Session F4H
Incorporating Feminist Pedagogy into the Engineering Learning Experience Elizabeth A. Eschenbach1, Eileen M. Cashman2, Alisha A. Waller3 and Susan M. Lord4 Abstract – A framework is presented for implementing feminist pedagogy along with demonstrative examples from engineering curricula. The framework for incorporating the values of feminism into the learning experience focuses on three aspects: 1) learning management strategies, 2) assessment and evaluation strategies and 3) strategies for critiquing existing power structures and the engineering process. Feminist pedagogy strategies suggested by others include cooperative learning, providing students a voice in classroom management decisions, structuring student interactions to facilitate all students' participation, having students participate in designing evaluation rubrics and assigning projects that require more than technical skills. A unique feature which feminist pedagogy offers to engineering education is the critique of power structures in relation to the engineering process. For example, the following questions can be addressed: How are engineering processes influenced by the historical frameworks of their development? How are decisions made? Who makes decisions? Who benefits from the decisions? What values do they reflect? Index Terms – Feminist Pedagogy, Innovative Curricular Approaches INTRODUCTION Many of the calls for reforming STEM education [1], [2][3][4] advocate some of the very changes that are suggested by feminist pedagogy. Feminist pedagogy provides another framework for engineering educators to evaluate and improve their teaching strategies. Others outside of engineering education have encouraged engineering to incorporate this approach [1][5] however, most engineering educators are not aware of feminist pedagogy. This paper, along with others [6][7] further develop ideas presented in the FIE 2004 Special Session: Feminist Frontiers [8], which received the Helen Plants Award for the most innovative session. The focus of this paper is to provide a framework with corresponding examples for implementing feminist pedagogy into engineering curricula. This exploration may lead to improved learning for all students, but especially for those students who have not traditionally succeeded in engineering or have not been equally served by traditional engineering curricula. The
authors acknowledge that there is no common agreement of the details of implementing feminist pedagogy among those already practicing it. Feminist pedagogy is not prescriptive; there is no checklist or step-by-step set of instructions. Instead, each faculty member must find what pedagogical practices enable her or him to implement the values, beliefs, and practices of feminism. WHAT IS FEMINIST PEDAGOGY? The phrase “feminist pedagogy” is resisted by some engineering educators [8] and some engineering faculty suggest that a different phrase be used to describe feminist pedagogy. While it is true that the word “feminist” carries many different meanings, connotations, and implications for different people, [9] “feminist pedagogy” is a well-established field within education. A more complete description of feminism and feminist pedagogy can be found in [6]. For this paper we describe feminist pedagogy as incorporating the values of feminism into students’ learning experience. As presented in [8], common beliefs of feminism can be summarized with the following list: Women and men are equally entitled to all the good things a society makes available to its members. Gender should not be a distributive mechanism or a basis for social hierarchy, or a means whereby some parts of people get stunted and other parts get overdeveloped. Feminism serves as an intervention in the ideology of gender, which means feminists commonly question the standards used to justify why some people get to the top and other people get trapped at the bottom of various hierarchies. These standards are critiqued as “institutionalized preferences.” Feminists are inclined to question hierarchical approaches to problem solving. Feminist values can be summarized as [8] Social Justice: Each person’s dignity is honored, each person’s needs are recognized and addressed, and any person’s or group’s claims to extras are anchored in merits or needs widely agreed upon and open to debate among members. Democracy: Each person’s voice is heard or at least effectively represented and that no one buy or bully her or his way into other people’s lives.
