Motivational factors, gender and engineering education

Gender neutrality improved completion rate for all

“…To be a student in computer science should not require to conform or model one-self to the stereotypical norm, neither for women nor men (Fisher & Margolis, 2002). The solution to overcome the homogeneous student group should not be to help women to adapt to a traditional masculine education, since then the male hegemony will not be solved (Salminen-Karlsson, 2002;Kolmos et al, 2013). Therefore, one way to reduce the problem with under recruiting of women to the field of engineering may be to make the instruction material gender neutral, as in the present study.…”

“…A perceived misalignment between the subject and communal goals have been found to factor in with career decision and thus to the underrepresentation of women in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) (Diekman, Brown & Johnston, 2010). A Danish study found no difference in intrinsic or social good motivation between genders' educational choice for students engaged in engineering programs related to computer, ICT or software (Kolmos et al, 2013), which could indicate a lack of diversity among students. Also, the lack of women in engineering in general and especially in ICT may only be the most obvious and easily measured sign of homogeneity that excludes not only women, but also other prospective students who fear they will not fit in.…”

“…Newly established programmes apply interdisciplinary content and methods as well as a more holistic and broader contextual approach, e.g. environmental engineering, health and medical technologies, media studies, systems engineering, design and biotechnology (Barnard et al, 2012;Kolmos et al, 2013). To make the technology more tangible can provide a connection to real life and thus provide a purpose and relevance to learn programming (Zimmermann & Sprung, 2008).…”

“…For example, if we focused on gender differences (as they are perceived today) and designed an education in line with what we thought that female students sought, it would only reproduce a gender division and reaffirm essentialist thinking (Frieze & Quesenberry, 2013). Women themselves can feel as if they are getting part of undeserved success or unwanted attention based on their gender, where their competence can be judged, while men may see it as females get special positive treatment due to their gender (Herring & Marken, 2008;Kolmos et al, 2013). Being continuously judged by or self-fulfilling the negative stereotype of women in the field as well as having to explain why they are in the field can give women a feeling of not belonging and to disidentify with the field as well as working as a demotivator (Spencer, Steele & Quinn, 1999;Faulkner, 2007).…”

“…3) Link to everyday examples: Bringing in contextual issues and emphasising real-world examples has been shown to increase the understanding and motivation for learning (Cohoon & Aspray, 2006;Kolmos et al, 2013). Examples should be permissively designed considering interplay between complex gender identities and technology as to establish a more equal culture and not to re-construct and consolidate concepts for a normative gender structure and symbolism (Erson, 1992;Magee et al, 2011;Sele, 2012).…”