Outreach Teaching, Communication, And Interpersonal Skills Encourage Women And May Facilitate Their Recruitment And Retention In The Engineering Curriculum

Women continue to be underrepresented in engineering and technology fields. Recent gains in gender equity in bioengineering and environmental engineering suggest that women are attracted to fields they view as contributing to society. Furthermore, it has been suggested that women’s choice to enter a particular field of engineering is related to their perceived strengths in areas such as communication and interpersonal skills. We incorporated an outreach teaching activity and emphasized communication and interpersonal skills in an undergraduate engineering course and found that women undergraduates had higher confidence than men in these areas and viewed these activities as most worthwhile for their career. Structural Aspects of Biomaterials is an upper-level undergraduate course cross-listed with mechanical and bioengineering. The enrollment is typically about 50 students with an even gender split. The course emphasized outreach, communication, and interpersonal skills with a group project supported throughout the semester by a required skills lab. The project included an outreach teaching activity for 5 th grade students at a local children’s science museum, a written report, and an oral presentation. The supporting skills lab taught technical writing and editing, oral presentation skills, and interpersonal skills linked to Felder’s learning styles. 1 Student teams were assigned so that all majors, learning styles, and genders were represented in each team. The activities were assessed using four surveys throughout the semester. Women undergraduates in the course ranked learning styles, teamwork, writing and presentation activities, and the outreach teaching activity more highly than men when asked what activities were most useful for their career. Interestingly, women also self-reported higher confidence than men in 7 of 11 of our learning objectives at the beginning of the semester, and 8 of 11 at the end of the semester. Areas of higher confidence for women included working and communicating effectively on a team with various learning styles and engaging the community about science. Areas of higher confidence for men included critically evaluating written and analytical work of themselves and others, and recognizing issues and technological advances in bioengineering. Assessment of learning styles in this course revealed that women were slightly more verbal, sensing, and active, while men were slightly more visual, intuitive, and reflective. Our results suggest that incorporating outreach projects and emphasizing communication and interpersonal skills appeals to women in undergraduate engineering programs. This course could be used as a model for first-year courses to recruit and retain women in engineering. Furthermore, the outreach activity not only allows engineering students to contribute to society, but exposes young K-8 women to engineering and role models. Introduction Women continue to be underrepresented in engineering and technology fields. According to data compiled by the National Science Foundation on women in engineering and science in 2006, P ge 15933.2 women accounted for 17% of undergraduates enrolled in engineering programs 1 . In graduate studies, women accounted for 24% of full-time enrolled graduate students in engineering and 42% of full-time graduate students in all fields identified as science and engineering 2 . In academia, women account for about 28% of full-time tenured or tenure-track faculty in science and engineering, and about 40% of those with recent doctorates 3 . With respect to employment in business and industry, women account for about 35% of all scientists and engineers employed in business and industry, 19% of all managers, and only 10% of engineering managers 4 . A great deal of research suggests obstacles to women entering and thriving in STEM fields, such as: curriculum and pedagogy 5,6 , a perceived lack of role models 7 , an isolating and intimidating climate 8 , early experiences 9 , pressure to conform to traditional gender roles 10 , and difficulty balancing life and family in a demanding, ever-changing field 7,11,12 . A review of these obstacles by Blickenstaff 13 lead to suggestions including: eliminating sexist language and imagery, equal access to pedagogical resources at all levels, an emphasis on depth rather than breadth, using cooperative rather than competitive groups mixing genders, and emphasizing “the ways that science can improve the quality of life of living things.” Recent gains in bioengineering and environmental engineering support the idea that the field’s perceived contribution to society may outweigh and overcome some of these obstacles for women in engineering. 13,14 Despite accounting for only 24% of all engineering graduate students in 2006, women accounted for 39% of graduate students in bioengineering, 32% in civil/environmental engineering, and 34% in agricultural engineering 2 . Similarly, in business and industry, women accounted for over 60% of medical and health services managers compared to only 10% of engineering managers 4 . As the numbers of women in these fields increase, the climate is likely to be less isolating and intimidating, and provide more role models. Also, these fields are more in line with traditional gender roles for women as care-takers. In a study by Baker and Leary 15 on the attitudes of girls in primary and secondary grades toward science, they found a common more positive attitude towards life sciences explained by the girls as a common desire to care for people and animals. It has also been suggested that women’s choice to enter a particular field of engineering is related to their perceived strengths in certain areas, 16 such as communication and interpersonal skills. Women in engineering often report lower confidence in science and math skills than men despite higher or equivalent grades, 8,16 or women’s confidence and performance decrease throughout an engineering program 18 . However, women are often perceived to have better communication and interpersonal skills, but these so-called “soft skills” are not as emphasized in engineering curricula as the math and science “hard skills.” 18-20 Keeping in mind these obstacles, recent gains, and perceptions, we incorporated an outreach teaching activity and emphasized communication and interpersonal skills in an undergraduate engineering course to enhance the educational experience for all students, and particularly for women students. Course Structure P ge 15933.3 Structural Aspects of Biomaterials is an upper-level elective course listed in both the mechanical and bioengineering departments at a large public research university. Topics include material properties, mechanical behavior, and clinical significance of biological tissues and the metals, ceramics, and polymers used in medical devices. The FDA, patent law, and ethical considerations are also part of the course material. Structural Aspects of Biomaterials has been taught for nearly a decade and in this timeframe, the course has evolved from a survey course to a course with emphasis on project-based learning, interdisciplinary problems, communication and interpersonal skills, and outreach teaching. At the beginning of the semester we presented the following learning objectives: at the end of this skills lab, students will be able to… Technical Communication and Teamwork ≠ operate and communicate effectively on a multi-disciplinary team with a variety of learning and personality styles. ≠ effectively communicate technical information in written and oral settings. ≠ critically evaluate the written, oral, and engineering analysis work of themselves and others by identifying the strengths and areas for improvement. ≠ assess the value of work from various sources such as the internet and peer reviewed journals. Teaching and Learning ≠ describe the importance of engaging the community in a discussion of science through outreach teaching. ≠ create a museum exhibit to demonstrate a complex engineering concept to non-techinical audience with various learning styles. ≠ identify his or her dominant learning style and develop strategies for enhancing skills in the other learning styles. ≠ adapt their teaching and communication to address multiple learning styles. ≠ identify levels of Bloom’s taxonomy in HW and test questions and in project deliverables. Putting engineering biomaterials in larger context P ge 15933.4 ≠ evaluate biomechanical designs within realistic constraints, such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, and manufacturability. ≠ recognize contemporary and historic bioengineering issues and technological advances, and their impact in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context. The course enrollment is typically about 50 students with a relatively even split amongst genders and majors. This particular year the enrollment was 48 students: 23 female, 25 male; 17 mechanical engineering students, 31 bioengineering students; 42 juniors and seniors, 6 graduate students. The semester-long course was taught with two 90-minute lectures each week covering the fundamental mechanical and biological course material through traditional lectures, in-class activities, guest lectures, and case studies. In addition, students were required to attend a skills lab for two hours once a week covering a limited review of mechanics, learning styles, group dynamics, outreach teaching, Bloom’s taxonomy, assessment rubrics, library skills, technical writing and editing, and oral presentations (Table 1). Students were assessed based on two midterm exams and a final group project comprising a written report, an oral presentation, and an outreach teaching activity at a local children’s science museum.