1
Elizabeth A. Eschenbach, Professor and Department Chair, Environmental Resources Engineering, Humboldt State University,
[email protected] Eileen M. Cashman, Associate Professor, Environmental Resources Engineering, Humboldt State University,
[email protected] 3 Alisha A. Waller, Adult Education Department, University of Georgia,
[email protected] 4 Susan M. Lord, Department of Engineering, University of San Diego,
[email protected] 2
0-7803-9077-6/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE October 19 – 22, 2005, Indianapolis, IN 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference F4H-8
Session F4H Individuality: Individuals and expressions of individuality are valued, even while feminists often decry rugged individualism. Responsibility: Extending responsibility beyond oneself and one’s circle of loved ones, especially to those who depend heavily on the rest of us for sustenance and nurturance. Inclusionary Thinking: Women (and men) are diverse and no one subset can represent the whole set. Every societal problem needs a wide variety of people working together to find solutions. Freedom, Liberation, and Self-actualization: We should aim to enhance women’s freedom to choose the circumstances and purposes of their lives, but be disinclined to prescribe anything specific for women. We provide a framework and examples of how to implement these beliefs and values into the engineering learning experience. Our framework consists of three categories: 1) Learning Management Strategies, 2) Strategies for the Assessment and Evaluation of Student Work, and 3) Examination of Power Structures and Critiquing the Engineering Process. For each category we provide examples of strategies implemented in primarily in Cashman and Eschenbach’s curriculum development project [14] and/or examples that are reported in the literature. Eschenbach and Cashman’s NSF CCLI-A&I project has been described elsewhere [10][11][12][13]. The purpose of the project is to revitalize two introductory courses —ENGR 115: Introduction to Environmental Science and Engineering and ENGR 215: Introduction to Design – to provide integrated, interdisciplinary approaches to solving environmental problems. The curriculum [14] includes handson team projects, field and lab experiences, a clear presentation of course requirements and careers available to environmental scientists and environmental resource engineers, and the development of computational, technical communication and teamwork skills. LEARNING MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES An important aspect of feminist pedagogy is the recognition that all participants bring important insights and experiences into the learning experience and that all participants can learn something new, including faculty. Faculty are not seen as the banks of knowledge which they dispense to students, but as organizers and facilitators of learning opportunities. In this section, we share suggestions from the literature and our experiences. Most of these suggestions focus on the arrangement of space, promoting student responsibility for her or his own learning and the development of learning experiences that empower students. The University of Texas Women In Education website [14] provides a number of suggestions for implementing Feminist Pedagogy into the K-12 classroom that transfer to engineering education. These suggestions include: The physical space should be conducive to student-student interaction. For example, the use of circles is encouraged. Each student participates so individual voices are not silenced.
Students are encouraged to be responsible for their own learning, so much so that it may be difficult for an outsider to identify the instructor. Curricula are developed so they incorporate and build on students’ life experiences. At Smith [16], Donna Riley taught thermodynamics to 12-15 students implementing “liberative pedagogies” including feminist pedagogy. She used these methods while still demonstrating that the students had learned required engineering science concepts. She changed her room location so that students could study thermodynamics while sitting in a circle. She required students to complete all readings before class so that class time was spent with students solving problems at the board. She tried to create a learning environment where students became a community of scholars and could speak authoritatively about the subject matter in class. She had multiple assignments (including three essays) that required students to relate thermodynamics to their own personal or professional lives. Riley’s [16] description of implementing feminist pedagogy into the engineering learning experience is the only work we are familiar with other than our own. One of Cashman and Eschenbach’s courses is limited by the constraints of a large lecture hall, but they incorporate students’ voices to provide them authority in the classroom in a number of ways. In addition, students are required to be responsible for their own learning using some of the Just-inTime Teaching [17][18] approaches. In the Just-in-Time Teaching (JiTT) approach, students are required to complete quizzes on the week’s reading before the class period that addresses the material. The quizzes are due two hours before the class meeting, thus, the “Just in Time”. The faculty member uses the students’ responses to gauge what material was understood in the reading and what misconceptions exist. Students’ answers are incorporated into the class to show examples of multiple correct approaches as well as to demonstrate conceptual misunderstandings. The class uses think-pair-share