Despite a century's worth of research, arguments surrounding the question of whether far transfer occurs have made little progress toward resolution. The authors argue the reason for this confusion is a failure to specify various dimensions along which transfer can occur, resulting in comparisons of "apples and oranges." They provide a framework that describes 9 relevant dimensions and show that the literature can productively be classified along these dimensions, with each study situated at the intersection of various dimensions. Estimation of a single effect size for far transfer is misguided in view of this complexity. The past 100 years of research shows that evidence for transfer under some conditions is substantial, but critical conditions for many key questions are untested.

The underrepresentation of women at the top of math-intensive fields is controversial, with competing claims of biological and sociocultural causation. The authors develop a framework to delineate possible causal pathways and evaluate evidence for each. Biological evidence is contradictory and inconclusive. Although cross-cultural and cross-cohort differences suggest a powerful effect of sociocultural context, evidence for specific factors is inconsistent and contradictory. Factors unique to underrepresentation in math-intensive fields include the following: (a) Math-proficient women disproportionately prefer careers in non-math-intensive fields and are more likely to leave math-intensive careers as they advance; (b) more men than women score in the extreme math-proficient range on gatekeeper tests, such as the SAT Mathematics and the Graduate Record Examinations Quantitative Reasoning sections; (c) women with high math competence are disproportionately more likely to have high verbal competence, allowing greater choice of professions; and (d) in some math-intensive fields, women with children are penalized in promotion rates. The evidence indicates that women's preferences, potentially representing both free and constrained choices, constitute the most powerful explanatory factor; a secondary factor is performance on gatekeeper tests, most likely resulting from sociocultural rather than biological causes.Keywords: sex differences, spatial ability, mathematics, family versus career trade-offs, women in science Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014412.supp By 2001, women were earning 48% of bachelor's degrees (National Science Foundation, 2007) and 29% of PhD degrees (Hill & Johnson, 2004) in mathematics, representing enormous increases over the prior 30 years. Women's representation among editorial boards in science and awards panels similarly increased (Nelson & Brammer, 2008). These changes are evidence of the strength of cultural factors in determining such outcomes, because biology has not changed over this period. Despite this progress, women's representation among PhD degree holders has not coincided with proportional faculty appointments: Women earned 31.3% of chemistry PhD degrees between 1993 and 2003 but in 2002 were hired for only 21.5% of assistant professorships. Similar disparities exist for new faculty appointments in physics, engineering, and mathematics. In 1976 women represented only 7.5% of the faculty in physical sciences and less than 1% in engineering (Dearman & Plisko, 1979). By 2006 the percentage had increased to 16%-25%, but the hiring of assistant professors in these fields has not been proportional to female PhD pools. This hiring disparity extends beyond math-intensive fields.Even in less math-intensive fields, such as cellular and molecular biology, fields in which women obtain 46% of all PhD degrees, women disproportionately drop out at multiple points. The picture is the same across many science fields: Women are not being hired as assistant professors at the ra...

This research investigates the development of transferable-"adaptive"-expertise. The study contrasts problem-solving performance of two kinds of experts (business consultants and restaurant managers) on novel problems at the intersection of their two domains, as well as a group of novices (non-business undergraduates). Despite a lack of restaurant experience, consultants performed better than restaurant managers and undergraduates, even though the problems concerned a restaurant. Process measures suggest this was due to the use of more theoretical reasoning. Analyses show this resulted from differences in work experience and not other factors (e.g., education). We discuss aspects of experience that might be responsible for development of theoretical understanding and, thus, expertise that transfers to novel problems. One possible explanation, consistent with existing research from multiple approaches, is that to transfer to novel problems, experience must include substantive variability. The social context of learning may also play a role. Some argue that learning does not transfer to novel situations, and therefore that education should focus on teaching the precise knowledge that will be needed later (Detterman, 1993). However, educators cannot predict exactly what individuals will need to know in a rapidly changing world. Thus many problems faced, at work and elsewhere, will necessarily be new and unfamiliar. How can performance on such novel problems be enhanced, that is, how can transferable or so-called "adaptive" expertise (Hatano, 1982) be developed? several anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on previous versions of this article; Laura Eselius, Amy Leahy, Jai Sweet, and Jack Young for painstaking help with coding; Cara Olsen for invaluable help with statistical issues; and the participants and "super-exper t" judges for giving freely of their time.

No abstract

No abstract

Omnipresent calls for more women in university administration presume women will prioritize using resources and power to increase female representation, especially in STEM fields where women are most underrepresented. However, empirical evidence is lacking for systematic differences in female vs. male administrators' attitudes. Do female administrators agree on which strategies are best, and do men see things differently? We explored United States college and university administrators' opinions regarding strategies, policies, and structural changes in their organizations designed to increase women professors' representation and retention in STEM fields. A comprehensive review of past research yielded a database of potentially-effective, recommended policies. A survey based on these policies was sent to provosts, deans, associate deans, and department chairs of STEM fields at 96 public and private research universities across the U.S. These administrators were asked to rate the quality and feasibility of each strategy; 474 provided data, of which 334 contained complete numerical data used in the analyses. Our data revealed that female (vs. male) administrators believed the 44 strategies were higher in quality overall—but not higher in feasibility—with 9 strategies perceived differently by women and men, after imposing conservative statistical controls. There was broad general agreement on the relative-quality rankings of the 44 strategies. Women (vs. men) gave higher quality ratings to increasing the value of teaching, service, and administrative experience in tenure/promotion decisions, increasing flexibility of federal-grant funding to accommodate mothers, conducting gender-equity research, and supporting shared tenure lines enabling work-life balance. Women (vs. men) believed it was more feasible for men to stop the tenure clock for 1 year for childrearing and for universities to support requests for shared tenure lines, but less feasible for women to chair search committees. Our national survey thus supported the belief that placing women into administration creates greater endorsement of strategies to attract and retain women in STEM, although the effectiveness of these strategies was outside the scope of this research. Topics of disagreement between women and men are potentially important focuses of future policy, because female administrators may have insights into how to retain women that male administrators do not share.

In writing this article, we wanted to provide advisors practical means with which to optimize their relationships with advisees. First, we describe behavioral microskills that can be used by advisors to enhance advising sessions. Attending behaviors (eye contact, vocal cadence and tone, verbal tracking, body language) and listening skills (asking questions, observing, guiding discussion, reflecting feelings) are two core microskills that advisors can practice. Use of these microskills has been shown to improve session effectiveness and strengthen the advisee-advisor relationship. Second, we present the results of a small-scale experiment that suggests that even modest training in microskills can benefit advising sessions. Relative emphasis: * practice, theory, research

No abstract