¹Kudzai Mugadza, ²Constantino Pedzisai

¹Institute of Materials Science Processing Engineering and Technology, P Bag 7724, Chinhoyi, Zimbabwe.

²Institute of Lifelong Learning and Development Studies, Chinhoyi University of Technology, P Bag 7724, Chinhoyi, Zimbabwe.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.58806/ijsshmr.2024.v3i9n09

Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT

This study delved into the nuanced perceptions of women in science students regarding online instruction at the tertiary level. The study adopted a qualitative paradigm where interviews and questionnaires were used to collect data from Chinhoyi University of Technology undergraduate women in science students. Data was collected from first year students to third year students aged between 19 and 26 years. Discussion of the findings is premised on the feminist approach to enable downscaling and understanding of the perceptions of women in science education on online learning experiences more holistically. Regardless of the benefits and advantages online learning has as opposed to traditional/physical learning, vulnerability, and resistance of women in science students at Chinhoyi University of Technology in the Institute of Materials Science Processing and Engineering Technology is worsened. The study found out that the great difference in how the women in science students perceive their experiences is hinged upon the student’s background, the age gap, academic level, geographical location and even technology proficiency. A gap in knowledge persists in the exploration of the nuanced challenges faced by women in science when transitioning from traditional classroom instruction to online learning at the tertiary level was identified in the study resulting from the socio-economic challenges that the students are experiencing. Insights from this study contribute to a deeper understanding of how women in science navigate online education, offering valuable considerations for educators, policymakers, and institutions striving to create inclusive and effective learning environments.

KEYWORDS:

Women in Science, Online Learning, Classroom Instruction, Tertiary Institution, Gender Bias, Stereotyping.

REFERENCES

1) Amponsah, D.K. and Mohammed, M.S., 2019. Perception of learning science: the case of females offering STEM majors in Ghana. African Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics and Sciences, 15(2), pp.141-154.

2) Angell, C., Guttersrud, Ø., Henriksen, E. K., and Isnes, A. (2004). Physics: Frightful, but fun. Pupils' and teachers' views of physics and physics teaching. Science education, 88(5), 683-706.

3) Angell, C., Guttersrud, Henriksen, E.K. and Isnes, A., 2004. Physics: Frightful, but fun. Pupils' and teachers' views of physics and physics teaching. Science education, 88(5), pp.683-706.

4) Ascough, R.S., 2002. Designing for online distance education: Putting pedagogy before technology. Teaching theology and religion, 5(1), pp.17-29.

5) Bharuthram, S. and Kies, C., 2013. Introducing e‐learning in a South African Higher Education Institution: Challenges arising from an intervention and possible responses. British journal of educational technology, 44(3), pp.410-420.

6) Bianco, M.B. and Carr-Chellman, A.A., 2007. Exploring qualitative methodologies in online learning environments. Online learning communities, pp.299-317.

7) Brasca, C., Krishnan, C., Marya, V., Owen, K., Sirois, J., and Ziade, S., 2022. How technology is shaping learning in Higher education. Stanford School of Education.

8) Brotman, J.S. and Moore, F.M., 2008. Girls and science: A review of four themes in the science education literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), pp.971-1002.

9) Cakiroglu, O. and Melekoglu, M.A., 2014. Statistical trends and developments within inclusive education in Turkey. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(8), pp.798-808.

10) Campbell, P.B. and Storo, J.N., 1996. Teacher Strategies That Work for Girls and Boys. Math and Science for the Coed Classroom.Collins, R., 2014. Skills for the 21st Century: teaching higher-order thinking. Curriculum and Leadership Journal, 12(14), pp.1-8.

11) Collins, R., 2014. Skills for the 21st Century: teaching higher-order thinking. Curriculum and Leadership Journal, 12(14), pp.1-8.

12) Gudyanga, A., 2016. Zimbabwean Female Participation in Physics: Factors of Identity Formation Considered as Contributing to Developing an Orientation to Physics by Female Students. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(26), pp.159-171..

13) Hajdukowski-Ahmed, M., 2008. A dialogical approach to identity: Implications for refugee women. na.

14) Harasim, L.M., 1989. Online education: A new domain. Educational Evaluation Centre, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

15) Harding, S., 1986. The instability of the analytical categories of feminist theory. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 11(4), pp.645-664.

16) Hill, C., Corbett, C. and St Rose, A., 2010. Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. American Association of University Women. 1111 Sixteenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20036.

