Across disciplines, male faculty spend more time on research than female faculty. Yet, women tend to teach and mentor students more hours than men (Misra et al. in Glob J Eng Educ 14(1):119-131, 2011). These disparities play pivotal roles in tenure and promotion decisions wherein research and leadership roles are most valued (Green in J Soc Work Educ 44(2):117-128, 2008). There is considerable evidence suggesting that implicit biases underpin some of these faculty roles differences, particularly in male-dominated disciplines, such as engineering. At the same time, there is limited evidence that, once aware of gender inequity, individuals will engage in bias correction in order to rectify prejudice. This study was designed to evaluate if implicit bias or bias correction could be detected when faculty considered the most appropriate roles for other faculty. Faculty from 50 colleges of engineering completed an activity wherein they assigned five fictitious engineering faculty characters to five assignments (one research, one leadership, and three teaching/ advising roles). One version of the activity contained only male names; the other version was identical except for the change of the middle character's name from male (Charlie) to female (Cathy). Results indicated that both men and women were significantly more likely to select Cathy for both the leadership and research positions over Charlie. Regression analysis of the Cathy Group data indicated respondents' gender did not predict selection of Cathy to the leadership role; however, women were significantly more likely than men to select Cathy to do research.
Although several studies have reported Advanced Placement (AP) growth, little attention has been paid to school- and classroom-level strategies that encourage students to enroll into AP courses and complete AP exams. This study focused on determining goals emphasized, and strategies used, by science and math teachers ( N = 143). Results indicated teachers believe the greatest value of AP is in providing college-type experiences and boosting subject confidence; they place less importance on goals of students earning passing scores and improving college admission chances. Comparison based on school socioeconomic status indicated Title I teachers view AP as having greater value and are significantly more likely to require students to complete AP exams than non-Title I teachers. Title I teachers used twice the amount of strategies to convince students to complete AP exams. Interestingly, more than one third of the teachers enticed students by waiving final exams in lieu of completing AP exams.
Although 20 states have adopted Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), 24 other states have developed their own K-12 science standards based on the same National Research Council (NRC) Framework. Understanding what influences content standards developers, realizing the supports and impediments to implementation they foresee, and knowing their rationales for implementing standards is important because these elements potentially affect their contributions and may have repercussions throughout the educational system. Forty-four developers of one state's NRC Framework-based science standards indicated the degree to which they were affected by educational system influencers (e.g., accountability), by their beliefs, values, and experiences, and by consideration of others (e.g., administrators). Developers described rationales they think others will have for supporting and being concerned about new science standards and their personal rationales for supporting new science standards. Among results, developers were substantially influenced by considerations of educators interpreting new standards and designing curriculum.Developers' experiences with teaching science and implementing standards weighed considerably more on their minds than considerations about administrators or colleagues. Developers believe new science standards possess tremendous intrinsic value but also believe others will primarily leverage rationales that new science standards are connected to state assessments and accountability as means to obtain teacher buy-in. K E Y W O R D S content standards, developers, NGSS, science standards,
He also serves as an Extension Services Consultant for the National Center for Women and Information Technology (NCWIT). His past experiences include having been a middle school science teacher, Director of Academic and Instructional Support for the Arizona Department of Education, a research scientist for the Center for Research on Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology (CRESMET), and an evaluator for several NSF projects. His first research strand concentrates on the relationship between educational policy and STEM education. His second research strand focuses on studying STEM classroom interactions and subsequent effects on student understanding. He is a codeveloper of the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) and his work has been cited more than 2200 times and he has been published in multiple peer-reviewed journals such as Science Education and the Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.