How do Male and Female Faculty Members View and Use Classroom Strategies?

Research indicates differences exist between male and female students regarding preferences for various pedagogical practices, such as collaborative learning. Additionally, we know that students may construe an instructor’s gender as influencing their capacity to be role models, teach effectively, and produce scholarship. Less well known is how male and female instructors view specific classroom strategies, as well as how often they use those strategies. To aid understanding, the newly developed Value, Expectancy, and Cost of Testing Educational Reforms Survey (VECTERS) was applied. VECTERS was based on expectancy theory, implying instructor decisions to integrate, or not integrate, classroom strategies are based on (1) perceived value for both students and self, (2) expectation of success, and (3) perceived implementation costs (e.g., time, materials). Responses were collected from 286 engineering faculty members (207 male, 79 female) from 19 institutions. Responses indicated frequency of use, perceptions of value, expectation of success, and cost (e.g., use of TA’s, materials) for these classroom strategies: 1. Formative feedback loops 2. Real-world applications 3. Facilitating student-to-student discussions Controlling for course enrollment and years of experience, several significant differences were found. Gender did not differentiate reported use of the strategies, but there were significant differences (p < .05) related to the expectation of success when integrating formative feedback and real-world applications. Women had significantly higher mean scores related to expectations of success for the implementation of formative feedback and real-world applications; however, effect sizes were small (partial eta-squared < .04). Similarly, women indicated that using the strategies of formative feedback and real-world applications had significantly greater value. Also, men were significantly more inclined to view the physical setup of their classroom as hindering implementing formative feedback or initiating student-to-student discussions. There were no differences in perception of costs for any of the strategies between male and female instructors. Introduction The traditional lecture format, which is also referred to as content-oriented instruction, is the primary teaching method in undergraduate engineering classrooms. Student-centered instruction, or active learning, involves activities during the class that directly involves student participation. There has been a growing emphasis on employing student-centered teaching strategies in the classroom because evidence indicates they are a more effective and engaging way for students to learn course materials. Recent empirical studies have investigated the pedagogical approaches utilized by faculty members in the classroom. While some studies have examined the differences in teaching strategies between male and female faculty members, there is still much to be learned. Of particular interest is if male and female engineering instructors approach teaching differently, specifically regarding student-centered or content-oriented instruction. In this study we sought to determine the gender-based differences of faculty members’ use of, and dispositions towards, student-centered learning strategies. This study was framed by these research questions: 1. What are the gender-based differences among faculty members in their frequency of utilizing student-centered strategies in engineering education? 2. What are the gender-based differences among faculty members in their dispositions towards student-centered strategies in engineering education? Review of Related Research Student Centered Teaching Strategies in Engineering Education Many empirical studies have been conducted to better understand the effectiveness of studentcentered learning in higher education. These studies have demonstrated that student-centered instruction promotes greater learning and understanding compared to traditional content-oriented strategies. This review provides a brief overview of studies that that have examined the efficacy of student-centered learning in STEM education. In a meta-analysis of 225 studies, Freeman et. al evaluated instructional methods in undergraduate STEM classes to investigate the impact of active learning on students. The analysis demonstrated student performance on examinations or concept inventories was greater, at about 6%, with active learning instruction. Analysis also demonstrated that students were 1.5 times more likely to fail if enrolled in a traditional lecture class, rather than a class that utilizes active learning principles. Similarly, Prince reviewed the current literature base on active learning in engineering education. Although Prince found some studies that did not show a benefit for student-centered instruction, the researcher concluded that engineering instructors should consider active learning, as some of the research is compelling and will encourage faculty members to think about new methods of instruction. Different Preferences for Learning by Gender Research studies have demonstrated that students learn differently. There are also distinctions between learning preferences based on gender. Because the correspondence between learning preference and learning environment has a significant impact on learning outcomes, it is important to consider the implications of different learning styles by gender. Kolb developed the Experiential Learning Theory (ELT) as a means to understand the four stages of the learning cycle, as well as the differences between how people learn. The ELT suggests that learning does not happen just from transmission of information from teacher to student, but rather that learning is a process created by the individual learner. Within ELT, learning style is defined as the preferred method for individuals to understand and develop knowledge through learning experiences. Through the ELT, Kolb developed the Kolb Learning Style Inventory (KLSI), which was greatly influenced by the works of Dewey, Lewin, & Piaget. The KLSI assesses the different ways that people acquire and understand information, resulting in four distinct learning styles: 1. Accommodator: People with this learning style prefers “hands-on” experience. They rely on intuition for decision making, and also rely on other people for information, rather than conducting their own analysis. 2. Assimilator: People with this learning style prefer reading, lectures, and analytical models in formal learning environments. They are more focused on ideas or concepts, rather than other people. 3. Converger: People with this learning style excel at finding practical implications for ideas. They prefer technical tasks to social or interpersonal issues. They learn through experimentation with new ideas, through simulations or laboratory experiments. 4. Diverger: People with this learning style prefer working in groups and listening to different points of view. They are emotional, imaginative and have broad cultural interests. They perform well in tasks that call for brainstorming new ideas. Philbin, Meier, Huffman, and Boverie conducted a study, based on ELT, to determine if there were differences in learning styles by gender. The authors found that men were more than twice as likely to have an assimilator learning style, implying a preference for reading, lectures and analytical models in a formal learning environment. Women were least likely to possess an assimilator learning style, but were more than three times more likely than men to possess a diverger learning style which implied a preference for working in groups and listening to different points of view. Kulturel-Konak, D’Allegro, and Dickinson yielded similar findings in a study of learning preferences of over 300 undergraduate students. Across STEM and non-STEM majors, a key finding was that women prefer collaboration and cooperation over competition, which is favored by men. Additionally, women favored creative materials; whereas men mostly wanted concrete materials, which is most commonly used in classroom instruction. These results support the findings of Belenky, Clincy, Goldberger, and Tarule, which stated that women were more likely to relate to “connected knowledge,” which is more empathetic and interpersonal. Perception of Male and Female Instructors Sprague and Massoni revealed that students significantly view their male and female instructors differently. A key finding showed that students expect more intensive teaching from women faculty. It was also found that spontaneous was a word used to describe male instructors, but not female teachers, which could imply that women do more work outside of class to prepare instructional materials. The most common word used to describe male and female teachers was “caring.” The other top two words for the male faculty members were “understanding” and funny;” and the other words for the female faculty were “helpful” and “kind.” It is interesting to note that those two words for men describe characteristics of a person, whereas the words for women indicate what a person does. Words indicating nurturing and sensitive faculty members were used at a much higher rate for female instructors. Gender Differences in Faculty Teaching Approach Beyond some studies related to the perception of students about faculty, there is a scarcity of research regarding actual differences in male and female instructors. Studies show that female faculty members generally have a higher motivation for teaching; whereas men are more research oriented. Possibly associated are the findings that female faculty members are more likely to have positions that include more teaching duties than men; and women are more represented at teaching institutions, rather than research institutions. Female faculty members are also more likely to have heavier student loads and have more students to advise or mentor than men.