Search results

A recent President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology report predicts a shortfall of 1 million college graduates in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields in the United States over the next several years (2012). Recommendations to address this include diversifying the STEM workforce, which is plagued by a lack of gender diversity (Hill, Corbett, & St. Rose, 2010). University–School partnerships are crucial in developing a pipeline that moves interested primary and secondary students (aged 5-18) into majoring and eventually working in STEM fields. The lower involvement of women in STEM fields is multi-factorial and affects all communities, including Abilene, Texas. Abilene Independent School District’s STEM high school, the Academy for Technology, Engineering, and Science (ATEMS) consistently has a female student population at or below 35%. A local university, Abilene Christian University (ACU), has struggled to increase female undergraduate students in STEM fields. Creating a University–School partnership between ACU and ATEMS aided in building a STEM pipeline for girls in the Abilene community. In this chapter, we describe this collaboration between ACU and ATEMS and highlight the key features that led to success of the collaboration.

Strengthening the nation’s technological workforce, competing and expanding its relevance in the global economy, and maintaining personal as well as homeland security will be highly dependent on the quantity, quality, and diversity of the next generations of scientists, engineers, technologists, and mathematicians. Production of a diverse generation of human resources with relevant, competitive skills is critical. However, so too is the need to raise an enlightened citizenry with cross-cultural experience and cultural awareness competency, with a broad worldview and global perspectives. These requirements are critical to understanding the challenges and opportunities of scholarly activity in a pluralistic global environment and positioning ourselves to capitalize upon them. Scholars with cross-cultural experience and competency are empowered to adapt and work collaboratively, nationally and globally, with scholars of different races, geopolitical, socioeconomic, and cultural backgrounds. Development of effective strategies to transform science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) departments for inclusion and to broaden the participation in STEM across cultures, socioeconomic standing, race, and gender in higher education has been a dominant topic of pedagogical interest of national priority in the last several decades. However, success in these endeavors is achievable only through systemic change and a cultural shift to address the underlying root causes of socioeconomic disparity, gender, and racial disparities and a paucity of cultural awareness among all educational stakeholders. STEM departments can only be truly transformed for inclusion through the development of sensitive, creative, and student-engaging curricula and targeted recruitment and retention of underrepresented minorities in STEM. Formation of well-coordinated alliances spanning educational sectors, governmental and non-governmental organizations, and community engagement and outreach are also critical to promoting inclusive and broad participation in STEM education.

The first section of the chapter gives an introduction to various challenges, obstacles, and hindrances that prevent a successful transformation of K–12 science education as well as STEM departments in higher education for inclusion. The second section discusses historical perspectives of the University of Arkansas-Fort Smith (UAFS) – the institutional profile, missions, and visions of UAFS as a regional university. Policies and strategies for addressing the socioeconomic disparity, faculty gender, and racial disparities and cultural competency awareness at UAFS are also highlighted in this section. Other approaches including targeted efforts to recruit and retain underrepresented minority students, provision of financial assistance for students from low-income families, and a creative “Math-up” curriculum innovation to promote inclusive and broad participation in STEM at UAFS are highlighted in the latter section of the chapter. Formation of alliances between UAFS, local K–12 school districts, and governmental and non-governmental agencies to promote broad participation in STEM at UAFS are discussed. The last section of the chapter provides recommendations for adaptation and sustainability of strategies and efforts aimed at transforming national STEM departments for inclusion.

There are three main analytic challenges to studying kids, especially where the core focus is inequality: (1) minimizing the power imbalance between adults/researchers and kids/participants, (2) attending to the active and imaginative communication styles of young people, and (3) getting beneath the superficial rhetoric of meritocracy, colorblindness, and post-feminism. In this chapter, we draw from our own qualitative insights when studying middle school kids (grades 6–8, ages 11–14) in providing a systematic analysis of the effectiveness of distinct visual strategies and their respective strengths and limitations for producing rich, useful, and specific data. The insights gleaned are applicable to analyses of kids, understandings of inequality, and even methodological training.

In this chapter, we present a case study that explicates the work that two Black boys undergo to write their narratives despite the low expectations of their academic abilities espoused by their White teacher. Orienting ourselves within a critical race theory framework, we relied upon storytelling to tell the stories of John and Seth, two young Black boys whose science interests fueled their engagement across school subjects despite the semantic deficit-oriented positioning of their academic abilities by the White teachers and staff within their school. Throughout this chapter, we center their experiences to argue that understanding the inherent underrepresentation of Black men in science-based professions requires an examination of the pivotal educational moments preceding this disparity. Rich and culturally responsive science teaching may support equity for Black boys, but John and Seth's stories illustrate that these practices alone will only perpetuate the status quo unless teachers challenge their dispositions regarding who their students are and what they are capable of. We conclude by offering suggestions for practitioners to consider when designing and implementing equitable student-centered science instruction.

This paper describes studies of the ICAN Intervention and their implications.

We adapted the ICAN intervention to support the science interest and learning of at-risk, middle-school-age youth, who were participants in entry-level, out-of-school, inquiry-informed, science workshops. The intervention is a brief ungraded writing assignment that is integrated into science activities on a daily basis in order to encourage workshop participants to reflect on science: what participants understand, the skills they have acquired, and what they still want to figure out.

Findings indicate that the use of the ICAN Intervention in science inquiry supports the development of science interest and science problem solving that is sustained 5 weeks following the workshop. Moreover, participants who write more responses to the ICAN probes are more likely to evidence changes in science learning, regardless of their initial level of interest in science. Participants with less-developed and with more-developed science interest at the beginning of the workshop all progress. The findings further suggest that when the intervention is coupled with an inquiry-informed integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (iSTEM) curriculum, it provides an additional boost for the development of science interest and learning.

The ICAN Intervention as adapted provides a solution to questions raised about whether inquiry-based instruction can promote learning. Our findings indicate that it can. Our findings also demonstrate that when undertaken in a concept and idea-rich environment, the structure of a motivation-based intervention is open-ended enough that all participants will progress, continuing to develop their interest and their learning of disciplinary content.

Purpose – This chapter examines the electoral coalition and leadership style of Columbus’ Mayor Michael Coleman.Design/methodology/approach – An analysis of State of the City addresses, in-depth interviews, and an analysis of scholarly publications and news stories was conducted.Findings – The first Black mayor of Columbus, Ohio, Michael Coleman was elected by forging an electoral coalition between the city’s majority White and minority Black community. Once in office, Coleman was faced with the challenge of creating a governing coalition that addressed the downtown development interests of his White constituency and the community redevelopment needs of Black residents. While he has favored economic development, Coleman has delivered some noteworthy benefits to the Black community, especially in terms of neighborhood revitalization and community redevelopment. Given the challenge of balancing such divergent interests, Coleman’s accomplishments are noteworthy. Nevertheless, he has been unable to facilitate significant upward mobility of the Black community, and Blacks continue to remain underrepresented in government. This chapter explores the role of racial politics in Coleman’s elections and his policy focus once elected. Attention is also paid to the Coleman administration’s efforts to improve the socioeconomic situation of Blacks. We argue that Coleman’s leadership fits within the “universalized interest approach,” taking advantage of compromises between seemingly polarized parties to produce mutual, if qualified, benefits. In this way, Coleman has placated those with power, ensuring a long tenure as mayor and an extended window of opportunity with which to create change in Columbus.Practical implications – This chapter sheds light on how a minority mayor can come to power in a majority White city today.Originality/value – This is the first analysis of Michael Coleman’s leadership and provides a valuable example of the possibilities and limitations faced by a Black mayor in a majority White city.