approach first developed by Professor Frank Lyman at the University of Maryland in 1981 and adapted by those in the cooperative learning community. This approach incorporates feminist pedagogy in that it requires students to be more responsible for their own learning as well as empower students by using their input to determine what is covered in class. Each semester the lecture portion of the class on a given topic varies, based upon what students have stated in their required reading quiz. Eschenbach and Cashman’s use of hands-on labs strives to increase students’ confidence in their problem solving abilities. In labs students are provided a general outline of a problem to solve, access to some different tools, and then are left to work in groups to design their own approach to solving the problem. For example, students are provided pyronometers, incandescent light bulbs and florescent light bulbs. They are asked to determine how a local town would most effectively use $10,000 to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses. Should the town invest in photovoltaic panels or should the town invest in conservation measures
0-7803-9077-6/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE October 19 – 22, 2005, Indianapolis, IN 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference F4H-9
Session F4H such as florescent light bulbs? The students have a week to develop a presentation for the city council with an analysis to justify their decision. The students are able to design their own experiments and analysis. This type of approach incorporates feminist pedagogy in that it empowers students to design the experiment, their analysis and their presentations. In addition, this problem is one that was faced by the local college town and the students find the “real world” aspect of the problem compelling. Students are overwhelmed at times, but by the end of the course show that their confidence in many areas addressed by the class has increased [10]. Another technique to empower students is to frame exam and/or homework problems to include real scenarios. One example from Lord’s classroom is “Your co-worker Chris comes to you with data from a diffusion experiment and asks for your advice on which material to choose to meet your customer’s requirements. What would you say?” This approach empowers students by providing them a sense of responsibility in using their knowledge for a purpose. By using a gender neutral name such as “Chris” or “Terry” rather than “John” or “Mary”, one can strive to begin to implement the social justice value of feminism. Students can not make assumptions about the validity of the information presented based on the person’s gender. Lord has found about half of the students ascribe a gender to the person in their answer and that gender is overwhelmingly male. Students’ responses can be used to begin a discussion of gender and engineering. Cashman and Eschenbach have had several instances where students felt empowered enough to extend their classroom learning to become involved in community issues. Students have written letters to the editor of the local newspaper about energy efficiency issues and initiated oncampus student groups and projects aimed at energy efficiency. In one semester, students participated in the Environmental Protection Agency’s SO2 permit auction after participating in a classroom simulation of the air permit auction. These extensions of involvement beyond the classroom indicate success in encouraging students to extend one’s responsibility beyond oneself and one’s circle of loved ones, especially to those who depend heavily on the rest of us for sustenance and nurturance (one of the feminist values described earlier). In this case, the students are being advocates for the environment and those that depend on it. Service-learning as a pedagogy [19] shares many of the same values as feminist pedagogy including social justice, democracy, and responsibility particularly if service-learning is structured to encourage development of “socially responsive knowledge”. In service-learning, community needs are matched with academic learning goals and a reflection component aids in the students’ processing of their experiences and knowledge gained. Service-learning may be used as an experiential application of feminist pedagogy as in Ann Oberhauser’s gender geography class [20]. However, not all service-learning projects would necessarily be examples of feminist pedagogy.
Eschenbach and Cashman’s students share in the administration of the class through a weekly invitation to provide feedback on the previous week’s activities as well as to communicate comments or concerns. This information is shared in class once a week and is used to improve the course for both the current semester and following semesters. Students respond to three questions on Blackboard after reviewing the previous week’s learning activities: 1) What was the best aspect of last week? 2) What was one aspect you would change? 3) Any comments or questions? Cashman and Eschenbach use strategies for assigning teams based on engineering education found in the literature and presented at FIE conferences, including avoiding isolating underrepresented persons on a team as well as forming teams of students together who have diverse learning styles. In addition, each week the teams participate in a teamwork or creativity activity [14] that focuses on concepts of learning styles, styles of communication, conflict management and appropriate ways to provide evaluation and feedback. Students are invited to provide plus/delta feedback on each teamwork activity [29]. They are asked to write down the best aspect of an activity (plus) and one thing they would change about the activity (delta). The student responses are posted to Blackboard and shared with the class anonymously. Several times throughout the semester the students’ responses provide fruitful fodder for further discussion on the teamwork activity and its impact on the learning experience. ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION STRATEGIES Traditional assessment tools used in engineering education are limited in terms of encouraging student responsibility for her or his own learning. Responsibility for one’s learning is a key component of life-long learning, which is essential in the rapidly changing fields of engineering. Students taking responsibility for their participation in the learning experience also requires a change in the power relations between faculty and students. Some methods Eschenbach and Cashman have used are team contracts and peer evaluation, which are becoming more common in engineering. In the following descriptions of these methods, we focus on how feminist pedagogy, values, and beliefs are enacted. As described in [11], before students have been assigned their teams, students work in groups to define the attributes associated with an “A”, “B”, “C” and “F” teammate. The students are told that they are creating a type of contract within the classroom that defines what excellent and poor behavior is on a team. The results of these discussions are saved on Blackboard and students refer to them later when completing peer evaluations. Once students are assigned their design team, they are required to make a team contract [11]. The instructor requires two statements within the contract while the team determines the rest of the contract. Over the years of this course, students have come up with many creative solutions for enforcing appropriate team behavior. For example, during the first team meeting, a member said that he was always late to meetings and would not be able to change. By the end of the meeting,
0-7803-9077-6/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE October 19 – 22, 2005, Indianapolis, IN 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference F4H-10
Session F4H the team agreed that each member would pay five dollars for each unexcused late minute to a meeting. Over the semester, that individual was never late and very proud of himself. Students are also encouraged to reevaluate their team contract after a few weeks. This past semester one team chose to rewrite a portion of their contract to facilitate a more fair consequence for late work. Peer evaluation is another method to empower students. In design teams students are required to evaluate each other about 6 weeks into their 10-week project and at the end of the project [11]. Students receive anonymous copies of all peers’ appropriate comments at the end of the semester. This peer evaluation process is worth 15% of the final grade, so students take it seriously and work hard to provide professionally worded criticism. In [21], over 5 semesters of students who had taken the course were asked to assess their comfort level and the usefulness of the peer evaluation process. More than 50 % described themselves as uncomfortable with the process, but over 93% stated that the practice should remain. One telling quote was, “How could you (the professor) ever know what was going on in our team without asking us?” These results could be interpreted to mean that many students understand that learning is sometimes uncomfortable, that learning and emotions are highly intertwined. Peer evaluation/editing is used as part of the development of a web page in one of Cashman and Eschenbach’s courses. Each student is required to choose her or his own topic for completing a web page project for a real client. This project empowers students in that they choose a topic of interest and they are developing a web page that will actually be used by a client. After students have drafted their first version of their web page, they are edited by at least one peer. Students are later evaluated on how well they used a provided rubric to edit their peers’ web pages. Students comment that they find this process very useful as they learn how to see their own web page from a reader’s perspective. This project has been shown to have a significant impact on students’ confidence in their technical skills [10]. EXAMINATION OF POWER STRUCTURES AND CRITIQUE OF ENGINEERING PROCESS Perhaps the most difficult and most unique aspect of feminist pedagogy to implement is the critique of power structures and the engineering process within the engineering learning environment. To fully implement feminist pedagogy, one should examine questions such as “Who benefits and who does not benefit from this problem and its proposed solution(s)? Historically, who has and has not benefited from the engineering approach? How did this approach develop? Feminism assumes that inequity exists and that critical analysis is necessary to remove or lessen inequities. Thus, feminist pedagogy includes power critique. Within mathematics, Bonnie Shulman [22] used Sandra Harding’s [23] work to develop her course that starts with the assumption that the language of mathematics is neither culture fair nor culture free. That assumption leads directly to explicit
