Evolving gender Dynamics in Teamwork Experiences Among Female Engineering Students in PBL Settings

Research Paper Recommended citation: Cruz Moreno, S. I., & Chance, S. (2025). Evolving gender Dynamics in Teamwork Experiences Among Female Engineering Students in PBL Settings. In Kangaslampi, R., Langie, G., Järvinen, H.-M., & Nagy, B. (Eds.), SEFI 53rd Annual Conference. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), Tampere, Finland. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17632070. This Conference Paper is brought to you for open access by the 53rd Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) at Tampere University in Tampere, Finland. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. EVOLVING GENDER DYNAMICS IN TEAMWORK EXPERIENCES AMONG FEMALE ENGINEERING STUDENTS IN PBL SETTINGS S.I. Cruz Moreno!a,1,!S. Chance!b! ! a!Technological University Dublin, Dublin, Ireland, ORCID 0000-0002-2573-1323! b!Technological University Dublin, Dublin, Ireland, ORCID 0000-0001-5598-7488! Conference Key Areas: Diversity, equity and inclusion in our universities and in our teaching; Improving higher engineering education through researching engineering education Keywords: Problem-Based Learning, social phenomenology, gender inclusivity, intersectionality, longitudinal analysis. ABSTRACT This paper explores how power dynamics shape the lived experiences of undergraduate female engineering students engaged in teamwork within projectand problem-based learning (PBL) environments. This study employs a longitudinal social phenomenological approach to examine how diverse female engineering students navigate challenges and evolve strategies in PBL teamwork throughout their academic journey. The study draws on a longitudinal, qualitative dataset of 41 interviews with 22 female engineering students from seven countries and diverse backgrounds at Technological University Dublin in Ireland. Data were analyzed deductively and inductively to identify emerging themes related to participants’ teamwork experiences and informal support. The findings have been generated and presented using four analytical lenses that the first author defined using the Gender at Work analytical framework (Rao et al., 2016) and an intersectionality approach (Collins & Bilge, 2020): (1) uneven educational access to engineering programs; (2) support gaps and disciplinary practices; (3) gendered and cultural expectations in team dynamics; and (4) redefinition of the identity as woman student in engineering. The study reveals that although students’ confidence and participation increased over time, gendered biases and cultural norms continued to influence their roles and credibility in teams. The paper concludes by calling for structural interventions that address more than individual resilience: we argue for inclusive educational practices that recognize and challenge systemic inequities, particularly in collaborative learning contexts. Insights presented in this paper contribute to current debates on gender, equity, and inclusive pedagogy in engineering education. 1 Corresponding Author S. Cruz [email protected] 1 INTRODUCTION Existing research highlights that projectand problem-based learning (PBL) can inadvertently reinforce exclusionary practices and power dynamics, particularly affecting students from underrepresented backgrounds (Henderson, 2023; Isaac et al., 2023; Mercier et al., 2023). These dynamics shape access to participation, recognition, and leadership roles in collaborative teams. For women in engineering, this is further complicated by persistent cultural assumptions, stereotypical role assignments, and unequal exposure to technical skills (Keough et al., 2021). Understanding how these experiences evolve over time is essential to designing more inclusive and equitable educational practices. This paper addresses this gap by exploring how female engineering students navigate teamwork in PBL settings, drawing on social phenomenology and intersectional approaches to highlight the interplay between individual experiences and institutional power structures. This research asks: (1) How do power relations shape the teamwork experiences of diverse female students in PBL? (2) How do diverse female engineering students experience teamwork in PBL environments, and how do these experiences evolve across their academic journeys? 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 PBL and power dynamics in engineering education Projectand problem-based learning (PBL) approaches are widely recognized for fostering active engagement, collaboration, and real-world problem-solving in engineering education (Du et al., 2020; Du & Kolmos, 2009; Kolmos & de Graaff, 2014; Mercier et al., 2023). However, despite these pedagogical benefits, other research has highlighted that PBL environments can reproduce existing social hierarchies and marginalize students from underrepresented groups (Aeby et al., 2019; Isaac et al., 2023; Svihla et al., 2023). For instance, Mercier et al. (2023) note that underrepresented students often experience forms of exclusion in team-based learning, which can limit equitable access to participation and learning opportunities. Gendered team dynamics are a particularly salient concern. Henderson (2023) documented patterns of exclusion, frequent interruptions, and gender-based valuations of skills within engineering teams. These subtle yet persistent dynamics undermine women’s ability to participate fully and equitably in learning experiences. Aeby et al. (2019) similarly observed task distributions in STEM teams, where male students were more likely to take on roles involving coding and mathematics. In contrast, female students were more often relegated to report writing. Such patterns suggest that collaborative learning spaces are shaped by power dynamics that determine whose voices are prioritized and whose contributions are overlooked. Importantly, these dynamics are not always the result of overt domination but can stem from systemic and normalized forms of influence that sustain inequity, as Svihla et al. (2023) have argued. These challenges are particularly acute for female students and others from marginalized backgrounds, who often encounter barriers to participation, recognition, and leadership within team settings (Isaac et al., 2023; Keough et al., 2021). 