Advertisement

Differences and similarities between female students and male students that succeed within higher technical education: profiles emerge through the use of cluster analysis

  • Susanne EngströmEmail author
Article

Abstract

This study focuses on female and male students who succeed in engineering programmes in Sweden, and why they have success. Data were collected through a questionnaire sent to all engineering students in Sweden registered for their seventh semester during year 2012 and about 30 % of the students in the cohort responded on several questions. The answers were then analysed and interpreted using Pierre Bourdieu’s theory and the concept of capital. The female-students as well as the male-students emerged as homogeneous groups, but SPSS-clustering shows differences and similarities between four female student-profiles and five male students-profiles. The female students who come to graduate as engineers have experiences and resources that seem to be fruitful: well-educated parents, positive attitudes to the engineer students’ traditions, and a positive view of the engineering profession. In addition, they value the traditional teaching with lectures and self-studies. They seem not to have been inspired by compulsory school teaching or teachers there. The male students have the same experiences and resources but there are differences. Among female students, a profile emerges which is absent among the male students and which emphasises the importance of doing good for society, people, and the environment in their future professional roles. Among male students, the student profiles which emerge include one with a primarily practical and technical capital despite the lack of a high degree of educational or scientific capital.

Keywords

Educational capital Technical education Engineering education Gender aspects within technology education 

Notes

Acknowledgments

My heartfelt appreciation and acknowledgements to all of the students who volunteered to take part in the study.

