Conference Session

Attitudes, Self-Confidence, and Self-Efficacy of Women Engineering Students

Collection

2009 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Angela Bielefeldt, University of Colorado, Boulder

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

series of questions that students responded to on a Likert scale. Male students had amore favorable view of engineers’ role in society than female students, based on responses toquestions from the Pittsburgh Freshman Engineering Attitudes Survey (PFEAS). Becauseprevious studies have indicated that females want to benefit society through their work, thecontinuing poor perception of engineering as a helping profession among females may reflectrecruiting problems. More revealing information was found in the reflective essays that thestudents write at the end of the semester summarizing their feelings about engineering andwhether they plan to stay in the major or switch majors.BackgroundThe engineering profession needs to recruit more students, and

Conference Session

Women in Engineering Division Poster Session

Collection

2009 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Elizabeth Creamer, Virginia Tech

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

likeappearance, dress, and family roles are byproducts of tokenism that detract fromaccomplishments.Tokenism and attention to secondary characteristics provides a partial explanation for whybehaviors, such as sexual harassment, persist in some environments where women are visiblyunder-represented among the faculty and student body. Policies and practices that communicateconcern about the under-representation of women can improve perceptions of climate andoffset tensions created by tokenism2.Studies that identify environmental factors that impact the productivity and satisfaction offaculty are often framed within a body of literature about climate or culture. Climate refers tomeasures based in faculty perceptions and attitudes. Climate reflects culture

Conference Session

Panel: Forming an Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration

Collection

2009 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Julie Mills, University of South Australia; Judith Gill, University of South Australia; Suzanne Franzway, University of South Australia; Rhonda Sharp, University of South Australia

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

in researchprojects related to women in engineering, in both the professional workplace and educationcontexts. What is unusual about this particular research group is the widely varying disciplinebackgrounds of the members. The group comprises professors in feminist economics, sociology,education and civil engineering. The collaboration has faced numerous challenges in terms ofgeography, methodology, availability, finding a common language and understanding, differingpractice in the various disciplines with respect to writing for publication and what grants count.This paper identifies four inter-related themes that have emerged from our reflections on ourexperience of gender-based multidisciplinary research.IntroductionMultidisciplinary

Conference Session

Focus on Faculty

Collection

2009 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Barbara Hacker, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona; Winny Dong, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona; Mary Lucero Ferrel, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

and informal mentoring at Cal Poly Pomona. Theirfeedback and reflections on the above five programmatic issues were collected. This processaccomplished three things. The first is a better understanding of the climate for mentoring at CalPoly Pomona. (Are faculty members seeking mentoring and are they currently receivingmentoring in their departments and colleges?) The second benefit of the interviews was asummary of previous mentoring programs’ successes and pitfalls. The third benefit was the buy-in of these senior women; without their full participation the ‘Mentoring Circles’ could not besuccessful.The Mentoring Circles Program created networks across ranks, departments, and colleges. TheMentoring Circle structure would provide support to

Conference Session

Focus on Faculty

Collection

2009 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Ane Johnson, Virginia Tech; Margaret Layne, Virginia Tech; Janis Terpenny, Virginia Tech

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

academic careers.4 Yet women faculty have indicated high levels of interest inleadership positions.5 With NSF ADVANCE support, Virginia Tech, a STEM-dominantuniversity, has sought to empower women faculty to overcome the barriers to leadership.This paper reports on how leadership programs focusing on women faculty can increase therepresentation of women in leadership roles across campus at a STEM-dominant institution. Byproviding multiple strategies to empower women faculty at varying stages of their careers,ADVANCE leadership programs sought to enhance their capabilities and productivity astechnical and administrative leaders and as scholars. This was done, in part, by bringing womenfaculty together at many points during the project to reflect on

Conference Session

Women in Engineering Division Poster Session

Collection

2009 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Noel Schulz, Mississippi State University

