CHAPTER 5: PRESENTING THE FINDINGS: LEARNING EXPERIENCES OF
5.4 Section 2: Thematic organisation of the findings of critical individual
5.4.4 Differential treatment by academic teaching staff
5.4.4.1 Supportive academic teaching staff - Emma and Nisha
Academic teaching staff are influential figures who have a main part in presenting students to the engineering profession and can influence students’ experiences (Blosser, 2017, p. 24). Academic teaching staff often had a significant factor in informing students about engineering and its value in the society. Faculty care or lack thereof may be related to students’ motivational attitudes, which drove them to learn (Siegel et al., 2016, p. 2). Male students may be much more likely to perceive care from their male instructors in a non-academic context than female students (Siegelet al., 2016, p. 4). Some male academic teaching staff were seen by the female students as believing that engineering was more appropriate for men than women, and they held a gender stereotype, generally in presenting engineers as men, but also in often offering additional support to female students that sometimes negatively impacted on their learning experiences (Yaşar et al., 2006, p. 212). The findings also show the creation of gendered cultures within the engineering field and how male academic teaching staff played a role in such gendered cultures. Male academic teaching staff were not only involved in the teaching process, but also, they interacted with students in ways that shaped the academic setting.
One of the techniques in which academic teaching staff intervened in the female students’ studies was through affirmative support. Emma reported different forms of attention from the academic teaching staff – she experienced such attention when female students were being asked easy questions and she was being praised for her answer, which made her feel that she was rewarded publicly for her effort to answer and she was being compared favourably to her male peers. These forms of attention, which she notes as having benefitted from, built her confidence as she felt supported and experienced success:
“The lecturers give additional support in class if asked for from both girls and boys for example, they usually come to me first, then go to the boys when a topic is not clear. They even take more notice of me than the boys when I need help.”
“In class the lecturer does not ask us too difficult questions. I find it enjoyable to see the boys not able to give correct answers. Sometimes I know the answers to the questions asked to the boys and I raise my hand to answer. When I gave the correct answer then the lecturer said to the boys, “you must learn from her”. I feel happy then. But the boys do not appreciate because they would reply back by saying “Sir, we will learn from you and books not from her”.
Nurhadi, Salamah, Destari and Suseno (2018) argued that teachers in STEM provided additional support to the female students’ personal resilience in grasping STEM subjects. Preferential treatment by academic teaching staff created some jealousy and division between male and female students. This also led to the impression that grades earned by female students were not based on their ability but on some form of favouritism. The good grades earned by female students were often associated with such preference instead of hard work and intelligence, as mentioned by Emma:
“By treating us like that, the lecturer does not realise that such situation creates division amongst boys and girls because afterwards in every conversation, the boys would say that “Girls can replace books now”.”
Emma further added:
“I do not appreciate when sometimes the boys say that girls are not earning their grades, lecturers favour girls, because I work very hard to earn good grades, sometimes better than the boys. It is all hard work.”
When female students outperformed male students, male students believed that the achievement of the female students was the result of favouritism (Stetsenko, Little, Gordeeva, Grasshof & Oettingen, 2000, p. 517). When the achievement gap is more in favour of female students, the higher achievement gap is translated as a gendered preference in grades in favour of female students by the academic teaching staff (Terrier, 2020, p. 8). Male students found that “discrimination” was in favour of female students (Terrier, 2020, p. 16). Literature has shown that men have difficulties to accept the fact that women can be better than men in STEM. Women’s intelligence and hard work often lead to good grades and such a performance by women challenges masculinity in STEM.
Participants reported that they appreciated the caring attitude of female academic teaching staff, from whom they received genuine support, unlike the affirmative support from male academic teaching staff that undermined the female students and
is premised on the assumption that female students are not as intelligent as the male students. For example, Emma mentioned that she obtained additional support from one of her female academic teaching staff, as shown below:
“She is still very caring and polite. Most of the students got an A in that module in the final year exam last year. Moreover, she never refuses to meet anyone of us in her office for additional support for an assignment or any other matter.”
Emma reported that academic teaching staff were very helpful to students when additional support was being sought. However, she also mentioned that special attention was sometimes given to her when some academic teaching staff gave her more notice than the male students, by coming to her first when she had a query.
Even though Emma felt supported, she felt that she was good enough and that she did not need such special favours. There were some male academic teaching staff amongst those who would prefer to provide additional support to female students before helping the male students, according to Emma. Academic teaching staff positioned female students in subordination to the male students and therefore they encouraged female students because according to them, women cannot beat men.
However, whether the intended effect and the actual effect were the same was another matter.
Nisha’s learning experience conveyed that she experienced favouritism from male academic teaching staff, which she did not appreciate because she was a hard- working student. According to Nisha, equal treatment should be given to both male students and female students:
“One lecturer once told a boy after the latter had asked him why do lecturers not shout at girls, then the latter replied "Oh, she is a girl, we can't shout at girls, or swear at her, or hit her on the head. This is not polite… The boys did not like when girls got special treatment because they said, ‘so what if they are girls?’”
Nisha was of the view that being studious and diligent were important qualities that every student should possess, and every academic teaching staff preferred students who were serious in their studies:
“I always meet the deadlines for all my assignments and homework compared to some of the boys, so the lecturers are nicer to me. I do not want special treatment from the lecturers and this was never the case at secondary school also. I think that lecturers like students who are like I am, when they are respectful and hardworking, and engaged in a way where they are participating in class
discussions and giving others the opportunity to participate in class discussions as well.”
“Whenever I have a difficulty in a classwork, the lecturers would come along and do it for me. If it was one of the boys they would show them and say "now you do it". If he would have shown me how to do it, I would have done it on my own.”
Moreover, Nisha also reported that:
“Not all lecturers do that. Some would just explain the concept again so that we can solve the problem on our own. But others, would just give the solution. I don’t know if they do that because they are too busy and don’t have time to explain again. But with the boys, some lecturers encourage them to solve the problem on their own.”
According to Lakoff (1973), men are taught to speak more politely with women than with other men. The way the male academic staff responded is consistent with the gender socialisation that these male academics received when growing up. Male academic teaching staff provided special attention to female students by giving them individual explanations and would show them how to find answers to a question, whereas the male students did not get the same attention. Male academic teaching staff appeared to assume that female students had a different code of behaviour applicable to them. The experiences described by participants revealed that male academic teaching staff calibrated their teaching approach and how they negotiated interpersonal relationships depending on gender. While they were reported as being less vigilant in the language they used with male students, a degree of restraint was applied and justified too when called upon to explain the differential treatment. In terms of making the concepts accessible, there appeared to be an underpinning understanding that instructions must be repeated for female students.
Male academic teaching staff were found to give additional support or favouritism to the female students in class and on fieldwork as demonstrated by Emma and Nisha.
Academic teaching staff were frequently the first contact between new students and the field of engineering, and the way they were ‘helpful’ to the participants shows how their learning experiences were strongly influenced by prevailing gender regimes at the university. Emma’s and Nisha’s discourses showed that some male academic teaching staff adopted gender regimes related to power and authority and
this could be observed in practices such as the curriculum and instructions given to students.