2.2 Social phenomenology: understanding teamwork as a lived experience This research draws on Alfred Schutz’s social phenomenology approach. Schutz (1967a, 1967b, 1971) provided conceptual tools to define the social structure of everyday life. A central concept in his framework is intersubjectivity, which refers to the world experienced by individuals and groups as a shared reality that enables the construction of systems of meanings – such as beliefs, values, and norms (Schutz, 1967b). This concept is relevant for this study, as collaborative learning and teamwork are inherently intersubjective experiences. Another key notion is the “stock of knowledge at hand” (Schutz, 1967a, p. 13), which refers to the shared body of knowledge within a group that enables its members to make sense of and navigate their social world. In our study, this concept helps explain how students perceive and behave in collaborative learning settings based on previous experiences, cultural values, and team dynamics. The organization of the stock of knowledge is known as typification, which involves the recurrent patterns and constructs individuals use to interpret situations they encounter in everyday life (Schutz, 1971). This helps us observe how cultural and gendered expectations shape interactions in PBL settings. In sum, these postulates are relevant for understanding the processes of socialization, systems of meaning, and the formation of group membership among engineering students. However, phenomenology falls short in supporting the analysis of power relations in lived experiences because it focuses on the individual, rather than on the social systems that constrain it; adding sociological perspectives helps. 2.3 Gender at Work analytical framework and intersectionality In a previous theoretical exercise, we (Cruz Moreno & Chance, 2024a) explored the suitability of the Gender at Work analytical framework (Rao et al., 2016) and the intersectionality approach to domains of power (Collins & Bilge, 2020) to disclose the power dynamics in engineering education experiences of female students through a narrative literature review (Saunders-Smits, 2024) of 19 references. The Gender at Work Analytical Framework (Rao et al., 2016) examines power relations embedded within institutions and communities. It is structured around two intersecting dimensions: the individual-systemic spectrum and the informal-formal spectrum. Together, these dimensions create four interrelated quadrants: (1) rules and policies, (2) resources, (3) social norms and deep structure, and (4) consciousness and capabilities. By examining the interactions across these quadrants, the framework enables understanding of how structural power dynamics shape individual experiences of the phenomenon under study. Similarly, a conceptual tool offered by Collins and Bilge (2020) in the form of four distinctive yet interconnected domains of power focuses on: (a) structural practices, (b) cultural practices, (c) disciplinary practices, and (d) interpersonal practices. Within these categories, two interconnected factors can be identified as contributing to power dynamics: the individual identities and the institutional structures that either reinforce or challenge the inequities in students’ lived experiences. 3 METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research design The study reports on the lived experiences of undergraduate engineering students at Technological University Dublin (TU Dublin) in Ireland. The research adopts a social phenomenological approach to explore students’ lived experiences over time via two levels of analysis: (1) the lived experiences of individual women in collaborative learning environments within engineering courses, including the role of peer support and friendship in fostering student engagement and a sense of belonging in engineering, and (2) the gender biases students encountered in navigating power structures within a male-dominated field. 3.2 Participants and data collection The participants in this study were female students from seven countries who commenced their undergraduate engineering course at TU Dublin during the academic year 2014-2015. The longitudinal dataset comprised 41 interviews with 22 female engineering students. The variety of sociodemographic and ethnic backgrounds of the interviewees constituted a diverse sample, supporting intersectional analysis and yielding findings regarding women and underrepresented minorities. We use cluster codes to identify our participants, based on initial findings by the broader research team (Chance & Bowe, 2015) and (Chance & Williams, 2018), with the cluster “IR” constituting the nine participants born and schooled in Ireland, “FO” designating the five born outside Ireland who received some schooling in Ireland, and “ME” indicating the eight born and schooled in the Middle East, some of whom completed a foundation/bridge course or Leaving Cert in Ireland (Table 1). Table 1. Participants’ countries of birth and ID clusters Country number Country of birth Number of participants Cluster code 1 Ireland 9 IR 2 India 1 FO 3 Malaysia 1 4 Philippines 2 5 USA 1 6 Kuwait 3 ME 7 Oman 5 Total 22 The focus of the data collection was on participants’ everyday life experiences in collaborative learning environments within their engineering courses at TU Dublin, particularly on the challenges these female students faced when working in teams. The study was approved by the institution’s research ethics committee. 