GENDER DIFFERENCES IN STUDENT SATISFACTION SURVEYS

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN STUDENT SATISFACTION SURVEYS

P. Papadopoulou, E. Hulthén, M. Bingerud, M. Enelund (2019).  GENDER DIFFERENCES IN STUDENT SATISFACTION SURVEYS. 12.

Engineering programs around the world strive to increase gender balance among their students and endeavor to encourage higher female enrollment. This paper aims to investigate and understand how current engineering students perceive their courses in terms of sufficient prior knowledge and overall general impression and if there are statistically significant differences among male and female students. The discussion on possible reasons for trends in responses will assist in taking actions to accommodate both genders.The study is carried out at the Chalmers University of Technology and focuses on courses in its Mechanical, Automation, and Industrial Design Engineering programs. This study is a continuation of previous work on variations of student satisfaction between CDIO project courses and “traditional” courses (Malmqvist et al. 2018) with the addition of an analysis of gender aspects. The present study will use the same methodology, namely a mixed methods approach and investigate both closed-form questionnaire responses and free text answers in course surveys. Quantitative methods for comparing means of survey questions and qualitative analyses of free text answers for selected courses are chosen to shed light on patterns of different gender’s perceptions. Aspects of different course characteristics such as traditional, lecture-based vs. project-based and theoretical vs. applied are considered.The results demonstrate that statistically significant differences exist in how male and female students perceive some of their courses and how involved they are in answering course surveys, with this difference being more substantial at bachelor’s level than at master’s level. Possible reasons on why those differences exist and what measures, if any, should be taken to close the gap are discussed. 

Authors (New): 
Panagiota Papadopoulou
Erik Hulthén
Mattias Bingerud
Mikael Enelund
Pages: 
12
Affiliations: 
Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
Keywords: 
Student Satisfaction
Gender Studies
CDIO standard 4
CDIO Standard 5
CDIO Standard 10
CDIO Standard 12
Year: 
2019
Reference: 
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does, 3rd ed, Open University Press.: 
Bryant, W. K., Mathios, A., Kang, H., & Bell, D. (2006). Electronic Course Evaluations: Does an Online Delivery System Influence Student Evaluations? The Journal of Economic Education, 37(1), 21-37. : 
Butterfield, J., & Crews, T. (2003). Gender differences in beginning programming: an empirical study on improving performance parity. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 20(5), 186-192. : 
Cheryan, S., & Plaut, V. C. (2010). Explaining underrepresentation: A theory of precluded interest. Sex Roles, 63, 475–488.: 
Ekawati, A. D., Sugandi, L., & Kusumastuti, D. L. (2017). Blended learning in higher education: Does gender influence the student satisfaction on blended learning? Paper presented at the 2017 International Conference on Information Management and Technology (ICIMTech).: 
Hassan, T., Bagilhole, B., & Dainty, A. (2012). ‘They're not girly girls’: an exploration of quantitative and qualitative data on engineering and gender in higher education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 37(2), 193-204.: 
Hill, C., Corbett, C., St. Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.: 
Malmqvist, J., Almefelt, L., Bingerud, M., & Enelund, M. (2018). Lessons Learned from Student Satisfaction Surveys of CDIO Project Courses. Paper presented at the 14th International CDIO Conference, Kanazawa, Japan: Kanazawa Institute of Technology: 
Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., & Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: country comparisons: international comparisons of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Final Report Australian Council of Leared Academies, Melbourne, Vic.: 
Marra, R. M., Rodgers, K. A., Shen, D., & Bogue, B. ( 2009). Women engineering students and self‐efficacy: A multi‐year, multi‐institution study of women engineering student self‐efficacy. Journal of Engineering Education, 98( 1), 27– 38.: 
McLoughlin, L. A. (2005). Spotlighting: Emergent Gender Bias in Undergraduate Engineering Education. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(4), 373-381. : 
Mills, J., Ayre, M., Gill, J. (2010). Gender Inclusive Engineering Education. New York: Routledge: 
Milgram, D. (2011). How to recruit women and girls to the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) classroom. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 71(3), 4-11. : 
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 109, 16474–16479.: 
Qian, Y., & Lehman, J. D. (2016). Correlates of Success in Introductory Programming: A Study with Middle School Students. Journal of Education and Learning, 5(2), 73-83. : 
Rubio, M.A., Romero-Zaliz, R., Mañoso, C., & de Madrid, A. P. (2015). Closing the gender gap in an introductory programming course. Computers & Education, 82, 409-420.: 
Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education. Psychological Science, 29(4), 581-593.: 
Student. (1908). THE PROBABLE ERROR OF A MEAN. Biometrika, 6(1), 1-25. : 
Thorpe, S. W. (2002). Online Student Evaluation of Instruction: An Investigation of Non-Response Bias. Paper presented at the Annual Forum for the Association for Institutional Research.: 
UNESCO. (2018). Telling SAGA: improving measurement and policies for gender equality in science, technology, and innovation. SAGA Working Paper 5, Paris.: 
Wang, M., & Degol, J.L. (2017). Gender gap in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM): Current knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 29 (1). 119-140.: 
Go to top
randomness