References

  1. Ahlbom, H. (2013). Why choose a regional engineering education programme? In I.-B. Skogh & M. J. de Vries (Eds.), Technology teachers as researchers: Philosophical and empirical technology education studies in the Swedish TUFF Research School, pp. 173–198.Google Scholar
  2. Allie, S., Noor Armien, M., Burgoyne, N., Case, J. M., Collier-Reed, B. I., Craig, T. S., et al. (2009). Learning as acquiring a discursive identity through participation in a community: Improving student learning in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 34(4), 359–367. doi: 10.1080/03043790902989457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archer, L., Dewitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2012). “Balancing acts”: Elementary school girls’ negotiations of femininity, achievement, and science. Science Education, 96(6), 967–989. doi: 10.1002/sce.21031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Archer, A., Hutchings, M., & Leathwood, C. (2001). Engaging with commonality and difference. International Studies in the Sociology of Education, 11(1), 41–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arias Ortiz, E. A., & Dehon, C. (2013). Roads to success in the Belgian French community’s higher education system: Predictors of dropout and degree completion at the universite´ Libre de Bruxelles. Research in Higher Education, 54, 693–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ASPIRES. (2013). Young people’s science and career aspirations aged 10–14. London: Kings College http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/education/research/aspires/ASPIRES-final-report-December-2013.pdf.
  7. Bamber, J., & Tett, L. (1999). Opening the doors of higher education to working class adults: A case study. International Journal of Lifelong Learning, 18(6), 465–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bergman, L. R., Magnusson, D., & El-Khouri, B. M. (2003). Studying individual development in an interindividual context. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Berner, B. (2003). Vem tillhör tekniken? Kunskap och kön i teknikens värld. Lund: Arkiv.Google Scholar
  10. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction. A social critique of the judgment of taste. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  12. Bourdieu, P. (1996a). Homo academicus. Stockholm: Brutus Östlings Bokförlag.Google Scholar
  13. Bourdieu, P. (1996b). The state nobility: Elite schools in the field of power. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  14. Bourdieu, P. (2004). Science of science and reflexivity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Brainard, S. G., & Carlin, L. (1997). A longitudinal study of undergraduate women in engineering and science. In The Proceedings of the 1997 Frontiers in Education Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, November 5–8, IEEE Catalog No. 97CH36099, pp. 134–143, © 1997 IEEE.Google Scholar
  16. Broady, D., & Börjesson, M. (2008). En social karta över gymnasieskolan. In Ulf P. Lundgren (Eds.), Individsamhällelärande. Åtta exempel på utbildningsvetenskaplig forskning, Vetenskapsrådets rapportserie, Vol. 2, pp. 24–35.Google Scholar
  17. Broady, D., Börjesson, M., Larsson, E., Lidegran, I., & Nordqvist, I. (2009). Skolans kungsväg—Det naturvetenskapliga programmets plats i utbildningssystemet. Stockholm: VR.Google Scholar
  18. Brown, S., Flick, L., & Williamson, K. (2004). Social capital in engineering education. In The Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, Indianapolis, IN, October 19–22, 2005 © 2004 IEEE.Google Scholar
  19. Burton, L., & Dowling, D. (2009). Key factors that influence engineering students’ academic success: A longitudinal study. In Proceedings of the Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2009, Palm Cove, QLD.Google Scholar
  20. Devine, J. (2012). Exploring Bourdieu for engineering education research. Conference paper: SEFI 40th annual conference, 23–26 September 2012, Thessaloniki, Greece.Google Scholar
  21. DiMaggio, P. (1979). On Pierre Bourdieu. American Journal of Sociology, 84(6), 1460–1474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Engström, S. (2011). Att vördsamt värdesätta eller tryggt trotsa. Doctorial thesis. Retrieved in Jan 2016 from: http://libris.kb.se/bib/12159590.
  23. Engström, S., & Carlhed, C. (2014). Different habitus: Different strategies in teaching physics? Relationships between teachers’ social, economic and cultural capital and strategies in teaching physics in upper secondary school. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9(3), 699–728. doi: 10.1007/s11422-013-9538-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Erikson, R., & Jonsson, J. O. (2002). Varför består den sociala snedrekryteringen?. Pedagogisk Forskning i Sverige, 7(3), 210–217), ISSN 1401-6788.Google Scholar
  25. Fröberg, M. (2010). Teknik och genus i skapandet av gymnasieskolans teknikprogram: översättningar och gränsarbete på tre nivåer. Doctoral thesis. Retrieved from Linkoping university, in aug 2014: http://liu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?searchId=8&pid=diva2:304728.
  26. Government Offices, Swedish Ministry of Education: The Globalisation council (Sveriges Regering Utbildningsdepartementet: Globaliseringsrådet). (2008). Insatser för att öka intresset för ingenjörsyrket [Efforts to increase the interest for the engineering occupation] Sveriges Regering Utbildningsdepartementet: Globaliseringsrådet [Government Offices, Swedish Ministry of Education: The Globalisation council]. Rapport serie: Ds 2008:10. Retrieved November 28, 2011 from http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/108/a/96638.
  27. Hall, C. W., Kauffmann, P. J., Wuensch, K. L., Swart, W. E., DeUrquidi, K. A., Griffin, O. H., & Duncan, C. S. (2015). Aptitude and personality traits in retention of engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 104(2), 167–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hansson, S.-O. (2013). What is technological knowledge? In I.-B. Skogh & M. J. de Vries (Eds.), Technology teachers as researchers: Philosophical and empirical technology education studies in the Swedish TUFF Research School, pp. 17–32.Google Scholar