3.3 Data analysis Our analyses examined the evolution of female engineering students' lived experiences, focusing on the challenges encountered, the strategies employed, and the development of their critical awareness throughout their academic trajectories. This process was analyzed through the lens of their “stock of knowledge at hand” (Schutz, 1967a, p.13), and considered participants’ intersubjective experiences within teamwork as well as their engagement with, and resistance to, prevailing norms and beliefs regarding women in engineering. First, a chronological categorization of students' narratives was established, grouping participants’ accounts into three key stages: background experiences, experiences during engineering education, and students’ plans (Cruz Moreno et al., 2023). This phase-based structure enabled a temporal understanding of participants’ evolving perspectives. Next, inductive coding was performed on the dataset, resulting in the identification of 14 subthemes. For this paper, analyses focused exclusively on themes and subthemes related to students’ backgrounds and experiences in college, while data related to their plans for the future were excluded. 4 FINDINGS This section analyses power dynamics within collaborative learning settings in engineering education through the Gender at Work analytical framework (Rao et al., 2016) and an intersectionality lens (Collins & Bilge, 2020). It also explores how female students’ social experiences evolve as they navigate PBL environments. Before analyzing the participants' social experiences in collaborative learning settings during the engineering program, we first examined their reasons for choosing to study engineering. We examined their educational backgrounds, perceptions of engineering, and family role models to situate women's unequal access within broader social structures and contextualize challenges in PBL teams. 4.1 Lens 1: uneven educational access to engineering programs Educational backgrounds varied between Irish (IE) and non-Irish (FO and ME) students. Overall, half of the sample (n=11) attended all-girls schools at primary and/or secondary levels. This can be understood in the context of the historical promotion of single-sex schooling in Ireland and the Middle East. Participants who completed the Irish Leaving Certificate (a two-year program that provides some specialization towards a particular career option), which included students from all three clusters (IE, FO, and some ME participants). According to some of the students interviewed, the options of technical subjects offered in singlesex secondary schools in Ireland for the Leaving Certificate were perceived as reflecting stereotypes about traditionally female and male professions. As a result, some students educated in all-girls schools may neither have had any exposure to these subjects nor developed an understanding of what engineering involves. Participant IR01 expressed her experience as follows: “Because for a lot of the lads, I found, it was like, ‘Oh, what subjects did you do for the Leaving Cert?’ They're a lot like, ‘Oh, I did engineering.’ ‘I did technical graphics.’ Just loads of these much more kind of engineering subjects. Where I only did Physics, Biology, and Chemistry. I did all the science because they're the only kind of logical subjects I could take in my school, because it was an all-girls school […] All we were hearing was nurses, and beauticians, and business and stuff; you hear all that, during the girls’ school. You wouldn't be hearing engineering as much as you would in a lad's school.” Similarly, participant IR03 stated: “I went to a girls’ school, and nothing like engineering or construction was offered. It was home economics and girl's subjects, we used to say. So, I had no idea whatsoever [about engineering subjects]” These experiences reveal inequities in rules and policies that affect women’s access to foundational knowledge in engineering (Cruz Moreno & Chance, 2024b). They reinforce stereotypes about who is considered more capable, typically favoring the dominant group (Delaney & Devereux, 2021; Kelly et al., 2019; Kiernan et al., 2023). These findings reflect structural power, often invisible during teamwork, yet shaping social dynamics even before the teams are formed (Henderson, 2023; Svihla et al., 2023). Moreover, some students mentioned finding it difficult to socialize in a mixedsex college, likely due to the gendered and cultural norms they had internalised through their previous educational experiences. 