This project will develop standardized, exportable and comparable assessment instruments and models for Women In Engineering (WIE) programs nationwide, thus allowing them to assess their program's activities and ultimately provide data for making well-informed evaluations.
To accomplish this goal, the principal investigators at the University of Missouri and Penn State University will work over a three-year period with their institutions' WIE programs and three cooperating programs at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Georgia Tech, and University of Texas at Austin. With these five programs that collectively represent a variety of private and public, years of experience for WIE directors and student body characteristics, the investigators will pilot, revise, implement, conduct preliminary data analysis and disseminate easy-to-access, reliable and valid assessment instruments. The principles of formative evaluation will be applied to all instruments and products. All institutions will use the same set of instruments, thus allowing them to have access to powerful benchmarking data in addition to the data from each of their respective institutions.
A prior project, the Women's Experience in College Engineering Project (WECE) sought to characterize the factors that influence women students' experiences and decisions by studying college environments, events and support programs that affect women's satisfaction with their engineering major, and their decisions to persist or leave these majors. In contrast to WECE's macro-level and student focus, this proposal's target audience is WIE directors, with a focus on WIE programs, not students.
Women in Engineering programs around the United States are a crucial part of our country's response to the need for more women in engineering professions. There are about 50 WIE programs nationwide. Half have expressed interest in this effort. WIE directors will benefit by having ready-made assessment tools that will allow them to collect data on programs, evaluate these programs, and make decisions on how to revise programs and / or redistribute limited resources to maximize overall program effectiveness. Data from these instruments will also provide substantiated evidence for administrators, advisory boards and potential funding agencies. Finally, because these instruments will be available nationwide, programs will have the opportunity to take advantage of powerful benchmarking data for their decision-making processes.
This project provides the next logical step in the national movement to recruit and retain women in engineering.
On the first day of the Science and Society course at the Cooperstown Graduate Program in Cooperstown, New York, I present the students with an incandescent lightbulb, with clear glass so one can easily see the filament inside. I ask the students how it works and they are able to tell me that the electricity comes in there, runs through the filament here, heats up, and produces light. Then I take out my iPhone and slide it across the table and ask, “How does this work?” Blank stares abound.
This article provides a starting position and scene-setter for an invited commentary series on science communication and public intellectualism. It begins by briefly considering what intellectualism and public intellectualism are, before discussing their relationship with science communication, especially in academia. It ends with a call to science communication academics and practitioners to either become more active in challenging the status quo, or to help support those who wish to by engendering a professional environment that encourages risk-taking and speaking-out in public about
Reflecting on the public role of academics, this issue of JCOM includes a set of commentaries exploring public intellectuals and intellectualism. The commentaries explore the role of academics in public debates, both as bringers of facts and passion. These pieces, together with past commentaries and letters to JCOM raise interesting questions about the role of academics in public debates that are, perhaps not those usually trodden in the academic literature.
The Science Museum of Minnesota (SMM) leverages a professional educator team (“instructors”) comprised of about two dozen individuals who facilitate both formal and informal educational programming in the museum, in K–12 classrooms, and at community-based sites. The experienced instructors of SMM’s Lifelong Learning Group bring innovative programs to both students and their teachers. Recognizing that long-term experiences can have a profound impact on students and teachers, SMM works to develop multiyear relationships based on collaboration. This article focuses primarily on SMM’s well
Subsistence peoples with distinct cultures confronting challenges that threaten their future. Both are politically marginalized indigenous peoples within the dominant governments of their territories. Both find it difficult to control wildlife within their territories, and when they migrate across geographic borders into other jurisdictions. The need to regulate wildlife must be balanced with traditional cultural values and practical realities.
As a result of colonization and loss of culture in indigenous tribes across the world, there is a dire need to document and share the Traditional Ecological Knowledge that Native tribes have practiced for thousands of years. The philosophy and principals that make up the majority of Indigenous spirituality is an interconnectedness with the land, plants and animals (Barnhart 2005). This deep understanding of relationship and reciprocity can teach all of us a lesson about living with the natural world. Using Native Science and Traditional Ecological Knowledge to document traditional medicinal
Language and culture loss is a growing problem among native tribes in the United States, largely due to globalization and western ideals. Culture loss ensures the loss of connection to the land. Documenting cultural practices that involve components of and relationship to the land, such as water, makes the importance of the relationship between the people and land more apparent. Mongolia and regions of Montana share many similarities, environmentally and with indigenous people’s practices. Therefore, Indigenous Research Methodologies and Indigenous sciences were utilized. This research works
Mongolia’s Darhad Valley and regions of Montana can be considered bioregions. A bioregion “encompasses landscapes, natural processes and human elements as equal parts of a whole” (BioRegions.org). Indigenous people live within both regions, and they respectively consider holistic interactions between landscapes, natural processes and humans. Both are faced with change related to developmental pursuits and globalism. Understanding and documenting language and mode of expression is an important way for community members to recognize the value of place and tradition, and how these things are
The “Fourth Industrial Revolution” is transforming the world of work. Just as it happened with the technologies of the steam, electricity and computer revolutions, digital technologies are now becoming pervasive and reshaping all parts of the global economy. The computing industry’s rate of job creation in the U.S. is now three times the U.S. national average. This rapid expansion of the computing workforce means that computing skills – with coding at the core – are the most sought-after skills in the American job market.
Yet amid this boom, research by Accenture and Girls Who Code shows
In today's society a variety of challenges need attention because they are considered to affect our well-being. Many of these challenges can be addressed with new innovations, yet they may also introduce new challenges. Communication of these new innovations is vital. This importance is also addressed by the concept of Responsible Research and Innovation. In the present commentary we draw on a dataset of 196 research projects and discuss the two research streams of Science Communication and Responsible Research and Innovation and how they are complements to each other. We conclude with
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Victor ScholtenJeroen van den HovenEefje CuppenSteven Flipse
Much of science communication is peer-to-peer communication in collaborative networks for innovation from the fuzzy front-end of innovation until the marketing back-end. Scientists and engineers at meetings tables talking about new developments. Or scientists and engineers in collaboration with industry and policy makers, discussing various scenarios for implementation of e.g. health care services. However, this focus on science communication 'within the action' of uncertain development of science and technology and its attached academic domains such as innovation studies, high-tech marketing