Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Women Engineering Students: Competence Perceptions and Achievement Goals in the Freshman Engineering Course

Abstract

Research suggests that women engineering students in the United States typically have lower competence perceptions than their male classmates. According to achievement goal theory, low competence perceptions are associated with avoidance achievement goals which involve a preoccupation with avoiding failure rather than a focus on approaching success. The current study was conducted to see if women in a freshmen engineering course would rate their competence lower than their male classmates and if they would be more likely to adopt avoidance achievement goals. Further, would lower competence perceptions (i.e., perceived ability, self-efficacy) and avoidance goals have negative effects on grades and interest in the freshman engineering course? A sample of 117 first-semester engineering students from a U.S. Midwestern University completed surveys several times during the semester. Data were also collected from a sample of 82 first-semester students enrolled in an introductory psychology course for comparison purposes. Women in the freshman engineering course reported lower competence perceptions and higher levels of avoidance achievement goals than did men in the engineering course and than men and women in the psychology course. However, there were no significant gender differences in course grades or interest in the engineering course. Further analyses revealed indirect effects of gender on grades and interest in the engineering course through the competence perceptions. The indirect effects were negative suggesting lower values for women in engineering. The avoidance achievement goals were not influential in the indirect effects. The implications of these finding for the persistence of women in engineering are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bernold, L. E., Spurlin, J. E., & Anson, C. M. (2007). Understanding our students: A longitudinal study of success and failure in engineering with implications for increased retention. Journal of Engineering Education, 96, 263–274. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2007.tb00935.x.

  2. Besterfield-Sacre, M., Moreno, M., Shuman, L. J., & Atman, C. J. (2001). Gender and ethnicity differences in freshmen engineering student attitudes: A cross-institutional study. Journal of Engineering Education, 90, 477–489. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2001.tb00629.x.

  3. Bong, M. (2001). Between- and within-domain relations of academic motivation among middle and high school students: Self-efficacy, task-value, and achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 23–34. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.93.1.23.

  4. Brainard, S. G., & Carlin, L. (1998). A six-year longitudinal study of undergraduate women in engineering and science. Journal of Engineering Education, 87, 369–375. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.1998.tb00367.x.

  5. Cech, E., Rubineau, B., Silbey, S., & Seron, C. (2011). Professional role confidence and gendered persistence in engineering. American Sociological Review, 76, 641–666. doi:10.1177/0003122411420815.

  6. Church, M. A., Elliot, A. J., & Gable, S. L. (2001). Perceptions of classroom environment, achievement goals, and achievement outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 43–54. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.93.1.43.

  7. Correll, S. J. (2001). Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self-assessments. American Journal of Sociology, 106, 1691–1730. doi:10.1086/321299.

  8. Correll, S. J. (2004). Constraints into preferences: Gender, status, and emerging career aspirations. American Sociological Review, 69, 93–113. doi:10.1177/000312240406900106.

  9. Cury, G., Elliot, A. J., Da Fonseca, D., & Moller, A. C. (2006). The social-cognitive model of achievement motivation and the 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 666–679. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.666.

  10. Dingle, M. J. (2006). Gendered experiences in the science classroom. In J. M. Bystydzienski & S. R. Bird (Eds.), Removing barriers: Women in academic science, technology, engineering and mathematics (pp. 161–176). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

  11. Dweck, C. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.41.10.1040.

  12. Eccles, J. S. (1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 585–609. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb01049.x.

  13. Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Harold, R. D., & Blumenfeld, P. (1993). Age and gender differences in children’s self and task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development, 64, 830–847. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb02946.x.

  14. Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 52–72). New York: The Guilford Press.

  15. Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218–232. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.72.1.218.

  16. Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (1999). Test anxiety and the hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 628–644. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.76.4.628.

  17. Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501–519. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.80.3.501.

  18. Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique, illustration, and application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 613–628. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.613.

  19. Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Gable, S. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies, and exam performance: A mediational analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 549–563. doi:10.1037/0022-0993.91.3.549.

  20. Frey, M. C., & Detterman, D. K. (2004). Scholastic assessment or g? The relationship between the scholastic assessment tests and general cognitive ability. Psychological Science, 15, 373–378. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00687.x.

  21. Good, C., Aronson, J., & Harder, J. A. (2008). Problems in the pipeline: Stereotype threat and women’s achievement in high-level math courses. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 17–28. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2007.10.004.

  22. Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2012). The role of parents and teachers in the development of gender-related math attitudes. Sex Roles, 66, 153–166. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9996-2.

  23. Halpern, D. F., Straight, C. A., & Stephenson, C. L. (2011). Beliefs about cognitive gender differences: Accurate for direction, underestimated for size. Sex Roles, 64, 336–347. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9891-2.