4.2 Lens 2: support gaps and disciplinary practices Almost half of the women students in the sample (n=10) reported having a core family member – defined as a parent or sibling – who was involved in engineering when they began their undergraduate program. However, not a single student mentioned having a mother who had studied engineering, indicating the absence of engineering role models among female figures in the generation directly above them. Some students with family members in engineering reported early encouragement and support, while those without such ties faced barriers to accessing field-related information, higher education guidance, and academic support. The following testimonies illustrate the difference between having an engineering role model and being a first-generation student: • “My dad's an engineer; he's an aeronautical engineer […] So he influenced me when I was a kid.” (IR05) • “My dad has a degree in electrical and electronic engineering. So, I think, I always wanted to do something technology-based.” (IR06) • “My brother [is an engineer] and my sister's studying engineering. So, I found it interesting, and we all love math. It's good to study engineering if you love maths. I liked it when I saw my sister doing it.” (ME04) • It was a bit of a problem in my house because my mom, she didn't understand. She didn't go to college. So, she didn't know that it was better for me to go to [this university] rather than going to Trinity. (IR01) • I don't really have many people. I don't have anybody else in my family who’s an engineer and that I can go to. (FO09) Women students who lack engineering role models within their family often also lack informal networks to help them obtain engineering information and support, such as tutors or industry connections. These disadvantages may foster self-doubts about their capabilities when they are surrounded by peers with greater resources. As explained above (in section 4.1), this disciplinary power is part of the context of teamwork, in which women often feel pressured to prove their competence. 4.3 Lens 3: challenging gendered and cultural expectations in team dynamics Findings from the interviews with first-year female students reveal that they often had a common concern of gender-based exclusion and an assumption of lacking technical competence compared to their male peers, especially regarding hands-on skills. These biases can surface in collaborative settings, where comments indicated participants often felt judged regarding their contributions and roles in the teams. The following testimonies show, from a social phenomenological approach, how gendered and intercultural preconceptions can shape students’ interactions and experiences in teamwork, where women students are required to constantly prove their credibility, or are assigned to non-technical roles: • “I hate the feeling of [being] in a group, but you can't do anything for the group. It really hurts my feelings because I'm there but not doing anything. That happened to me in RoboSumo Project. They said I'd do the programming, but I was like ‘What's programming?’. I thought the teacher would teach [it], so I was like ‘Yeah, I will do programming.’ Suddenly, I end up not doing programming.” (FO12) • “In First Year, there's just a few biases towards some of the guys. Because a lot of the guys probably came from an all-boys school as well. They just kind of thought that I might not have known some stuff and how to do this, how to do that, working with tools.” (FO11) • “I'm always left with presenting jobs, but at least the whole team has to do it, because I'm really talkative, and they are like, ‘Yeah, you can do the presentation!’ It’s like, ‘Fine.” (IR01) • “There's four in our team and our project manager had to leave early, so we were left to do the presentation. Myself and [a female from the Middle East] worked together to do the presentation because we were going to present it […] The other guy in our group – his name is [Irish]. He was working on the drawings of the bridge at the time, while we were working on the presentation.” (IR02) These examples reflect deep social norms and cultural structures that stereotype a gendered division of work (Aeby et al., 2019; Svihla et al., 2023). Biases were most evident at the beginning of university but gradually diminished over time. As female students progressed through the engineering program, their sense of confidence and voice increased. Although gendered cultural norms began to shift as students negotiated space for their knowledge and technical skills, these biases did not entirely disappear. The quote from participant ME03, in her last year, illustrates both her increased self-confidence and the resistance she still faced from a male peer: [I joined] an all-boys group. One time we had a question and one of the boys asked me, ‘How do we do this?’ I told him, ‘We do this, this, this.’ He said, ‘No, you’re wrong, it’s not like this.’ I said, ‘It’s what’s on the board.’ And he said, ‘No, I don’t think you are right.’ And then, after five minutes, he came back and said, ‘[her name], I think you are right, what you said.’ I know I am right! But the problem with these boys is they think girls are always wrong until they realize, ‘Oh okay, she’s right.” 4.4 Lens 4: redefinition of the identity as woman student in engineering This lens focuses on the interpersonal practices, consciousness, and capabilities within the formal and informal social structures in which students are embedded. Gendered expectations are subtly reinforced through interactions. For example, participant IR01 expressed fears of unequal treatment and downplayed her knowledge, while participant IR07 joked about feeling less entitled to engage technically due to her educational background: • “When we first started the design project, I was like, ‘Oh, here we go. Like, there's only two girls on this team, they’re just gonna completely shut us out’ and just be like 'let the lads talk about it’. But they were really good, like, ‘Do you agree with this design? Do you want to put anything forward?’