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

activities. Aftertenure, faculty members set their goal on a new prize – full professor. This has its own set ofactivities that can take up 50 to 60 hours a week or more. Faculty are often so busy putting outshort-term professional fires that they lack time or energy for long term activities, strategicplanning, advanced goal setting or reflection. Sometimes along the way faculty start to feelburned out and need a change to help them regain their enthusiasm for their chosen career.A sabbatical provides an excellent opportunity for a faculty member to re-evaluate theirprofessional and personal goals around their career. This paper will provide overview of onefaculty member’s experience with an international sabbatical. The first part will discuss

Conference Session

Attitudes, Self-Confidence, and Self-Efficacy of Women Engineering Students

Collection

2009 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Moshe Hartman, Retired; Harriet Hartman, Rowan University

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

working as an engineer ten years from now (the survey date). Studentsresponded on a 5-point scale from 1 (very unlikely) to 5 (very likely). We had also asked thehighest degree the student expected to achieve in engineering, but found that this varied bydiscipline and reflected less the degree of long-term commitment to engineering and more thenorms of that discipline in terms of how much training was rewarded or expected before gettinga good job in the labor force.All factor analyses were performed using the principal components Varimax rotation method.Analysis verified that the factors that emerged were identical in content between the genders, andover the years of the program. The reliability test was also performed over multiple groups tomake

Conference Session

Women in Engineering Division Poster Session

Collection

2009 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Jessica Rohlfing, Arizona State University; Erin Kube, Arizona State University; Brandon Yabko, Arizona State University; Erika Murguia, Arizona State University; Jennifer Bekki, Arizona State University Polytechnic; Bianca Bernstein, Arizona State University

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

give feedback to your advisor about what is helpful to you) and the “don’ts” (e.g., wait for your advisor to initiate contact with you) of working with one’s advisor. 3. What Do You Want in a Mentor? This informational brief is intended to help STEM woman learn how a mentor can provide additional support in their personal, academic, and professional development. The two-page brief explains the definition and purpose of a mentor and also asks women to reflect upon what they are looking for in a mentor. Suggestions are included about how to get the most from a mentor and how to find a mentor (e.g., contacting professionals who have received awards in the past for their mentoring

Conference Session

Focus on Faculty

Collection

2009 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Kristen Constant, Iowa State University; Sharon Bird, Iowa State University

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

that the committee reconvenes after the search is over to reflect on the processand the successes and failures of the search. For that reason, all the inefficiencies and errors aswell as successes are lost but in the memory of the committee members – who may or may notuse them to improve the next search. With regard to the searches discussed here, more thanonce it was stated, “How could the search process be considered faulty? We got a great newfaculty member”. This faulty logic does not acknowledge the opportunities lost.Minimizing the impact of cognitive errors and the factors that contribute to them:A number of excellent web-based resources exist for improving the recruitment process that aresummarized on the national ADVANCE Portal.12

Conference Session

Panel: Effecting Change in Higher Education

Collection

2009 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Priscilla Nelson, New Jersey Institute of Technology; Theresa Hunt, New Jersey Institute of Technology; Cherrice Traver, Union College; Pamela Eibeck, Texas Tech; Zulma Toro-Ramos, Wichita State University; Cheryl Schrader, Boise State University; Mary Roth, Lafayette College; delcie durham, University of South Florida

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

this attrition. ≠ Reexamination of promotion and tenure process needs to occur. Women’s paths may be non-traditional and include a greater incidence of collaborative or interdisciplinary research. These, along with activities like mentoring and committee memberships, should be factored into the promotion and tenure process to better reflect the contributions of women faculty and their career advancement.Participant notes revealed a need for metrics explaining “where women with PhDs are going.”Questions of how to find retention data on hiring cohorts with regard to gender and ethnicity,how to track or chart the willingness of faculty (both male and female) to take advantage ofwork-life balance policies and the impact