  24. Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M., Lehto, A. T., & Elliot, A. J. (1997). Predictors and consequences of achievement goals in the college classroom: Maintaining interest and making the grade. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1284–1295. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.73.6.1284.

  25. Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Short-term and long-term consequences of achievement goals: Predicting interest and performance over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 316–330. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.92.2.316.

  26. Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Pintrich, P. R., Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Revision of achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 638–645. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.94.3.638.

  27. Harackiewicz, J. M., Durik, A. M., Barron, K. E., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., & Tauer, J. M. (2008). The role of achievement goals in the development of interest: Reciprocal relations between achievement goals, interest, and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 105–122. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.105.

  28. Hawks, B. K., & Spade, J. Z. (1998). Women and men engineering students: Anticipation of family and work roles. Journal of Engineering Education, 87, 249–256. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.1998.tb00351.x.

  29. Jackson, L. A., Gardner, P. D., & Sullivan, L. A. (1993). Engineering persistence: Past, present, and future factors and gender differences. Higher Education, 26, 227–246. doi:10.1007/BF01406954.

  30. McGregor, H. A., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Achievement goals as predictors of achievement-relevant processes prior to task engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 381–395. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.381.

  31. Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514–523. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.80.4.514.

  32. Meece, J. L., Glienke, B. B., & Burg, S. (2006). Gender and motivation. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 351–373. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.004.

  33. Miller, R. B., Greene, B. A., Montalvo, G. P., Ravindran, B., & Nichols, J. D. (1996). Engagement in academic work: The role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others and perceived ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 388–422. doi:10.1006/ceps.1996.0028.

  34. Min, Y., Zhang, G., Long, R. A., Anderson, T. J., & Ohland, M. W. (2011). Nonparametric survival analysis of the loss rate of undergraduate engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 100, 349–373. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00017.x.

  35. National Science Foundation (2011). S & E degrees: 1966–2008. Table 11. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf11316/pdf/tab11.pdf.

  36. National Science Foundation (2012). National science board science and engineering indicators 2012, Chapter 2: Higher education in science and engineering. Retrieved from http://nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/c2/c2s2.htm.

  37. Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328–346. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.91.3.328.

  38. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). The motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan.

  39. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717–731. doi:10.3758/BF03206553.

  40. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.

  41. Senko, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2005). Regulation of achievement goals: The role of competence feedback. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 320–336. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.320.

  42. Seymour, E. (1995). The loss of women from science, mathematics, and engineering undergraduate majors: An explanatory account. Science Education, 79, 437–473. doi:10.1002/sce.3730790406.

  43. Skaalvik, E. (1997). Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego orientations: Relations with task and avoidance orientation, achievement, self-perceptions, and anxiety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 71–81. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.89.1.71.

  44. Smith, J. L. (2004). Understanding the process of stereotype threat: A review of mediational variables and new performance goal directions. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 177–206. doi:10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034020.20317.89.

  45. Smith, J. L. (2006). The interplay among stereotypes, performance-avoidance goals, and women’s math performance expectations. Sex Roles, 54, 287–296. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9345-z.

  46. Smith, J. L., Sansone, C., & White, P. H. (2007). The stereotyped task engagement process: Role of interest and achievement motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 99–114. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.99.

  47. Steele, J., James, J. B., & Barnett, R. C. (2002). Learning in a man’s world: Examining the perceptions of undergraduate women in male-dominated academic areas. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 46–50. doi:10.1111/1471-6042.00042.

  48. The College Board (1999). Concordance between SAT I and ACT scores for individual students. Office of Research and Development, Research Notes, RN-07, June 1999. Retrieved from http://research.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/publications/2012/7/researchnote-1999-7-concordance-sat-act-students.pdf.

  49. Vogt, C. M., Hocevar, D., & Hagedorn, L. S. (2007). A social cognitive construct validation: Determining women’s and men’s success in engineering programs. The Journal of Higher Education, 78, 337–364. doi:10.1353/jhe.2007.0019.

  50. Wolters, C. A., Yu, S. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). The relation between goal orientation and students’ motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 211–238. doi:10.1016/S1041-6080(96)90015-1.

Download references

Author Notes

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April, 2009, San Diego, CA.

I would like to thank Heidi Diefes-Dux and Bill Oakes for assistance in obtaining the Engineering sample. I would also like to thank Margo Monteith and Howard Weiss for comments on an earlier version of the manuscript and Shamala Kumar, Jan Boe and Holly Lam for assistance in data collection.

Author information

Correspondence to Carolyn M. Jagacinski.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jagacinski, C.M. Women Engineering Students: Competence Perceptions and Achievement Goals in the Freshman Engineering Course. Sex Roles 69, 644–657 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0325-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Women in Engineering
  • Achievement goals
  • Perceived ability
  • Self-Efficacy