Exploding Stereotypes: Care and Collaboration in the STEM Sciences
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it