: MIT Press, 2010.[28] Yoritomo, J. et al., “A tale of two rubrics: Realigning genre instruction through improved response rubrics in a writing-intensive physics course,” presented at the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Tampa, FL, 2019, [Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/32012.[29] Ware, R. et al., “Writing across engineering: A collaborative approach to support STEM faculty’s integration of writing instruction in their classes,” presented at the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Tampa, FL, 2019, [Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/33671.[30] J. R. Gallagher et al., “A Collaborative Longitudinal Design for Supporting Writing Pedagogies of STEM Faculty,” Tech. Commun. Q., pp. 1–16, Jan. 2020
semester.Following examination of student responses to the sociotechnical thinking survey, only certainquestions pointed towards potential delineations in responses based on gender. The fullsociotechnical thinking survey is attached in Appendix B. Questions (Q) that showed gender-based differences and were thus most relevant to our research questions in this paper include Q1, 7Q2, Q4, Q9, and Q10. Additional quantitative and qualitative results from this survey that are notspecific to gender differentiation appear in [35].Q1, Q2, and Q4 were analyzed by scaling student responses. Most questions allowed for fourdifferent responses, which were assigned a value of