Why Do Women Engineering Students Persist?
•
1 like•470 views
Presented by: Kaitlyn Bunker, Raven R. Rebb, Laura E. Brown, Nilufer Onder, Gretchen L. Hein
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Why Do Women Engineering Students Persist?
Similar to Why Do Women Engineering Students Persist? (20)
More from Society of Women Engineers
More from Society of Women Engineers (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Why Do Women Engineering Students Persist?
- 2. M ti ti• Motivation • Persistence, Climate and Engagement Studies • Analysis/Comparisonsy p • Results • ConclusionsConclusions • Future Work 2
- 3. • Concerns:Concerns: • Insufficient number of engineering and computer science undergraduates to meet the undergraduates to meet the demand • Student diversity in engineering and computer science is still an and computer science is still an issue • Why study persistence? • Improve services for all • Improve services for all engineering and computer science students • Prepare all students to work in a • Prepare all students to work in a diverse environment 3
- 4. • Public Science Technology • Public, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)‐ intensive, Midwestern University U d d t E ll t • Undergraduate Enrollment: 5,500 (28.7% women) • College of Engineering and College of Engineering and Department of Computer Science comprise 60% (18.2% women) 4
- 5. ll l l d• Small‐scale, single institution persistence study at Michigan Tech (http://cs.mtu.edu/~lebrown/persistence‐study/) Large scale multiple institution surveys on • Large‐scale, multiple institution surveys on persistence, climate and engagement • Project to Assess Climate in Engineering (PACE) • Project to Assess Climate in Engineering (PACE) (http://depts.washington.edu/paceteam/index.html) • National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) y g g (http://www.nsse.iub.edu/) • Note: Only the data regarding Michigan Tech were usedused 5
- 6. Michigan Tech PACE NSSE Michigan Tech (2011) PACE (2008) NSSE (2009) • Small‐scale, • Nationwide: • Nationwide: single institution • Engineering • 22 institutions • 10,000 students completed • 640 institutions • First‐year and senior level studentsEngineering and Computer Science Students p survey • Michigan Tech: • 1,034 invited • Sample of student population • Michigan Tech: 674 Students • 459 participants, • 493 completed • Engineering students only g 74 engineering students • Every 3 years 436 surveys analyzed • 2008 and 2012 6
- 7. Michigan Tech Michigan Tech (2011) PACE (2009) NSSE (2009) • Survey: • Web Based • Survey (used in this analysis): • Web based • Survey: • Web based• Web‐Based • 5 point Likert scale • Student E‐Mail Notification: A d i Ad i • Web‐based • 5 point Likert scale • Yes/no Responses • Student Notification: M lti l tifi ti ith • Web‐based • 4, 7 or 8 point ordinal scale • Yes/No Responses • Student Notification • Academic Advisers • Society of Women Engineers (SWE) • Women in C S i • Multiple notifications with e‐ mail addresses supplied by university • Random sample of engineering st dents ith • Student Notification: • First‐year and senior students • Random sample of engineering st dentsComputer Science (WiCS) engineering students with 100% of underrepresented groups included engineering students 7
- 8. Michigan Tech (2011) PACE (2009) NSSE (2009) • Aspects of student persistence • Why students • Instruction • Faculty • Resources • Student Engagement • Deployment and Use of Educational switch majors • Who influences their decision to switch • Perceptions • Major • Confidence l Resources by Students and Universities majors • Personal Experiences 8
- 9. Survey and University Demographics by 20% 25% 30% 35% y y g p y Major Survey Participants University Enrollment 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Summary: 9 Summary: • All engineering and computer science majors were represented • More women from each area responded than are actually in the departments
- 10. For persistence Mean (out of 5) For persistence, items women ranked higher than men: d Female Male MTU Survey Statement Why did you persist? "I have a good GPA" 3.4 3.3 • “Good GPA” • Income potential • Job opportunities g Why did you switch majors? “New major had better income potential" 2.8 2.3 Why did you persist? "I think my major has good income 3 9 3 6 • Make a difference Men predicted that potential" 3.9 3.6 "I think my major has good job opportunities" 4.1 4.0 "I think my major will allow me to k d ff 4 0 3 4p they would work longer as an engineer than women make a difference" 4.0 3.4 Why did you choose your major? “Field provides opportunities to make a difference" 4.2 3.7 than women PACE Question “Forecast time as engineer after graduating" 4.0 4.5 10 NOTE: GPAs for men (3.2/4.0) and women (3.3/4.0) were similar. (PACE)
- 11. Women reported MTU Survey Statement Mean (out of 5) more frequently than men: • Participation in a greater f i i i Assess this statement Female Male "I can succeed in engineering and participate in other activities" 4.2 4.0 "I can relate to the students in my classes" 4.1 3.8 range of activities • Relate to others better • Discussions that include course ideas/topics NSSE Question Mean Female Male "Attended an art exhibit, play, dance, music, theater, or other performance" (out of 4) 2.4 2.1 “Participated in activities to enhance spirituality course ideas/topics outside of class Men reported more f l h “Participated in activities to enhance spirituality (worship, meditation, prayer, etc.)" (out of 4) 2.3 1.8 “Discuss ideas from your readings or classes with others outside of class" (out of 4) 2.9 2.6 “Relationships with other students" (out of 7) 6 0 5 7 frequently than women that they find study centers f l ( / / ) Relationships with other students (out of 7) 6.0 5.7 PACE Question % Response, "Yes" Female Male “Participation in engineering student societies" 32.8% 18.4% “P ti i ti i h" 16 4% 5 9%useful (3.4/5 vs 3.1/5) (PACE) “Participation in summer research" 16.4% 5.9% “Participation in volunteer work" 55.5% 37.3% 11
- 12. For persistence diversity and environment were For persistence, diversity and environment were more important to women than men W d f l h h Women reported more frequently than men that they were singled out, or heard stereotypes MTU Survey Statement Mean (out of 5) What factors were important in your persistence in your major? Female Male “Satisfaction with the diversity within my major" 3.13 2.74 “Satisfaction with the environment within my major" 3 63 3 23Satisfaction with the environment within my major 3.63 3.23 PACE Question % Response, "Yes" Female Male “Have you been singled out unfairly due to gender" 14.8% 1.4% “Have heard faculty express gender stereotypes" 25 4% 6 8%“Have heard faculty express gender stereotypes" 25.4% 6.8% 12
- 13. Few significant gender differences between Michigan Few significant gender differences between Michigan Tech , PACE and NSSE surveys for Michigan Tech students I t ti diff Interesting differences were: • Women use a greater variety of campus/personal resources than men, but use learning centers less than men, g • Women and men had similar views on work‐life balance, but men expected to be in the engineer career path for a longer time than womenlonger time than women • Women stated that diversity and environment were more important factors in persistence than men W t d i i d h i f lt • Women reported experiencing and hearing faculty express gender stereotypes more than men 13
- 14. D l d t d t• Develop an updated survey to: • Include all students at Michigan Tech E l th i t f l d l• Explore the importance of role models • Explore the effect of student background on persistencepersistence • Explore the students’ perceptions of faculty diversity and compare them to the university datadiversity and compare them to the university data 14 Web Site: http://cs.mtu.edu/~lebrown/persistence‐study/
- 15. Thank you! Acknowledgements: Thank you! • The Michigan Tech College of Engineering for supplying the PACE and NSSE data. • K. Bunker is supported through an NSF grant (DGE‐1051031) • G. Hein is partially supported through an NSF Grant (DUE‐0836861) 15 G. Hein is partially supported through an NSF Grant (DUE 0836861) Web Site: http://cs.mtu.edu/~lebrown/persistence‐study/