. 14-18, 2000.
39. J. McGrath Cohoon, Toward improving female retention in Computer Science, Communications of the ACM, 44(5), 2001, pp.108-114.
40. M. S. Dresselhaus, J. R. Franz, and B. C. Clark, Interven tions to increase the participation of women in physics, Science, New Series, 263(5152), 1994, pp. 1392-1393.
41. R. M. Powell, Improving the persistence of first-year under graduate women in computer science, SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(1), 2008, pp. 518-522.
42. M. W. Ohland, R. A. Long and R. A. Layton, Investigating the notion of critical mass of women in engineering using longitudinal student records, Proceedings ofthe Research in Engineering Education Symposium (REES), Davos, Switzer land, 2008.
43. P. R. Pintrich, D. Smith, T. Garcia and W. McKeachie, A Manual for the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire, OERI-ED Technical Report No. 91-B-004, 1991, available from ERIC Documents website: http:// www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED338122.pdf.
44. P. R. Pintrich, D. A. F. Smith, T. Garcia and W. J. McKeachie, Reliability and predictive validity of the moti vated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ), Educa tional andPsychological Measurement, 53, 1993, pp. 801-813.
45. J. Cohen, A power primer, Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 1992, pp. 155-159.
46. S. M. Lord, C. E. Brawner, M. M. Camacho, R. A. Layton, M. W. Ohland and M. H. Wasburn, Work in progress: Engineering students' disciplinary choices: Do race and gender matter? Proceedings of the 2009 Frontiers in Education Conference, San Antonio, TX, October 2009.
47. K. Bussey and A. Bandura, Influence of gender constancy and social power on sex-linked modeling, Journal ofPerson- ality and Social Psychology, 47, 1984, pp. 1292-1302.
48. S. Golombok and R. Fivush, Gender Development, Cam bridge University Press, New York, NY, 1994.