第六十四輯．第二期 - 2018-06-30

促進性別容納或再製男性主導?從女 性觀點解析專案導向式學習在工程教育中的應用

Promoting Gender-inclusion or Reproducing Male-dominance? From Female Perspectives on Project-based Learning in Engineering Study

作　者：
洪瑞璇、曾正宜 / Jui-Hsuan Hung, Jeng-Yi Tzeng
關鍵字：
女性工程學習、性別容納式科學教育、專案導向式學習模式 / female students in engineering study, gender-inclusive science education, project-based learning
  • 摘要
  • 英文摘要
  • 參考文獻
  • 全文下載
許多工程教育研究認為專案導向式學習(project-based learning, PBL)可促 進性別容納、改善性別區隔困境，但多為學理論述，缺少實徵資料佐證。本研 究藉由解析女性在專案歷程中的觀點與學習經驗，探討PBL是否呼應性別容納精 神，或實則再製男性主導文化。在一門大學工學院PBL課程中，透過小組專案歷 程影片與文件報告資料的分析，以及與六名女學生的深入訪談，從女性視角來描 繪PBL學習經驗。研究發現，女性學習者對PBL課程設計理念抱持正向態度，但 充滿性別刻板期望的社會文化結構仍透過小組性別互動權力關係，鞏固並再製工 程教育男性主導文化，而阻礙性別容納。本研究最後並提出有關工程教育PBL課 程及後續研究之相關建議。
Many engineering educators claimed that project-based learning (PBL) provides gender inclusive learning environment for learners, from which women can benefit especially in studying traditionally male-dominant subjects such as engineering. Unfortunately, most of these claims were not supported by empirical evidences. We examined such claims by delving into women’s perspectives on a team-based PBL course offered for first-year undergraduate students by School of Engineering in a university in northwestern Taiwan. We thoroughly examined videos and reports from team activities, and conducted in-depth individual interviews with 6 female students. We found that female participants were positive about the PBL in general, but still felt the pressure of male-dominance in group interactions, which replicated gender bias from the social and cultural stereotypes. Suggestions were made for future design and implementation of PBL in engineering courses.

林麗珊(2014)。女性主義與性別關係。臺北市:五南。

[Lin, L.-S. (2014). Feminism and gender relationship. Taipei, Taiwan: Wu-Nan Book.] 

洪瑞璇(2008)。國中教師專業認同之研究:遊走在「結構—能動」之間(未出版之博士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

[Hung, J.-H. (2008). Between “structure-agency”: A study of the junior high school teachers’ professional identities. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.] 

教育部(2016)。性別統計指標彙總性資料—學生。取自http://depart.moe.edu.tw/ED4500/ cp.aspx?n=DCD2BE18CFAF30D0 

[Ministry of Education. (2016). Gender statistics summary data-students. Retrieved from http:// depart.moe.edu.tw/ED4500/cp.aspx?n=DCD2BE18CFAF30D0] 

蔡麗玲(2004)。朝向性別容納式的科學教育。性別平等教育季刊，29，13-26。 

[Tsai, L.-L. (2004). Toward gender inclusive science education. Journal of Gender Equity Education, 29, 13-26.]

謝小芩、林大森、陳佩英(2011)。性別科系跨界?大學生的性別與科系選擇。台灣社 會學刊，48，95-149。 

[Hsieh, H.-C., Lin, D.-S., & Chen, P.-Y. (2011). Crossing gender boundaries: Gender and college majors in Taiwan. The Taiwanese Journal of Sociology, 48, 95-149.] 

韓采燕(2008，10月)。作科學且作性別:科學訓練與實作中的陽剛氣質。第三屆「性 別研究碩博士生論文」研討會論文，弘光科技大學，臺中市。 

[Han, T.-Y. (2008, October). Doing science and doing gender: Masculinities in scienti c training and practice. Paper presented at the Conference on Master and Doctoral Dissertations in Gender Research Conference, Taichung, Taiwan.] 

顏弘志(2004)。從建構主義看探究教學。科學教育研究與發展季刊，36，1-14。

[Yen, H.-C. (2004). View inquiry teaching from constructivism perspective. Research and Development in Science Education Quarterly, 36, 1-14.]

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H. L. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397-419.

Angier, N. (1995). The nation: Why science loses women in the ranks. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/14/weekinreview/the-nation-why-science-loses-women-in-the-ranks.html

Armstrong, J., & Leder, G. (1995, July). Engineering education: How to design a gender-inclusive curriculum. Paper presented at the International Congress of Engineering Deans and Industry Leaders, Melbourne, Australia.

Barton, A. C. (1998). Feminist science education. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberg, N., & Tarule, J. (1986). Women’s ways of knowledge. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Brown, S. M. (2006). Communication practices of women in undergraduate engineering classes. Retrieved from https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/896/

Brown, S. M., & Burnett, R. E. (2006, July). Women hardly talk. Really! Communication practices of women in undergraduate engineering classes. Paper presented at the International Conference on Engineering Education, Muscat, Oman.

