Learning from Learning

Mar 11 2012 Published by under Uncategorized

This post was written especially to Education 5-0. This Hawaiian magazine is fully dedicated to Education in Hawaii; I have one blog with them called: the black list of colors, and I write it in English and Spanish. I write longer articles to them for the monthly issue.

If you want to read more about education just click this link: http://education50.com/blog/black-list-of-colors

 

Learning from Learning

If we look at the education and learning section of any library, is very easy to find literally thousands of books that experts from around the world have written about how, why and when children learn . And it's not necessary to look far to find all types of academic events with experts in the field who seek to tell teachers and parents the magic formula of how to teach, while trying to convince students that there is ONLY ONE WAY to learn.

But the school reality is that many students around the world suffer every day to understand things that: may never can be useful to them, and they just try to understand because at most of cases, they won't apply all that information in their professional lives.

That is why I began to observe how children learn, and I won't pretend that everything can be well seen; I only discovered that there are principles that move learning beyond the classroom.

This blog aims to share and discuss all the little details that make learning much more than only approved materials. 17 years of teaching experience prove that it works, but not enough to change educational policies in my workplace. So dear reader, here I am torturing you with ideas that will not change the world. If anything, hopefully, I try to encourage you to look learning from another perspective.

This is the first question I asked myself, and that led me to explore the brain: why are people smarter than others?. It's a question I hear so continuously, since the search for talent is the goal that every country should be funding, but apparently not everyone has access.

First, let's look learning in more detail, because this is not a government obligation or a mandate, is a feature with which nature endowed us for the conservation of species. If a species does not adapt to their environment, in addition to learning, the species will not survive. This principle is important for many brain functions.

When a baby is born, nobody knows what kind of environment is going to face, which is why we are granted a pre-established range of features that allow us to survive. Say it's similar to a computer or a tablet. When purchasing, you have only certain programs and applications, as you as a user requires it for different things, some people like music or photography or video, and each use requires different applications and programs.

Something like that is the human brain, is thrown into the world with certain applications that will maximize depending on needs. Learn, what is useful, and discarded, applications that are not important.

Under this idea, neuroscience research suggests that human abilities depend on the architecture of neural networks, which are the forms of communication between neurons and structures, but they depends on the space where the brain develops, as it is confined to the skull , shaping each structure in a particular way, some over-exposed to stimuli that prevent the development of other, under two assumptions: the law of survival of the fittest and use in connection with environmental responses.

Learning, in this relationship with the environment depends on two aspects that seem to be together: talent or giftedness that refers to that ability or skill set which has a particular facility, and intelligence, which is how species adapt to the environment, action that supposedly requires talent.

Though worth mentioning, not necessarily they will arrive together, as noted in children with Savant syndrome, developmental disorder that is on the autistic spectrum. The main feature of this syndrome is that people may have a talent widely developed at the same time a profound intellectual difficulty.

Also, note that the provision of skills of each person, although it has a genetic aspect, at the same time depends on environmental stimulation. And, each of the readers can have a special talent for playing the piano in an extraordinary way, but if never had a piano in front, the talent can not be developed.

That's why not difficult to analyze experiences shape the capacities that will be most useful. However, genetic damage as those presented in the development syndromes also shape brain structure, preventing their exposure.
Brain studies reveal that the patterns of gray and white matter and metabolic efficiency may delineate individual differences related to intelligence. That's why the smartest brains work differently (not better) in the strongest areas where they are expertise.

That is why I started writing on the inclusion of the brain in education. Does this sound violent?, Well, so far, is an aspect that is not taken into account, so the formal education mandates that everyone learns the same, with the same rate, under the same principles, but if you take considerate the personal computer that everyone has on their shoulders, they would know that each one is architecturally designed from different experiences, have different learning needs and is also self-checking.

So this blog, look at learning through the eyes of the brain, and the goal is not to change education, just that children can have happy childhoods and they can be successful adults. Yes, I'm a dreamer, but it’s the way the great deeds begin!.

References

Haier, RJ. (2009) What does a smart brain look like?. Scientific American Mind. 20 (6) 26-33.

Lohman, D. F. (2000) Complex information processing and intelligence. En R. J. Sternberg (Ed.) Handbook of intelligence. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK.

Stanovich, KE. (2009) Rational and Irrational thought: The thinking that IQ tests miss. Scientific American Mind. 20 (8) 34-39.
Tubino, M. (2004) Plasticidad y evolución: papel de la interacción cerebro-entorno. Revista de estudios lingüisticos y literarios. 2 (1) 43-59.

Share

No responses yet

Thinking about education: the school of the future

Mar 07 2012 Published by under Uncategorized

I want to share one of my post from my blog today, this is the kind of things I write to my personal blog:

Thinking about education: the school of the future

 I've never had one of those ideas that worth a million dollars, but if one day I have one, I guess it would begin to build it with what I want to sell or share. That's why if one day the experts of education and learning will be seated to build a new paradigm, I think the first step would be to find out what everyone has in common, that,  can make successful a new paradigm globally.

 I think if I want my educational idea succeed, I would try to cover a large market, in this case I want the whole world (literally, the world) can have the opportunity to learn without discrimination, without being labeled as stupid or genius. I think those labels, instead of helping, kill futures CEOs . I want the children can have happy childhoods and become successful adults. It's a simple goal, right?.

 First, think: what's what around the world all people have in common?

 It is neither money nor technology, for example  Latin American countries are far from economic competition (World Economic Forum, 2011), and in more than one occasion I said that education does not require money or speeches, so I wish to continue being consistent with my ideals.

 The technology comes sometimes with a delay of years to countries with less recourses, and it is natural for families to think first to feed their children than in a technological toy that will open the door of education.

 Certainly there is a cultural barrier, provided by the history of each place, customs, and culture, and it must be added the language barrier that makes some have more advantages over others. Some countries have children of 6 years old who have never taken a pencil, while some children born with the remote in their hand; a bilingual person has more cultural doors, for example.

 So if we continue thinking a little, so that all human beings around the world have in common is a brain.

 And it's not necessary a brain with high capacities, ultimately education seeks to provide that window of opportunity. Besides the exposure to the environment (including cultural influences) that creates cytoarchitectural differences, and are those cytoarchitectural differences which allow each person to be more suitable for certain tasks (Dzib Goodin, 2011a).

 Of course, some complications can inhibit learning, like those syndromes that are involved in the process of memory, because is known that are memory and learning are closely linked, but beyond that, all brains, even those effected development disorders can be adapted, but they learn in different ways.

 From the evolutionary point of view, learning is necessary for the survival of the species and is present in all of them, under the principle of survival of the fittest, so it depends on environmental adaptation and vice versa.

 Understanding the brain processes in education, helps to define what and how to teach (Dzib Goodin, 2011b), and allows to see the learner from a different perspective.

 So based on this basic principle, including the brain in education, it is possible to set out the principles that shape learning.

 In a text written for teachers and parents, I listed how the brain learns, from which it can be said that the brain has the urge to learn. Learning regulates systems even before birth, it's not necessary a school or office hours to learn because this allows adaptation to the needs of the environment and ensures that each generation continue developing with new evolutionary advantages (Dzib Goodin, 2011c).

 Learning allows the strengthening of neural networks that permit perpetual motion of new learning. Unlike what many psychologists claimed, only a few systems could have critical moments, such as language, movement, and perhaps to a lesser degree vision and hearing (Roman Carboni, Del Rio Grande, Chapel Maestu and Ortiz, 2006; Gage, 2007, Dehaene, Nakamura, Jobert, Kuroki, Ogawa, and Cohen, 2009), but even for these processes should be considered brain plasticity, which will later accept the creation of new networks that delayed repair functions (Cook, 2010).

 If you look at the babies, it is obvious that they make several attempts before achieving perfection of movements or language (Hartshorne, 2009), this is something that has forgotten the formal school, but let us see the fun of learning and the need for repetition. Nothing is more gratifying to see the kids doing the same actions over and over again, and as adult e can get  bored, while children ask: do it again and again!, And have you noticed how much children  enjoy doing things?, that's why I think this is another principle of the brain: repetition and joy.

 In addition, brain learns from mistakes, if taught how, of course, even if the mistake is trying to solve an addition, collapsing a multi-million dollar company or mislead the recipient of an email, parses the string of events held, going about our steps and seeks to correct mistakes by learning from them (Roediger III, and Finn, 2010).

 And once the brain learns something, will enjoy it and that task will cause pleasure or immediate reward as possible, and person will to do it again and again and again. This is how persons develop the skill or talent, the continued development of an activity, which will make a super specialized neural network (Forget, Buiatti and Dehaene, 2009). But remember that the geniuses in any area not done in a day, the real experts need many years.