  29. Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St. Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. American Association of University Women. Report.Google Scholar
  30. Kamphorst, J. C., Hofman, W. H. A., Jansen, E. P. W. A., & Terlouw, C. (2015). Explaining academic success in engineering degree programs: Do female and male students differ? Journal of Engineering Education, 104(2), 189–211. doi: 10.1002/jee.20071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kingdon, P. (2013). The successful student. In I.-B. Skogh & M. J. de Vries (Eds.), Technology teachers as researchers: Philosophical and empirical technology education studies in the Swedish TUFF Research School, pp. 199–221.Google Scholar
  32. KTH Royal Institute of Technology. (2011). Startenkät 2011. (Start questionnaire 2011). Retrieved from: http://intra.kth.se/kth-informerar/2.9840/enkater/startenkaten-1.29059.
  33. Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure in action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lin, N., Cook, K. S., & Burt, R. S. (2001). Social capital: Theory and research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Little, A. J., & León de la Barra, B. A. (2009). Attracting girls to science, engineering and technology: An Australian perspective. European Journal of Engineering Education, 34(5), 439–445. doi: 10.1080/03043790903137585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Martin, J. P., Simmons, D. R., & Yu, S. L. (2014). Family roles in engineering undergraduates’ academic and career choises: Does parental educational attainment matter? International Journal of Engineering Education, 30(1), 136–149.Google Scholar
  37. Miller, M. K., Martin, J. P., & Orr, M. K. (2014). Toward determining changes in engineering-related social capital: Resource composition as students make decisions about college. Journal of Education and Training, 1(2), 72–91. ISSN 2330-9709.Google Scholar
  38. Powell, A., Dainty, A., & Bagilhole, B. (2012). Gender stereotypes among women engineering and technology students in the UK: Lessons from career choice narratives. European Journal of Engineering Education, 37(6), 541–556. doi: 10.1080/03043797.2012.724052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Quinn, J. (2013). Drop-out and Completion in Higher Education in Europe among students from under-represented groups. Available for free downloading at: http://www.nesetweb.eu.
  40. Read, B., Archer, A., & Leathwood, C. (2003). Challenging cultures? Student conceptions of ‘belonging’ and ‘isolation’ at a post-1992 university. Studies in Higher Education, 28(3), 261–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rose-Adams, J. (2013). Widening participation and lifelong learning: Leaving university early. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 15(2), 96–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sjöqvist, E., Almqvist, L., Åsenlöf, P., Lampa, J., Opava, C. H., & The Para Study Group. (2010). Physical-activity coaching and health status in rheumatoid arthritis: A person-oriented approach. Disability and Rehabilitation, 32(10), 816–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. SOU. (2010). Vändpunkt Sverige—ett ökat intresse för matematik, naturvetenskap, teknik och IKT. SOU 2010:28. Summary in English. [Turnover for Sweden an increased interest in math’s, science, technology and ICT]. Teknikdelegationen [The Technology Delegation]. Stockholm Retrieved from: http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/108/a/144868.
  44. Staberg, E. M. (1994). Gender and science in Swedish compulsory school. Gender and Education, 6, 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stonyer, H. (2002). Making engineering students—making women: The discursive context of engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 18(4), 392–399.Google Scholar
  46. Svensson, A. (2001). Består den sociala snedrekryteringen? Elevernas val av gymnasieprogram hösten 1998. Pedagogisk Forskning i Sverige, 6(3), 161–172. ISSN 1401-6788.Google Scholar
  47. Thomas, L., & Hovdhaugen, E. (2014). Complexities and challenges of researching student completion and non-completion of HE Programmes in Europe: A comparative analysis between England and Norway. European Journal of Education, 49(4), 1465–3435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tolstrup Holmegaard, H., Möller, M. L., & Ulriksen, L. M. (2014a). A journey of negotiation and belonging: Understanding students’ transitions to science and engineering in higher education. Culture Studies of Science Education, 9, 755–786. doi: 10.1007/s11422-013-9542-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tolstrup Holmegaard, H., Möller, M. L., & Ulriksen, L. (2014b). To choose or not to choose science: Constructions of desirable identities among young people considering a STEM higher education programme. International Journal of Science Education, 36(2), 186–215. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2012.749362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tolstrup Holmegaard, H., Ulriksen, L. M., & Möller, M. L. (2014c). The process of choosing what to study: A longitudinal study of upper secondary education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58(1), 21–40. doi: 10.1080/00313831.2012.696212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. UKÄ Swedish Higher Education Authority. (2015). Trends and developments in Swedish Higher Education. Retrieved from: http://english.uka.se/news/2015-06-17-trends-and-developments-in-swedish-higher-education.html.
  52. Walker, M. (2001). Engineering identities. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22(1), 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Walsham, G. (2006). Doing interpretive research. European Journal of Information Systems, 15, 320–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ward, J. H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58(301), 236–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ECE-skolan, School of Education and Communication in Engineering SciencesKTHStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations