The 21st century has brought an increasing demand for expertise in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Although strides have been made towards increasing gender diversity in several of these disciplines, engineering remains primarily male dominated. In response, the U.S. educational system has attempted to make engineering curriculum more engaging, informative, and welcoming to girls. Specifically, project-based and design-based learning pedagogies promise to make engineering interesting and accessible for girls while enculturating them into the world of engineering and scientific inquiry. Outcomes for girls learning in these contexts have been mixed. The purpose of this study was to explore how cultural gender norms are navigated within informal K-12 engineering contexts. We analyzed video of single-and mixed-gender collaborative groups participating in Studio STEM, a design-based, environmentally themed afterschool program that took place in a rural community. Discourse analysis was used to interpret interactional styles within and across groups. Discrepancies were found regarding functional and cultural characteristics of groups based on gender composition. Singlegender groups adhered more closely to social gender norms. For example, the boys group was characterized by overt hierarchies, whereas the girls group outwardly displayed solidarity and collaboration. In contrast, characteristics of interactional styles within mixed gender groups strayed from social gender norms, and stylistic differences across group types were greater for girls than for boys. Learning outcomes indicated that girls learned more in mixed-gender groups. Our results support the use of mixed-gender collaborative learning groups in engineering education yet uncover several challenges. We close with a discussion of implications for practitioners.

Limited Print and Electronic Distribution RightsThis document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR4285

No abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate motivation to teach for higher education faculty within schools of education. Design/methodology/approach This study utilized survey research methods to collect data from higher education faculty at nine universities identified from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of teaching website. Findings The predictor variables of gender, years of teaching in higher education, percent of overall workload devoted to teaching and two dummy variables for type of institution (i.e. doctoral granting and research II institution) when considered together did not statistically significantly predict whether or not a faculty person achieved tenure with outstanding teaching. In total, 14 of the factors influencing teaching (FIT)-choice scale components statistically significantly predicted whether or not a faculty person achieved tenure with outstanding teaching, only social dissuasion statistically significantly added to the model. Originality/value This is the first study to use the FIT-choice scale with university education faculty, and the findings suggest that higher education faculty may be motivated to produce high-quality instruction based on different factors than K-12 teachers.

No abstract