 My idea of education it’s like trying to install a software on any gadget, if the software does not match the system requirements, it is likely that this may not work properly, this has happened to educational models prevailing as it has been said at many educational forums. I think that formal education has pushed their applications regardless of what the system itself can do. Above all, has not taken into account that the system itself is regulated and is able to improve any program.

 It is therefore in this sense that the software can not be used in the same way in all alike, every brain is different connections, some more specialized than others (Haier, 2009), but if you want all the same opportunities , you should look at that as an advantage, and then create a flexible software. As well as creating applications for various devices, versions 1, 2, N and N +1 ... Why not create flexible educational proposals?, Especially taking into account the culture, technological advances and innovations. In less than a decade we have moved from laptops to mobile devices and now we read hypertext. Culture evolves, brain evolves; why is education so boring?.

 If you want to create an application of this magnitude, then I think I should ask the question: what is the goal of this application?. It’s certainly not the speech that was sold to my generation: if you go to school will be a successful professional and you can make money and be better than your parents. Evolutionarily each new generation will be better than their ancestors (Fox, 2011).

 What do we wish at the end of so many years of education?, Do we wish everyone thinking exactly the same?, Well, if you look at successful people, it seems a famous person is who dares to break the mold, and all admire him or her for doing things that nobody else can not do, a baseball player, a painter, a musician, a computer whiz or business ... all of them went beyond and against the system.

 Then school needs to be creative and diversify. Each educational system is good for a limited group of people, but there's a group that does not, and they need another program (Barber and Mourshed, 2007).

 Formal education can call them stupid or odd, but there are examples which show an extraordinary talent that was misunderstood. This is because creativity is an important ingredient in education (Robinson, 2006).

 And be creative relates to use tools, specially talking about the current technological age and the worldwide joy of using mobile devices, but we can not forget the economic and cultural differences. What is the advantage of these tools? They are intuitive. Does not take much to learn to use and each generation of devices are based on brain function, and I think here can mention only some of its features:

They are based on visual processing, are increasingly attractive, sharper images, sound better, more friendly, and do not need a course of 40 hours to use a tablet computer, as soon as you open the box,  and it jumps almost saying, use me, let's work and learn!.

 They are visuopropioceptives, where I put my finger I have what I want, they are lightweight, and do not I have to get home to work, technically they in my pocket... I carry it everywhere, just like any brain, goes everywhere with me, and also have very good ability to memory.

 The advantage of technological tools moreover, it's adding to the fact, you no longer dependent on a special platform to teach, the most commonly used, Facebook is great for teaching on line and now has built Skype; Google +  allows the use of multiple cameras for video conferences, it have enough room for internet use while you are giving a class ... if education of the future will use more and more often these items it will be excited, but at the same time, it can be a  bet IF think about use  only gadgets and it would be closing the door to creativity and only turning  the current coin.

 First, we must think about the economic and language barrier, that is why gadgets can not be considered as the only options, and it makes sense to use the tools that each brain has at hand from the culture, and thus will be more creative, successful, and adapted. More experiences, more neural networks. Simple!.

 At the same time, we cannot forget the environment, because that is where decisions are made, they learn ethical systems (Blanchette and Richards, 2010), is the civilization where the brain has evolved, and is ultimately who we want to teach (Dehaene, 2009).

 And now here we come: what to teach?. I am convinced that it is possible to teach anything with the right strategy, from quantum physics to how to get to the moon or being the best driver of the world. Teaching should not only bet on science, or formal education, the brain learns from everywhere, learn how to break security systems, or  the law, IF it is assumed that this is not learned in school, how is that someone manages to construct an algorithm for something so complex?, because the brain is much more intelligent than the school has believed.

 Like learning math, that persons  think is one of the  more complex learning so far, with  a special language, and it has been able to create a specific space in the brain (Dehaene, 1999), the brain can reconnect existing networks and to continue learning, and creating and modifying them. It is able to create a triangular circle, or a colorful painting in black and white. It is creative and likes to be. There is nothing better than when someone call us the best at something, anything, from the best runner, even the best in physics, or the best craftsman. That makes us feel good!.

 I think the goal of education should be to help each one to find for that which every one is good, the younger that goal is reached, the better value is the talent and will be more helpful to society.

 Accept that there are other talents and tell to each child: YES, YOU CAN!, I hope it can be the way to school in the future, even when the system itself can have flawed. Finally accept that not everyone can learn the same way, it will open doors to children that every day work hard trying to adapt their skills to the demands of school (Fisher, 2010).