Coughlin, L., Wingard, E., & Hollihan, K. (2005). Enlightened power: How women are transforming the practice of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Cronin, C., Foster, M., & Lister, E. (1999). SET for the Future: working towards inclusive science, engineering and technology curricula in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 24(2), 165-182. 

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Du, X. Y. (2006). Gendered practices of constructing an engineering identity in a problem-based learning environment. European Journal of Engineering Education, 31(1), 35-42.

Du, X. Y., & Kolmos, A. (2006, June). Gender inclusiveness in engineering education: Is problem-based learning environment a recipe? Paper presented at the ASEE Midwest Section of the American Society for Engineering Education, Kansas, Missouri.

Du, X. Y., & Kolmos, A. (2009). Increasing the diversity of engineering education: A gender analysis in a PBL context. European Journal of engineering Education, 34(5), 425-437. 

Fletcher, J. K., Jordan, J. V., & Miller, J. B. (2000). Women and the workplace: Applications of a psychodynamic theory. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 60(3), 243-261.

Froyd, J. E., Wankat, P. C., & Smith, K. A. (2012). Five major shifts in 100 years of engineering education. Proceedings of IEEE, 100, 1344-1360.

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491-512.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative Research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 

Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Hutchison, M. A., Follman, D. K., Sumpter, M., & Bodner, G. M. (20060. Factors influencing the self-efficacy beliefs of first-year engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(1), 39-47.

Ingram, S., & Parker, A. (2002). Gender and collaboration: Communication styles in the engineering classroom. Halifax, NS: Fernwood.

page39image3798352

05-2_洪瑞璇+曾正宜_p043-084.indd 81 2018/6/29 上午 11:43:30 

page39image3793360 page39image19661472 page39image2968368 page39image3794192 page39image2955376 page39image17686848 page39image5768832 page39image19667968 page39image17693904 page39image3712032 page39image17690656 page39image19662368 page39image3775680 page39image17694128 page39image17694352 page39image17677104 page39image17692448 page39image19662592 page39image19663264 page39image19661808 page39image3788992 page39image3788784 page39image3788576 page39image3788368 page39image3788160 page39image3787952 page39image3787744 page39image3787536 page39image3787328 page39image3787120 page39image3786912

82 教育研究集刊 第64輯第2期 

Jacobs, J. A. (1996). Gender inequality and higher education. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 153-185. 

Kassab, S., Abu-Hijleh, M., Al-Shboul, Q., & Hamdy, H. (2005). Gender-related differences in learning in student-led PBL tutorials. Education for health (Abingdon, England), 18(2), 272-282. 

Keller, E. F. (1982). Feminism and science. Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 7(3), 589- 602. 

Kessler, S., Ashenden, D. J., Connell, R. W., & Dowsett, G. W. (1985). Gender relations in secondary schooling. Sociology of Education, 58(1), 34-48. 

Krajcik, J. S., & Shin, N. (2014). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 275-297). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 

Krajcik, J. S., Czerniak, C. M., & Berger, C. (1999). Teaching children science: A project-based approach. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. 

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

Lay, M. M. (1989). Interpersonal conflict in collaborative writing: What we can learn from gender studies. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 3(2), 5-28. 

Longino, H. (1989). Can there be a feminist science? In N. Tuana (Ed.), Science and feminism (pp. 45-57). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. 

McIlwee, J. S., & Robinson, J. G. (1992). Women in engineering: Gender, power, and workplace culture. New York, NY: SUNY Press. 

Mills, J., & Ayre, M. (2003). Implementing an inclusive curriculum for women in engineering education. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 129(4), 203-210. 

Mills, J., Ayre, M., & Gill, J. (2010). Gender inclusive engineering education. New York, NY: Routledge. 

National Academy of Engineering. (2004). The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new century. Washington, DC: Author. 

Nobel, K. D. (1987). The dilemma of gifted women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 367-378. 

Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Schreuders, P. D, Mannon, S. E., & Rutherford, B. (2009). Pipeline or personal preference: Women in engineering. European Journal of Engineering Education, 34(1), 97-112.

Scutt, M., Gilmartin, S. K., Sheppard, S., & Brunhaver, S. (2013). Research-informed practices for inclusive science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) classrooms: Strategies for educators to close the gender gap. Am Soc Engineering Educ. Retrieved from http://web.stanford.edu/group/design_education/wikiupload/4/46/ASEE_2013_Scutt.pdf 

Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Shull, P. J., & Weiner, M. (2002). Thinking inside the box: Self-efficacy of women in engineering. International Journal of Engineering Education, 18(4), 438-446.

Thomas, J. W., Mergendoller, J. R., & Michaelson, A. (1999). Project-based learning: A handbook for middle and high school teachers. Novato, CA: The Buck Institute for Education.

Thorn, B. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125-151. 

 

 

全文下載