consideration of power dynamics and the historicity of exclusion through the complexity of mathematical language. Donna Riley [16] provided her thermodynamics students additional context for the historical development of the knowledge of thermodynamics. She points out that most of traditional thermodynamics was developed by white western men. However, she provided examples from the history of science of non-western thermodynamic related inventions such as Chinese under-floor heating and human- and waterpowered fans as well as Egyptian oil lamps and Muslim water and windmills. In addition, she pointed out woman invented items such as double boilers, potato boilers and stove technology improvements. In her thermodynamics course, Donna Riley [16] also discusses the historical development of the first and second law of thermodynamics. She demonstrates that there was disagreement at the time, and some of the important contributors had major misconceptions of the nature of thermodynamics (e.g. Sadi Carnot thought heat was a material substance called caloric). Students learning this material realize that science can be developed by those that have misconceptions and this hopefully encourages them to have more confidence around making mistakes. In addition, demonstrating the disagreement among many important scientists provides a more realistic look at the scientific process and makes it appear less objective and more subjective to the vagaries of human processes [23]. Cooperative learning [24] is incorporated in many engineering classrooms. Feminist scholars have discussed cooperative learning [1][25] and have noted that cooperative learning in general is supportive to a diverse set of learners including women. Rosser [1] suggests cooperative learning should be implemented if STEM educators want to increase the proportion of women in these areas. However, Mayberry [25] compares cooperative learning and feminist pedagogy and points out that cooperative learning does not specifically provide a framework to discuss power issues related to gender, race and class, while these are goals of feminist pedagogy. She sees cooperative learning as “socially reproductive,” while feminist pedagogy is “socially transformative.” Thus cooperative learning helps students continue to learn and do engineering as it has always be done, while feminist pedagogy invites students to critically analyze the social structures that support the current ways engineering is taught and done. Others [26] point out that cooperative learning can be used within feminist pedagogy, if the students working in groups are invited to critique the norms under which they are asked to practice. For example under the norms of communication, when is an interruption acceptable [27]? Under the norms of teamwork, is a leader someone that is “followed” or are there other ways to identify a leader [28]? Eschenbach and Cashman use a cooperative learning jigsaw exercise [28] to help students learn about team processes and team development. One portion of the curriculum examines the types of power that exist within group dynamics. Power is defined as the individual’s ability to influence their team during the completion of a task.
0-7803-9077-6/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE October 19 – 22, 2005, Indianapolis, IN 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference F4H-11
Session F4H Students can have lively discussions around the location of power in their groups. The cooperative learning jigsaw assignment outlines five different types of power within groups: Reward, Expert, Coercive, Referent, and Legitimate. In this current semester, students were given an assignment to set-up a Gantt chart with intermediate deadlines for the literature review portion of their design project; the student groups were asked to decide on intermediate deadlines for individual contributions, individual editing and group editing. After the students completed this negotiation in their teams, the instructor asked the teams to reflect on how they made their decisions and what types of power they had used to influence each other. In a class where 4 of the 19 were women, several women indicated that they rely almost solely on referent power (power exerted by an individual’s attractiveness or how well-liked they were) which lead to further discussion on why the women felt this was their only option in many cases. The women also discussed how much they disliked using this approach to have influence with engineering students on engineering activities. One male in this semester’s class shared his insight that he had been using coercive power (power exerted through verbal abuse or ridicule) and came to the realization that it was not effective in his team. Evaluating this relatively small task with this framework forced the students to reflect on how they were making decisions as a team and question the existing power structures. Cashman and Eschenbach’s students are provided with ethical dilemmas and invited to examine the societal context of engineering, which is another example of critiquing power and process. Students are given ethical dilemmas and asked to identify the ASCE Code of Ethics canons [30] that might provide guidance in the dilemma and to brainstorm on as many different responses to the dilemma. They are then asked to select one response and justify it. One of the scenarios, based on [31], asks students to consider their ethical obligation to design a gender inclusive piece of machinery, even though the lead engineer and the client have already determined in this particular cultural context the device will only be used by men. Additional complexities include cultural norms about the division of labor for men and women in this hypothetical society and the implications of using an engineering device that encourages (or discourages) reform in these roles. This scenario is sufficiently complex that no single canon provides guidance for an ethical response. Students often suggest that based on Canon 2 (engineers provide services only in their area of competence) they would need to bring in outside professional advice on the potential social impacts of the design. Essentially the students argue they will not be qualified as engineers to consider issues of gender inequity or social injustice. Discussions in the classroom can be extended to questioning why the students believe these issues do not belong in the traditional engineering design process and critiques of how the design process might be changed to include these. Feminist values of social justice and responsibility to those beyond one’s circle
