MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410262769 · doi:10.1007/s10984-025-09536-1

A qualitative assessment of barriers within the university learning environment and their influence on students’ participation in engineering education

2025· article· en· W4410262769 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLearning Environments Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Environments and Student Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsSociology of EducationEducational technologyQualitative researchEngineering educationHigher educationPsychologyPedagogyMedical educationMathematics educationEngineering ethicsSociologyEngineeringPolitical scienceEngineering managementMedicineSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The field of engineering is essential for socio-economic development; however, it is characterised by low female representation. The objective of this study was to explore the challenges within the university learning environment that could affect the participation of women and men in engineering and propose recommendations. Six focus group discussions (FGDs) were held with undergraduate students from a Ghanaian university (i.e. one FGD each for male and female students in the second, third, and fourth years of study). The discussions, among others, elicited the challenges that students face during their studies, their coping strategies as well as some pointers for enhancing students’ experiences in the engineering learning environment. Data were analysed by employing content analysis with the aid of Atlas.ti software and then categorised into themes inspired by the three dimensions of learning environment. Barriers related to the physical learning environment were overcrowded lecture rooms and inadequate laboratory space and equipment. Barriers related to pedagogical learning environment were inadequate practical sessions, outmoded curriculum and poor teaching methods, and limited orientation for students. Barriers associated with the psychosocial learning environment included inadequate involvement of females in practical work, backlash and apathetic attitude when women become group leaders, silencing and intimidating female students in class, and limited female role models. These barriers combined with gender stereotypes exhibited by male students, laboratory technicians and lecturers intimidate female students, reduce their confidence levels and limit their exploratory abilities. We recommend sensitising and training lecturers and students to mainstream gender considerations in learning environments to make engineering gender-neutral. It is also critical for engineering faculties to develop and implement practical-oriented and gender-responsive curricula and pedagogies, standardise teaching methods, and explore e-learning options to compensate for the increasing number of students in enrolment. Universities must also devise intentional strategies for recruiting and retaining more female engineering lecturers and enhancing the quantity and quality of teaching and learning infrastructure.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.424 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it