MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2616077854 · doi:10.18260/1-2--17966

Exploding Stereotypes: Care and Collaboration in the STEM Sciences

2020· article· en· W2616077854 sur OpenAlexaff
Catherine Broom, Wendy Klassen, C. P. D.

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueScience Education and Perceptions
Établissements canadiensOkanagan CollegeOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCurriculumIndividualismClass (philosophy)PsychologyMathematics educationPedagogyComputer sciencePolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Exploding Stereotypes: Care and Collaboration in the STEM SciencesIn this collaboration, two education professors and an engineering instructor explored whether 1)stereotypes about the engineering profession as non-caring and non-collaborative were held bymale and female upper elementary students; whether 2) male and female students had similar orvarying views, and 3) whether stereotypes (if present) could be broken through engineeringdesign activities that included elements of both care and community in classrooms. This paperwill present the findings of the study which used an interactive, classroom activity to address thethree guiding research questions. Engineering students from the researchers’ universityvolunteered in the classroom activity.Students in elementary and secondary schools often hold stereotypes of STEM sciences: theyview them as male-dominated, individualistic (Smith & Hung, 2008) and uncaring, and believethey marginalize women (Roychoudhury, Tippins & Nichols, 1995). These stereotypes arereinforced by mass media (Steinke, 2005) and by curricula and in class activities that don’tinclude girls’ preferred learning styles (Brotman & Moore, 2008), which centre aroundcollaboration and relationships (Brotman & Moore, 2007). Students hold views that scientists aremen (Shakeshaft, 1995), that males are better at STEM fields (Smith & Hung, 2008) and negativenotions of females in these fields (AAUW, 2010).As girls view STEM fields to not encompass collaboration, connection, and care (Baker andLeary, 1995), a significant number of girls choose not to go into them for careers (NSF, 2009).However, these conceptions are false as the STEM sciences, for example the field ofEngineering, in fact requires collaborative work which is embedded in the ethic of care. Care isunderstood as a necessary component of successful group work and therefore care is essential toeffective engineering design.The researchers conducted their study in two grade 6 classrooms as research evidence suggeststhat students develop their perceptions of various careers at an early age (Hartung, Porfeli, &Vondracek 2005). Students in the two classes were grouped; in the first class the groups weremade up of both genders while in the second class groups were girl-only and boy-only with theattempt to address “stereotype threat”—the underperformance of girls in the STEM sciences dueto their heightened fears of failure associated with stereotypes (Smith & Hung, 2008).The project began with the researchers conducting pre-assessments of students’ conceptions ofseveral professions, including that of engineers.Next, the researchers led the students in an interactive, engineering lesson that embeddedelements of both care and collaboration. This was made explicit to students through the mannerin which the lesson was both presented and modeled. The lesson required each student to have“expert knowledge” in one facet of a design collaboration, using each of the three principledivisions of engineering (civil, mechanical, and electrical) to create features of a global village.University engineering students assisted in order to ensure that the students were able tosuccessfully complete the project, and to model collaboration and care, while posing andanswering relevant questions.The researchers ended the lesson by eliciting from and discussing with the students how bothcollaboration and care are necessary for the engineering profession.The project concluded with a post-assessment that illustrated how students’ conceptions ofstereotypes had changed. We will share the findings of this intriguing study in this paperpresentation, as well as present our recommendations for breaking elementary school students’stereotypes of the engineering profession.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,012
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,992
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,063

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0120,014
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0080,012
Communication savante0,0070,007
Science ouverte0,0010,011
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,197
Tête enseignante GPT0,438
Écart entre enseignants0,241 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetScience Education and PerceptionsTravaux en français237 207