to see the entire research report - Rowan - Rowan University

1995). Providing meaningful contexts for problem solving and applications has been
suggested as a means of attracting and retaining women in engineering (Davis & Rosser,
1996). Further, investigating problems of holistic, global scope, with interdisciplinary
methods, appeals to women’s need for a broader context to maintain interest and
motivation (Davis & Rosser, 1996; Farrell, 2002).
Women as “Other”
A lack of female role models, either among graduates, faculty, or successful
fellow students, reinforces women’s doubt that they belong in these fields ((AAUW,
1992; Bergvall, et. al., 1994; Davis and Rosser, 1996; Dresselhaus et. al., 1994; Ginorio,
1995; Nair and Majetich, 1995; NSF, 1994; Sonnert, 1995)). While large, impersonal
settings are alienating to women in particular, apparently a “critical mass” of women aids
in establishing an identification with the engineering community (Sonnert, 1995) 1
The “otherness” of females does not stem only from numbers, however. Pedagogy
which does not incorporate women’s experience as an integral part of the curriculum, or
which treats women as “other” either through fragmentation of presentation, omission, or
segregation, runs the risk of alienating women. Henes et al (1995) claim that women in
engineering have difficulty because examples in required courses often are not drawn
from examples familiar to women’s experience. Perception by students that engineering
is a male profession results in the marginalization of women not conforming to this
culture (Tonso, 1998). This marginalization may result in “stereotype threat”, which may
1 Sax (1996) disputes the importance of this critical mass of women in a major, showing
that its positive effects disappear once student characteristics, aspects of the college
environment, and particular field have been controlled. She does acknowledge that within
a particular field (such as engineering) the proportion of women may still have an impact
on student outcomes.
IA-22