would support the claim that all people, including engineers, should consider issues of inequity and injustice and work towards eliminating them, so the “lack of expertise” does not excuse engineers from engaging these issues. Eschenbach and Cashman’s students examine the distribution of learning styles in the classroom, while carefully considering the styles shown amongst underrepresented students. The students are invited to consider why underrepresented students might have a certain learning preference. For example, this semester students noted out of the four women in the class (out of a total of 19), they were all very strong analytical/sequential thinkers. Several of the men were more social/emotional thinkers, but the class noted that it was not likely that women with those strong social/emotional thinking preferences would feel comfortable in engineering. Future ideas for critiquing the engineering process in our courses include developing curriculum that outlines the history of the design process including questions about why we approach the design process the way we do, exploring sources of expertise and knowledge in engineering processes and in learning experiences, examining who defines the design “problem” and how does that definition encourage particular solutions and processes and makes others impossible to construct?, and considering how maintaining the boundary between the engineering team and the client close down communication and understanding? How would engineering change if the client was considered to have design skills and legitimate knowledge based on life experiences? CLOSING REMARKS Some have asked, “What is the difference between Feminist Pedagogy and Good Teaching?”[32]. We heard this question at our special session Feminist Frontiers at FIE 2004 [8]. To carefully address this question, one must first agree on what is meant by "good teaching." While some might find common agreement in defining good teaching, it is more likely that each of us has different values for assessing "good teaching." Without explicit agreement on our values, we cannot be comprehensible to one another. The authors see feminist pedagogy as a tool to good teaching as it invites one to make one’s values explicit. In this paper, we have described how we promote the beliefs and values of feminism into our classrooms via feminist pedagogy. Our experience is that examining our teaching approaches through the lens of feminist pedagogy provides another tool to improve the learning experiences of our students. In particular, we have found the task of critiquing the engineering process and identifying sources of power within the engineering process to be difficult, yet extremely useful for better understanding our own discipline and what we are trying to teach. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work is partially funded by the NSF Sponsored CCLI Grant No.DUE-0127139. The authors thank their students and 0-7803-9077-6/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE October 19 – 22, 2005, Indianapolis, IN 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference F4H-12
Session F4H colleagues for stimulating input and questions around the ideas of creating better learning environments for engineering education. The authors are also grateful for the participants in the FIE 2004 Feminist Frontiers Session and how they helped us to think more deeply about feminist pedagogy in engineering. REFERENCES [1]
Rosser, S.V. (1997). Re-Engineering Female-Friendly Science. New York: Teachers College Press.
[2]
Wulf, W. A. and Fisher, G. M. C., “A Makeover for Engineering Education,” Issues in Science and Technology, www.nap.edu/issues/18.3/p_wulf.html (Spring 2002) Viewed March 20, 2005
[3]
Tobias, S. They’re Not Dumb, They’re Different. Tucson Arizona Research Corporation. 1989
[4]
Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities, 1998. Available http://naples.cc.sunysb.edu/Pres/boyer.nsf/ Viewed March 22, 2005.
[5]
Subramaniam, B., Ginorio, A.B., and Yee, S.Y. (1999) Feminism, Women’s Studies, and Engineering: Opportunities and Challenges. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 5: 311322.
[6]
Waller, A. W., “What is Feminist Pedagogy and How Can It Be Used in CSET Education?” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, Indianapolis, IN, Oct. 19-22, 2005.
[7]
Lord, S. M., E. M. Cashman, E. A. Eschenbach , , and A. W. Waller, “Feminism and Engineering”, Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, Indianapolis, IN, Oct. 19-22, 2005
[8]
Lord, S. M., E. A. Eschenbach , A. W. Waller , and E. M. Cashman “Session T3A , Interactive Session - Feminist Frontiers”, Frontiers in Education 2004, Savannah Georgia, Oct 20-23, 2004.
[9]
Weiss, P. A., “I’m Not a Feminist, But…”: Popular Myths about Feminism, in Conversations with Feminism, Weiss, P.A., Lanham: MD, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1998.
