In the academic year 1996/1997, the number of women undergraduates enrolled on degree courses at UK universities for the first time in history surpassed the number of men (Dyhouse, 2006). Year-on-year, statistics continue to indicate that women outnumber men in higher education (HE). Feminist scholars have noted that, as a consequence, women’s participation in HE has in recent years been constructed as an unequivocal ‘success story’, with women widely regarded as both outnumbering and outperforming men (Dyhouse, 2006; Leathwood and Read, 2009). This thesis seeks to trouble the notion that women really are the educational ‘winners’ by virtue of their gains at the point of access by highlighting some enduring gender inequalities within HE – that is, women's uneven experiences of the cultures and structures of HE by gender, class, ethnicity and discipline. Using a qualitative case study design, this thesis seeks to explore the everyday ‘lived’ experience of a small number of women undergraduates studying either a science, technology, engineering or mathematical (STEM) discipline or arts/humanities discipline at one high-performing British university. Using a combination of focus group interviews and 14 longitudinal case studies of individual women (comprising participant-kept diaries, in-depth interviews and email interviews), this study seeks to provide a detailed understanding of women's lives both inside and outside of their course and their negotiations of academic achievement, disentangling some of the complex processes involved in identifying with, and specializing in a discipline over time. In this study, a ‘patchwork’ theoretical approach has been adopted in order to conceptualise women’s identities, incorporating insights from feminist post-structural theory, new material feminisms and Becky Francis’ (2012) concept of gender monoglossia and heteroglossia as re-worked from Bakhtin (1981, 1987). This study indicates that women's gender and academic identities are intricately interwoven and often complex, contradictory and precarious – with women differently taking up and discarding dominant discourses of the ‘ideal’ and ‘successful’ university student in line with their distinct classed, ethnic and ‘aged’ backgrounds. This study also highlights the role that academic disciplines play in shaping women’s lived university experience both inside and outside of formalized learning contexts. In particular, the data suggests that the discourses of academic success open to the women were uneven, and powerfully shaped by the science/arts divide. Yet this study also highlights how the high-performing university was constructed by many women as a positive and freeing space, offering up a variety of discourses of student success.

There is a significant body of literature showing improved student outcomes in higher education STEM courses when evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs) are used. Despite this, traditional, lecture-style instruction remains the primary means of instruction in these courses. However, given the situation of the sudden shift to online teaching as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, faculty were participating in training programs with greater frequency, and thus learning more about the use of EBIPs than ever before. Through the lens of Kurt Lewin’s theory of organizational change in the three stages of unfreezing, change, and refreezing, this explanatory mixed methods study sought to explore through a survey and interviews whether this shift to online teaching and the resulting increase in training participation did, in fact, result in changes in instructional practices, implementation, and perceptions of EBIPs, and whether any changes were sustained upon the return to in-person instruction.The survey tool used in this study was a subset of the Teaching Practices Inventory, developed by the Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative from the University of British Columbia. This generated a modified “extent of use of research-based teaching practices” (METP) score, as well as METP sub-scores in five subcategories of the survey. These results, as well as data obtained from demographic questions and questions about teaching responsibilities and training participation, informed the selection of twelve participants for semi-structured interviews. Through one-way ANOVA testing, the quantitative analysis showed a statistically significant increase in METP (p < .001) from Pre-Covid to Post-Covid scores. Statistical significance was also found in the subcategories of In Class Features (p = .003) and Collaboration (p = .005). Two-way ANOVA testing was also done to explore statistical significance for demographic subcategories, which was found to exist for gender, tenure status, and various categories relating to participation in training and professional development. Interview data supported the quantitative data analysis, and offered further insight and context for the changes that have been made and sustained, including changes regarding the use of educational technology tools, introduction of authentic learning experiences, streamlining of content, and intentional alignment of activities and assessments with course goals. Additional analysis showed faculty relied on virtual collaboration to develop community with other instructors, and realized the importance of student feedback to inform their instruction and of fostering a classroom community. Most significantly, the ability to see first-hand the effect of the pandemic on students and to have a window into their personal lives caused faculty to make sweeping changes with respect to their beliefs in the affective domains of learning, emphasizing the need for empathy, flexibility, and equity-mindedness in their classrooms. This study showed that faculty became convinced of the need for change, consistent with Lewin’s unfreezing stage, not solely through training and professional development, but largely through the realizations about the individuality of students that faculty experienced during the pandemic. This occurred simultaneously with an increase in virtual collaboration as well as the influence of changes peers had made and suggested upon the return to in-person instruction. The recognition of the need to center students in learning combined with these outside influences resulted in the increased use of EBIPs upon the return to in-person instruction, therefore creating the desired change. Lastly, these practices have been maintained as of two years after the return to in-person, thus indicating refreezing, and further data showed that faculty continue to adapt their practices to create more inclusive and student-centered learning environments. / Policy, Organizational and Leadership Studies