000260424 001__ 260424
000260424 005__ 20190812210033.0
000260424 020__ $$a978-2-87352-016-8
000260424 037__ $$aCONF
000260424 245__ $$aDoes gender-sensitive teacher training have a place in Engineering Education? Assessing pedagogical training as a step towards gender-inclusive curricula
000260424 260__ $$c2018-09-17$$bEuropean Society for Engineering Education$$aBrussels
000260424 269__ $$a2018-09-17
000260424 300__ $$a976-983
000260424 336__ $$aConference Papers
000260424 520__ $$aTeaching advisors work to sensitize teachers to use inclusive teaching pedagogy because it facilitates learning to all students and makes teachers aware of how the gender composition of a class and its management can promote or hamper student learning and students’ decision to pursue a career in Engineering. Teachers’ implicit gender biases have negative but also positive effects on student learning. McLoughlin (2005) study on spotlighting displays the discomfort felt by women for pinpointed by Women in Engineering Programs (WEP). Differently, Tonso’s qualitative study (2006) shows that in Engineering studies, academic and seniority status negatively affect group dynamics but gender does not. Implicit gender biases in the materials used for teacher training (Zittleman & Sadker, 2002) reinforce the masculine culture of Engineering Education (Barnard, etals, 2012; Baxter-Magolda, 1992). These raise the question of whether Engineering teacher training promotes gender-sensitivity or reinforces gender biases. This paper shows the results of our analysis of gender-sensitivity in teacher training. Data collection methods included self-evaluations of workshop design and support materials from a text and image perspective, a qualitative analysis of workshop content and peer observations. Our results confirm that teacher advisors acknowledge and react to gender biases but disagree on which tools support a gender-sensitive approach to teacher education, both at the level of the pedagogical methods used and at the level of the content presented to the teachers.
000260424 6531_ $$agender-sensitive pedagogy, teacher training, diversity
000260424 700__ $$g175912$$aLe Duc, Ingrid$$0253876
000260424 700__ $$g217408$$aTormey, Roland$$0254363
000260424 700__ $$g249277$$aHardebolle, Cécile$$0254468
000260424 700__ $$g196072$$aIsaac, Siara Ruth$$0254732
000260424 700__ $$aFueger, Hélène
000260424 7112_ $$d17-21 September 2018$$cTechnical University, Copenhagen, Danemark$$a46th SEFI Conference
000260424 720_4 $$aEuropean Society for Engineering Education
000260424 720_1 $$aClark, Robin
000260424 720_1 $$aMunkebo Hussmann, Peter
000260424 720_1 $$aJärvinen, Hannu-Matti
000260424 720_1 $$aMurphy, Mike
000260424 720_1 $$aEtchells  Vigild, Martin
000260424 773__ $$q976-983$$tProceedings of the 46 th SEFI Annual Conference 2018: Creativity, Innovation and Entrepreneurship for Engineering Education Excellence
000260424 790__ $$whttps://www.sefi.be/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/SEFI-Proceedings-2-October-2018.pdf$$2url
000260424 8560_ $$falain.borel@epfl.ch
000260424 909C0 $$xU12752$$pCAPE$$mroland.tormey@epfl.ch$$0252476
000260424 909CO $$qproc$$qGLOBAL_SET$$pconf$$ooai:infoscience.epfl.ch:260424
000260424 960__ $$aingrid.leduc@epfl.ch
000260424 961__ $$apierre.devaud@epfl.ch
000260424 973__ $$rREVIEWED$$aEPFL
000260424 980__ $$aCONF
000260424 981__ $$aoverwrite