[10] Espinoza, E. M, J. W. White, E. A. Eschenbach, and E. M. Cashman, “Student Attitudes Surveyed in an Introductory Environmental Resources Engineering Course” Proceedings of 34th Annual ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. October 20-23, Savannah, Georgia. (2004). [11] Eschenbach, E.A., Cashman, E.M “Teaming in Freshman Design Using a Studio Teaching Approach and Blackboard® “, Proceedings of the ASEE 2004 Annual Conference and Exposition. June 20-23, Salt Lake City, Utah. . (2004). [12] Eschenbach, E.A., Cashman, E.M. “Introduction to Air Resources - Just in Time!” , Proceedings of the ASEE 2004 Annual Conference and Exposition. June 20-23, Salt Lake City, Utah. (2004). [13] Cashman, E.M. and Eschenbach E.A. (2003).” Active Learning with Web Technology - Just in Time! “ Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, Engineering as a Human Endeavor, Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education, Boulder, Colorado, November 5-11. [14] Cashman, E. C. and E. A. Eschenbach (2004), Designing a New Learning Environment for Introductory Environmental Engineering and Science Students: NSF Sponsored CCLI Grant No.DUE-0127139 Online: http://www.humboldt.edu/~eae1/CCLI02/, viewed March 2, 2005
[16] Riley D. “Pedagogies of Liberation in an Engineering Thermodynamics Class” Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. [17] Novak, G. and E. Patterson (1997). World Wide Web Technology as a New Teaching and Learning Environment. International Journal of Modern Physics, Vol 8, No. 1: 19-39. [18] Novak, G., A et al, Just-In-Time Teaching, Viewed March 17, 2005 http://www.jitt.org [19] Jamieson, J., W. C. Oakes, and E. J. Coyle, EPICS: Serving the Community through Engineering Design Projects, in Learning to Serve: Promoting Civil Society through Service Learning. L. A. K. Simon, M. Kenny, K. Brabeck, and R. M. Lerner, Ed., Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001. [20] Oberhauser, A., Examining Gender and Community Through Critical Pedagogy, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2002, pp. 19-31. [21] Eschenbach, E. A. Peer Evaluation for Design Team Effectiveness. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education. (1997). [22] Shulman, B “Implications of Feminist Critiques of Science for the Teaching of Mathematics and Science.” Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 1(1994): 1-15. [23] Harding, S. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women’s Lives. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991. [24] Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Smith, K. Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom, Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company, 1991. [25] Mayberry M., Reproductive and resistant pedagogies: The comparative roles of collaborative learning and feminist pedagogy in science education in Meeting the Challenge- Innovative Feminist Pedagogies in Action., Edited by Maralee Mayberry and Ellen Cronan Rose, Routeldge. 1999 pp. 1-22. [26] Rinehart, J.A. Feminist Wolves in Sheep’s Disguise: Learning Communities and Internships in Meeting the Challenge- Innovative Feminist Pedagogies in Action., Edited by Maralee Mayberry and Ellen Cronan Rose, Routledge. 1999. pp 63-98 [27] Mulac, A.; Erlandson, K. T.; Farrar, W. J.; Hallett, J. S.; Molloy, J. L.; Prescott, M. E., ‘Uh-huh. What’s that all about?’ Differing interpretations of conversational backchannels and questions as sources of miscommunication across gender boundaries. Communication Research, Dec 98, Vol. 25, Issue 6, 1998, p. 641 – 667. [28] Madden, M.E., “2004 Division 35 Presidential Address: Gender and Leadership in Higher Education,” Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 2005, pp. 3-14. [29] Bellamy, L. D. L. Evans, D. E. Linder, B. W. McNeill, and G. Raupp (1994) Teaming Information and Classroom Materials, Online: http://www.eas.asu.edu/~asufc/teaminginfo/teams.html, viewed March 20, 2005. [30] American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE Code of Ethics, http://www.asce.org/membership/ethics.cfm, viewed March 18, 2005. [31] Department of Philosophy and Department of Mechanical Engineering, A Plow For Mexican Peasant Farmers Texas A&M University NSF Grant Number DIR-9012252 http://ethics.tamu.edu/ethics/plow/plow.htm Viewed March 20, 2005 [32] Catherine Gillbert Is There A Difference Between Good Teaching And Feminist Pedagogy? Reprinted with permission from the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Newsletter (25:Jan1999.P3) URL http://www.uregina.ca/tdc/FeministPedagogy.htm (Viewed March 12, 2005).
[15] Women In Education “Practicing Feminist Pedagogy in Various Classrooms”, University of Texas URL: http://www.edb.utexas.edu/wie/fpclassroom.htm (Viewed: March 12, 2005)
0-7803-9077-6/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE October 19 – 22, 2005, Indianapolis, IN 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference F4H-13
