IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i9p5472-d807585.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Establishing Social Learning in an Engineering MOOC: Benefits for Diversity and Inclusion in Engineering Education

Author

Listed:
  • Jude S. Brereton

    (Department of Electronic Engineering, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK)

  • Kat Young

    (STEM Learning Ltd., York YO10 5DD, UK)

Abstract

Recent Higher Education Statistics Agency data shows that only 20% of engineering students at UK Universities are female, despite the hard work being undertaken by many educational institutions to address this gender imbalance via outreach events and special interventions focussing on girls/women in STEM. It has been argued that student-centred teaching methods, together with changes in the engineering curriculum itself, which emphasise the social, creative, and human-centred aspects of the discipline, are required to effect real change in engaging with those from traditionally underrepresented groups. Through analysing quantitative data on age, gender, learner type, and commenting rates in peer-to-peer discussions, we examine the development and delivery of an engineering MOOC, before, during, and after COVID-19-related lockdowns in the UK, to identify what aspects of online learning might be harnessed to improve diversity in engineering education. The results show that the MOOC attracted a better gender balance than reported for UK-based in-person engineering programmes. In addition, we show that careful structuring of discussion prompts encouraged higher levels of social learning. We recommend the continued use of interactive and discursive elements within a blended learning environment to positively impact diversity and inclusion in engineering education specifically, and STEM education in general.

Suggested Citation

  • Jude S. Brereton & Kat Young, 2022. "Establishing Social Learning in an Engineering MOOC: Benefits for Diversity and Inclusion in Engineering Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-24, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:9:p:5472-:d:807585
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/9/5472/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/9/5472/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Luke Holman & Devi Stuart-Fox & Cindy E Hauser, 2018. "The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-20, April.
    2. Suhang Jiang & Katerina Schenke & Jacquelynne Sue Eccles & Di Xu & Mark Warschauer, 2018. "Cross-national comparison of gender differences in the enrollment in and completion of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics Massive Open Online Courses," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Muharman Lubis & Muhammad Azani Hasibuan & Rachmadita Andreswari, 2022. "Satisfaction Measurement in the Blended Learning System of the University: The Literacy Mediated-Discourses (LM-D) Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-29, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sorana-Alexandra Constantinescu & Maria-Henriete Pozsar, 2022. "Was This Supposed to Be on the Test? Academic Leadership, Gender and the COVID-19 Pandemic in Denmark, Hungary, Romania, and United Kingdom," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-13, April.
    2. Mike Thelwall, 2018. "Do gendered citation advantages influence field participation? Four unusual fields in the USA 1996–2017," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 2133-2144, December.
    3. Pat O’Connor & Gemma Irvine, 2020. "Multi-Level State Interventions and Gender Equality in Higher Education Institutions: The Irish Case," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-21, December.
    4. Rashieda Davids & Pauline Scheelbeek & Nafiisa Sobratee & Rosemary Green & Barbara Häesler & Tafadzwanashe Mabhaudhi & Suparna Chatterjee & Nikhil Srinivasapura Venkateshmurthy & Georgina Mace & Alan , 2021. "Towards the Three Dimensions of Sustainability for International Research Team Collaboration: Learnings from the Sustainable and Healthy Food Systems Research Programme," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-24, November.
    5. Mike Thelwall & Tamara Nevill, 2019. "No evidence of citation bias as a determinant of STEM gender disparities in US biochemistry, genetics and molecular biology research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1793-1801, December.
    6. Lidia Puigvert & Marta Soler-Gallart & Ana Vidu, 2022. "From Bystanders to Upstanders: Supporters and Key Informants for Victims of Gender Violence," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-14, July.
    7. Hamid R. Jamali & Alireza Abbasi, 2023. "Gender gaps in Australian research publishing, citation and co-authorship," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 2879-2893, May.
    8. Aron Laxdal, 2023. "The sex gap in sports and exercise medicine research: who does research on females?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1987-1994, March.
    9. Anahita Hajibabaei & Andrea Schiffauerova & Ashkan Ebadi, 2023. "Women and key positions in scientific collaboration networks: analyzing central scientists’ profiles in the artificial intelligence ecosystem through a gender lens," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(2), pages 1219-1240, February.
    10. Anna Lupon & Pablo Rodríguez-Lozano & Mireia Bartrons & Alba Anadon-Rosell & Meritxell Batalla & Susana Bernal & Andrea G Bravo & Pol Capdevila & Miguel Cañedo-Argüelles & Núria Catalán & Ana Genua-Ol, 2021. "Towards women-inclusive ecology: Representation, behavior, and perception of women at an international conference," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(12), pages 1-18, December.
    11. Lenka Fiala & John Eric Humphries & Juanna Schrøter Joensen & Uditi Karna & John A. List & Gregory F. Veramendi, 2022. "How Early Adolescent Skills and Preferences Shape Economics Education Choices," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 112, pages 609-613, May.
    12. Mengyu Yu & Mazie Krehbiel & Samantha Thompson & Tatjana Miljkovic, 2020. "An exploration of gender gap using advanced data science tools: actuarial research community," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 767-789, May.
    13. Antonio De Nicola & Gregorio D’Agostino, 2021. "Assessment of gender divide in scientific communities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 3807-3840, May.
    14. Karine Bastos Leal & Luís Eduardo de Souza Robaina & André de Souza De Lima, 2022. "Coastal impacts of storm surges on a changing climate: a global bibliometric analysis," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 114(2), pages 1455-1476, November.
    15. Tove Faber Frandsen & Rasmus Højbjerg Jacobsen & Jakob Ousager, 2020. "Gender gaps in scientific performance: a longitudinal matching study of health sciences researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1511-1527, August.
    16. Paul Sebo & Sylvain de Lucia & Nathalie Vernaz, 2021. "Gender gap in medical research: a bibliometric study in Swiss university hospitals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 741-755, January.
    17. Vasarhelyi, Orsolya & Brooke, Siân, 2022. "Computing Gender," SocArXiv admcs, Center for Open Science.
    18. Luke Holman & Claire Morandin, 2019. "Researchers collaborate with same-gendered colleagues more often than expected across the life sciences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-19, April.
    19. Roberta Ruggieri & Fabrizio Pecoraro & Daniela Luzi, 2021. "An intersectional approach to analyse gender productivity and open access: a bibliometric analysis of the Italian National Research Council," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1647-1673, February.
    20. María Agostina Zulli & Francesco Giovanni Angeli & Alejandro Danon & Ana Carolina Ortega Masagué, 2021. "The leaky pipeline problem, COVID-19 & big data: The impact of the pandemic on the gender gap in research production," Asociación Argentina de Economía Política: Working Papers 4532, Asociación Argentina de Economía Política.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:9:p:5472-:d:807585. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.