. There's none of that like prejudice just like ‘Oh girls don't do anything’ because obviously we got into the course for a reason. You know, and we're not just kind of here for the craic [Irish slang for a laugh]! Like, we actually know half what we're doing.” (IR01) • [A male Irish teammate] is a good drawer, so he did the drawings. So then as well he did, you know, the dimensions on the cardboard. I was always joking, like ‘I'll make the tea!’ Because they did Engineering for their Leaving [Certificates] so they have a bit of knowledge about construction.” (IR07) Participants often fluctuated between self-confidence and seeking external validation in teamwork settings. The perception of fragile adequacy in engineering gradually improved as they experienced success and received recognition from their peers. Participant FO10 shared, “Sometimes, when I get really frustrated with the project, I'm like, "Am I intelligent enough to do this?" But that's only momentary. I mean it's nothing that would cause me to change my mind, for my career, in engineering as a whole. […] I guess when something works in projects, I'm confident. I think my whole life right now is based around the project. I mean, if I get something right, even something small – a math problem or something – if I get it right, it's kind of validating myself that, ‘Yes, I can do this.’ So, it's important to have a balance of things that work and things that don't.” Over time, the experiences described by the women also indicated an evolution in their consciousness and their interpersonal interactions, not only through seeing themselves as competent students but also through reshaping religious and cultural boundaries that might have been seen as obstacles in their initial teamwork interactions. The following experiences are from Middle Eastern students: • Participant ME05 explained the relevance of her credibility within the team: When they ask me to compare the results, if we have the same answer, they say, ‘Okay, let's get the things from her.’ ‘Next time, we will ask you to give us the answers, or the lab report, or whatever’ you know? Because from the first time, they said, ‘Okay, she's good at Maths, she's good at mechanics, she's doing well, so we can, take, trust her in the following assessments,’ or whatever.” • Participant ME07 offered a testimony of a powerful interpersonal negotiation that reshaped the social dynamic: For the last year and before that, I felt like boys, they didn’t want to talk with girls. Maybe they thought we are Muslim, and we don't like to talk with boys because of our religion. They felt there was a line. But then, when they realized we were fine talking and asking them about anything, then they broke that line. And now we can chat and work perfectly. [‘So, you feel like you dissolved the line for yourself before they did?’ the interviewer asked.] Yeah, because you know the problem I find – it's not actually the boys. Our analysis using this lens illustrates how structural, social, and cultural norms intersected to shape the students’ self-perception and their engagement in PBL teamwork. Addressing these gender dynamics requires more than individual confidence; it requires challenging norms and deeply embedded structures as well as policy practices in engineering education. 5 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS This study examined how gender dynamics influence the experiences of female engineering students in collaborative learning. Using social phenomenology, Gender at Work, and intersectionality, the findings highlight how early education, family backgrounds, and cultural norms influenced participants’ roles in PBL teams. Limited prior technical exposure and the absence of female role models reinforced participants' sense of uncertainty and marginalization. As students progressed through their academic journeys, their self-confidence increased, often supported by recognition from peers and successful teamwork experiences. However, the persistence of subtle biases and cultural expectations highlights how structural and interpersonal power dynamics continued to shape their participation. Students not only challenged externally imposed roles but also redefined their identities as competent contributors to engineering knowledge. These transformations demonstrate the intersubjective nature of learning and identity formation in team environments. In other words, the evolution of the women students in gaining confidence, challenging stereotypes, and redefining their identities was not just an individual process, but the result of ongoing interactions with both their female and male teammates. The implications of this research extend beyond individual resilience (which has become a predominant underlying theme in engineering recruitment activities and diversity research). Additional research on collaborative learning settings is needed – to understand the nature of minoritized students' experiences. Educators and institutions must critically examine power dynamics in curriculum design, team formation, and classroom interactions. Initiatives promoting diverse role models, challenging stereotypes, and ensuring equitable technical experiences are vital for inclusive engineering education.