Conference Session

Issues of Persistence in Engineering

Collection

2009 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Matthew Ohland, Purdue University; Michelle Camacho, University of San Diego; Richard Layton, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology; Russell Long, Purdue University; Susan Lord, University of San Diego; Mara Wasburn, Purdue University

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

Foundation Grant No. REC-0337629 (now DRL- 0729596) and EEC-0646441, funding the Multiple-Institution Database forInvestigating Engineering Longitudinal Development (MIDFIELD, a collaboration of ninepartner universities) and a collaborative NSF Gender in Science and Engineering Research Grant(0734085 & 0734062). The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not Page 14.675.8necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. 6References1 Astin, A. W., and Astin, H. S., (1992) Undergraduate science education

Conference Session

Women in Engineering Division Poster Session

Collection

2009 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Elizabeth Dell, Rochester Institute of Technology; Jeanne Christman, Rochester Institute of Technology; Teresa Wolcott, Rochester Institute of Technology; Maureen Valentine, Rochester Institute of Technology

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

% of the female students in the Engineering Technology departments. It wasfound they are most interested in participating in the following types of activities: havingquarterly departmental luncheons or socials (88%), developing a Girl Scout Badge kit (72%),having a mentor in industry (69%) and touring local companies (66%). At the social where thesurvey was presented, a faculty member spoke to the students about developing a Girl Scoutbadge workshop. Because the Girl Scout program was discussed, a higher interest level in thisoutreach activity was indicated versus other outreach activities on the survey (tutoring and teamprojects with local schools). Through the survey, the students expressed the need for programsthat reflect what women want

Conference Session

Issues of Persistence in Engineering

Collection

2009 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Peggy Meszaros, Virginia Tech; Catherine Amelink, Virginia Tech

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

; andmatched samples of men. 13 They found negative experiences in SME classes as a majorcontributor to discouraging the continuation in SME majors. Characteristics such as poorteaching or organization of material, hard or confusing material, loss of confidence inability to do science, cut-throat competition in assessment systems or “weed out”philosophies, dull subject matter, and grading systems that did not reflect what studentsfelt they had accomplished were reasons given by females for leaving SME majors. Thecompetitive atmosphere, the grading system, and the dullness of subject matter was muchless troubling for males in the same study. These findings illustrate discouraging factorsfor retention related to classroom climate and activities and

Conference Session

Issues of Persistence in Engineering

Collection

2009 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Rose Mary Cordova-Wentling, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; Cristina Camacho, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

femaleengineering students were randomly selected from the following departments: Electrical andComputer Engineering 5 (17%); General Engineering, 5 (17%); Computer Science, 5 (17%);Civil and Environmental Engineering, 5 (17%); Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, 5 (17%);and Aerospace Engineering, 5 (17%).An interview guide was developed to use for the focus groups. The interview guide consisted ofthree sections. The first section of the guide consisted of opening questions, such as theparticipants’ names, majors, and what they plan to do after they graduate with their degree inengineering. The second section of the guide focused on questions that provided the participantsthe opportunity to reflect on their past experiences that hindered and assisted

Conference Session

Focus on Faculty

Collection

2009 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Charlie Law, Pennsylvania State University, Schuykill; David Younger, Rice University; Ann Saterbak, Rice University

Tagged Divisions

Women in Engineering

werecomputed for the time period of spring 2004 to spring 2008 inclusive (9 semesters total). Werecognize that this data does not actually reflect the size of courses taught during the time thatthe winners received an award; however, this is the only data available from the Registrar. Thus,only general trends and patterns can be considered.Table 1 shows that 8 of the 28 unique winners are from Science and Engineering but that none ofthem are women. For winners, the average number of undergraduate students taught by thewinners was 343 + 254 (mean + standard deviation) during the 9 semester period and the averagenumber of undergraduate students taught per semester by the winners was 56 + 44. Eighty-eight(88) non-winners were selected at random from the