17) Holland, D., and Lave, J. (2009). Social practice theory and the historical production of persons. An International Journal of Human Activity Theory, 2 , 1–15.

18) Holland, D. and Lave, J. 2009. Social practice theory and the historical production of persons. An International Journal of Human Activity Theory, 2, 1–15.

19) Kearsley, G., 2000. Online education: Learning and teaching in cyberspace. (No Title).

20) Kimani, G.N., Kara, A.M. and Njagi, L.W., 2013. Teacher factors influencing students’ academic achievement in secondary schools in Nyandarua County, Kenya.

21) Lewis, L., 1999. Distance education at postsecondary education institutions, 1997-98. DIANE Publishing.

22) .Lynch, S.J., 2000. Equity and science education reform. Routledge.

23) Lyons, T., 2006. Different countries, same science classes: Students’ experiences of school science in their own words. International journal of science education, 28(6), pp.591-613.

24) Mozes-Carmel, A. and Gold, S.S., 2009. A Comparison of Online vs. Proctored Final Exams in Online Classes. Journal of Educational Technology, 6(1), pp.76-81.

25) National Gender Policy., 2013. National gender policy of Zimbabwe (2013–2017). Harare: Government Printers. Office of Sustainable Development., 2000. November). Connected education. Retrieved December 4, 2023, from Washington State University, Knowledge Exchange and Learning Partnership Networks Web site: http://cbdd.wsu.edu/networks/KelpWebSite/connected/ce-definition.html

26) Owen, S., Dickson, D., Stanisstreet, M., and Boyes, E., 2008. Teaching physics: Students’ attitudes towards different learning activities. Research in Science and Technological Education, 26(2), 113-128.

27) Owusu-Fordjour, C., Koomson, C. K., and Hanson, D. 2020. The impact of Covid-19 on learning-the perspective of the Ghanaian student. European journal of education studies. http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v0i0.3000

28) Paul, J. and Jefferson, F., 2019. A comparative analysis of student performance in an online vs. face-to-face environmental science course from 2009 to 2016. Frontiers in Computer Science, 1, p.472525.

29) Paulsen, M.B. and John, E.P.S., 2002. Social class and college costs: Examining the financial nexus between college choice and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(2), pp.189-236.

30) Price, L. (2006). Gender differences and similarities in online courses: Challenging stereotypical views of women. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(5), 349-359.

31) Razami, H.H. and Ibrahim, R., 2021. Distance education during COVID-19 pandemic: The perceptions and preference of university students in Malaysia towards online learning. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 12(4).

32) Sachdev, A.R., 2018. Gender disparity in STEM across cultures. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 11(2), pp.309-313.

33) Smeding, A., 2012. Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): An investigation of their implicit gender stereotypes and stereotypes’ connectedness to math performance. Sex roles, 67, pp.617-629.

34) Smith, D.E., 1987. The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. University of Toronto Press.

35) Thang, S.M. and Bidmeshki, L., 2010. Investigating the perceptions of UKM undergraduates towards an English for science and technology online course. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(1), pp.1-20.

36) The ITU., 2021 Facts and Figures 2021: 2.9 billion people still offline, UN Agency for Digital Technologies, Accessed from https://www.itu.int/hub/2021/11/facts-and-figures-2021-2-9-billion-people-offline/ on 24/07/2024

37) UNICEF. 2019. Every child learns. UNICEF-education-strategy-2019-2030. United Nations Children’s Funds. https://www.unicef.org/media/59856/file/UNICEF-education-strategy-2019-2030

38) UNICEF., 2000. Educating girls, transforming the future? New York, NY: United Nations.

39) UNICEF., 2012. The state of the World’s children 2012: Children in an urban world. UNICEF-education-strategy-2019-2030. United Nations Children’s Funds. https://www.unicef.org/reports/state-worlds-children-2012.

40) Volery, T. and Lord, D., 2000. Critical success factors in online education. International journal of educational management, 14(5), pp.216-223.

41) West, M., Kraut, R. and Ei Chew, H., 2019. I'd blush if I could: closing gender divides in digital skills through education.

42) Xu, Y., 2015. Focusing on women in STEM: A longitudinal examination of gender-based earning gap of college graduates. The Journal of Higher Education, 86, 489-523. doi:10.1080/00221546.2015.11777373.

VOlUME 03 ISSUE 09 SEPTEMBER 2024