¿Existe sesgo de género en la valoración de la actividad docente de títulos de Edificación?

  1. Vázquez Arenas, Gemma 1
  2. Conesa Pastor, Julián 2
  3. García Cascales, Mª Socorro 3
  4. García-León, Josefina 1
  5. García Martín, Antonio 4
  6. Solano Fernández, Juan Pedro 5
  1. 1 Departamento de Arquitectura y Tecnología de la Edificación, ETS de Arquitectura y Edificación (ETSAE). Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena (UPCT)
  2. 2 Departamento de Expresión Gráfica, ETS de Ingeniería Industrial (ETSII). Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena (UPCT)
  3. 3 Departamento de Electrónica, Tecnología de Computadoras y Proyectos, ETSII. Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena (UPCT)
  4. 4 Departamento de Ingeniería Minera, Geológica y Cartográfica, ETS de Ingeniería de Caminos, Canales y Puertos y de Ingeniería de Minas. Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena (UPCT)
  5. 5 Departamento de Ingeniería Térmica y de Fluidos, ETSII. Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena (UPCT)
Show affiliations +
Journal:
Advances in Building Education

ISSN: 2530-7940

Year of publication: 2018

Volume: 2

Issue: 3

Pages: 80-93

Type: Article

DOI: 10.20868/ABE.2018.3.3834 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: Advances in Building Education

Abstract

The enrolment of women in building and architecture studies does not reflect accurately their actual contribution to this professional field. In contrast to other engineering degrees [1], the contribution of female students to the overall registration is higher and somewhat similar to the presence of male students. However, the percentage of women that work in the field of building engineering and architecture is quite low [2] and the prospects of a trend change are scant [3]. On the other hand, the percentage of women teaching in architecture and building schools is clearly lower than that of female students. Student surveys are the most common method to assess the quality of teaching in higher education [4]. This is somehow controversial [5], as some countries and/or universities use these results to take actions on the career progress of their faculty. Among the opposing arguments against this methodology, the possible existence of bias -and in particular gender bias- might invalidate the quality assessment results [6]. The main objective of this work is to analyze the status of the female faculty at the School of Architecture (ETSAE) of Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena, and evaluate how the students evaluation of their teaching activities compare to those of the male faculty members. A methodology to analyze the results of the surveys during the academic year 2015-16 is presented, that aims to quantify the influence of gender in the quality performance indicators of the quality assessment. Undergraduate and graduate programs at ETSAE are evaluated, and the extension of this methodology to other degrees at UPCT is discussed.

Bibliographic References

  • Elizondo, A., Novo, A. y Silvestre, M. “Igualdad de mujeres y hombres en las universidades españolas”. Madrid: Instituto de la Mujer (Ministerio de Sanidad, Política Social e Igualdad), 2010. ISBN: 978-84-7799-946-1
  • Novas, M. “Arquitectura y género. Una reflexión teórica”. Castelló de la Plana: Instituto Universitario de Estudios Feministas y de Género, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales, Universitat Jaume I, 2014. Consultado el 9 de noviembre de 2017:http://www.dexeneroconstrucion.com/mnovas_arquitecturaygenero.pdf
  • Román, M., Rios, A. y Traverso, J. “Barreras de género en el desarrollo profesional de mujeres técnicas de la construcción”. Revista de la Construcción. Vol. 12, Nº 1, pp. 87-99, 2013.
  • Ibáñez, M. “La segregación ocupacional por sexo a examen: características personales, de los puestos y de las empresas asociadas a las ocupaciones masculinas y femeninas”. Revista española de investigaciones sociológicas, Nº 123, pp. 87-122, 2008. ISSN: 0210-5233
  • Consejo Económico y Social España. “Informe 02/2016. El papel del sector de la construcción en el crecimiento económico, competitividad, cohesión y calidad de vida”. Madrid: Consejo Económico y Social España, Departamento de publicaciones, 2016. ISBN: 978-84-8188-358-9
  • Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte MECD. “Datos y cifras del sistema universitario español. Curso 2015-2016”. Madrid, España: Secretaría General Técnica, Subdirección General de Documentación y Publicaciones, 2016.
  • Davidovitch, N. & Soen, D. “Myths and facts about student surveys of teaching the links between students’ evaluations of faculty and course grades”. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, Vol. 6 (7), pp. 41-50, 2009. DOI: 10.19030/tlc.v6i7.1124
  • Hammonds, F., Mariano, G.J., Ammons, G. & Chambers, S. “Student evaluations of teaching: improving teaching quality in higher education”. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, Vol. 21 (1), 2017. DOI: 10.1080/13603108.2016.1227388
  • Benton, S.L. & Cashin, W.E. “Student ratings of teaching: A summary of research and literature”. IDEA Paper. Nº 50, 2012. Consultado el 30 de octubre de 2017: https://www.ideaedu.org/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/IDEA%20Papers/IDEA%20Papers/PaperIDEA_50.pdf
  • Franklin, M. “Student evaluations of teaching in business and accounting courses: A perspective and a suggested improvement”. Cogent Business &Management, Nº 3, 2016. DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2016.1226458
  • Ramsden, P. “A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: the experience questionnaire”. Studies in Higher Education, Nº 16, pp. 129-150, 1991.
  • Marsh, H. & Roche, L. “Effects of grading leniency and low workload on students' evaluations of teaching: popular myth, bias, validity, or innocent bystanders?” Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 92, No. 1, pp. 202-228, 2000.
  • Centra, J.A. “Will teachers receive higher student evaluations by giving higher grades and less course work?” Research in Higher Education, Vol. 44, Nº. 5, October 2003, pp. 495-518, 2003. DOI: 10.1023/A:1025492407752
  • Boring, A. “Gender biases in student evaluations of teaching”. Journal of Public Economics. Vol. 145, pp. 27-41, 2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.11.006
  • Merritt, D.J. “Bias, the brain, and student evaluations of teaching”. St. John's Law Review, Vol. 82, pp. 235-287, 2008.
  • Galbraith, C.S., Merrill, G.B. & Kline, D.M. “Are student evaluations of teaching effectiveness valid for measuring student learning outcomes in business related classes? A neural network and bayesian analyses”. Research in Higher Education, Nº 53, pp. 353-374, 2012. DOI: 10.1007/s11162-011-9229-0
  • Casero, A. “Factores moduladores de la percepción de la calidad docente”. RELIEVE, Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Evaluación Educativa. Vol. 16 (2), pp. 1-17, 2010. Consultado el 10 de noviembre de 2017: http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v16n2/RELIEVEv16n2_3.htm
  • Álvarez, V., García, E. y Gil, J. “La calidad de la enseñanza universitaria desde la perspectiva de los profesores mejor valorados por los alumnos”. Revista de Educación, Nº 319, pp. 273-290, 1999.
  • Mas. O. “Las competencias del docente universitario: la percepción del alumno, de los expertos y del propio protagonista”. REDU Revista de docencia Universitaria, Vol. 10 (2), pp. 299-318, 2012. ISSN: 1887-4592.
  • Salinas, P. & Bagni, C. “Gender Equality from a European Perspective: Myth and Reality”. Neuron, Nº 96 (4), pp. 721-729, 2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2017.10.002
  • Fernández García, A.M., Franchini, C., Garda, E. & Seražin, H. (eds.), “MoMoWo 100 works in 100 years. European women in architecture and design 1918-2018”. Ljubliana/Turin, France Stele Institute of Art History ZRC SAZU, 2016.
Data source: Dialnet