 Finally, if we see how other species and children learn before going to school, open our eyes to accept that learning is enjoyable, and that the more is seen as a game, is better accepted (Tullis, 2011). Hence it is explained why videogames can capture children minds, but if we look closely, they are teaching things that do matter for the school.

 For example, the relationship visuospatial, visuo motor process for reading and writing, teaching strategies, metacognitive processes, and I can easily go on and on ...

 The school of the future should recognize that the first point is to understand the brain, which provides its services for everything and, it will find a cure for brain diseases for future generations, it will reorganize the world economy or, it will let me see a movie from the comfort of my home, with just one click

 And of course, no everyone can be famous actors or musicians, but if you enjoy doing what is being done, that is natural and then it lets exploit the full potential of each person, would not be worth it to educate?.

 

Alma Dzib Goodin

 REFERENCES

 Barber, M. and Mourshed, M. (2007) How the world’s best performance school system come out on top. McKinsey & Company.USA.

 Blanchette, I.and Richards, A. (2010) The influence of affect o higher level cognition: A review of research on interpretation, judgment, decision making and reasoning. Cognition & Emotion. 24 (4) 561-595.

 Carboni Román, A., Del Rio Grande, D., Capilla, A., Maestú, F. y  Ortíz, T. (2006) Bases neurobiológicas de las dificultades de aprendizaje. Rev Neurol. 42 (Supl 2) S171-S175.

 Cook, G. (2010) The brain and the written word. Scientific American Mind. 21 (1) 62-65.

 Dehaene, S. (1999) The number sense: how mind creates mathematics.OxfordUniversity Press.USA.

 Dehaene, S. (2009) Reading in the brain: The science and evolution of a human invention. Viking Adult: Penguin Group.USA.

 Dehaene, S., Nakamura, K., Jobert, A., Kuroki, C., Ogawa, S. and Cohen, L. (2009) Why do children make mirror errors in reading? Neural correlates of mirror invariance in the visual word form area. Neuroimage. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.09.024

 Dzib Goodin, A (2011c) How do we learn?.  Disponible en red: http://education50.com/blog/black-list-of-colors/how-do-we-learn.

 Dzib Goodin, A. (2011a) The search for talent: the Holy Grial disponible en red: http://talkingaboutneurocognitionandlearning.blogspot.com/.

 Dzib Goodin, A. (2011b) Brain differences: the black hole of formal education. Disponible en red: http://talkingaboutneurocognitionandlearning.blogspot.com/2011/09/brain-differences-black-hole-of-formal.html.

 Fisher, B. (2010) A sensory fix for problems in school. Scientific American Mind. 21 (1) 32-37.

 Forget, J., Buiatti, M. and Dehaene, S. (2009) Temporal integration in visual word recognition. Journal of cognitive neuroscience. 1 (2) 1-15.

 Fox, D. (2011) The limits of intelligence. Scientific American. 305 (1) 36- 43.

Gage, FH. (2007) Brain, repair yourself. En Floyd  E, Bloom. The best of the brain from Scientif American: Mind matter and tomorrow’s brain. Dana Press. US.

 Haier, R. (2009) What does a smart brain look like?. Scientific American Mind. 20 (6) 26-33.

 Hartshorne, J. (2009) Why don’t babies talk like adults? Scientific American Mind. 20 (5) 59 – 61.

 Robinson, K. (2006) TED: Schools and creativity. Disponible en red: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPB-41q97zg&context=C3d21048ADOEgsToPDskLALkSRPqGf5rRgHmuJPYd2

 Roediger III, HL. and Finn, B. (2010) The pluses of getting wrong.  Scientific American Mind. 21 (1) 38-41.

 Tullis, P. (2011) Preeschool tests take time away from play and learning. Scientific American Mind. 22 (6) 26-29.

 World Economic Forum (2011) Latin American economies still lag behind in leveraging ICT despite making progress, according to new global technology report. Disponible en red: http://www.weforum.org/news/latin-american-economies-still-lag-behind-leveraging-ict-despite-making-progress-according-new-.

Share

12 responses so far

My Project

Oct 29 2011 Published by under Uncategorized

I am hesitant to discuss much of this as I normally don't talk about my work.  There are good reasons for that.

You see... I'm the enemy.  I am a content specialist for a major producer of standardized tests.  My specialty is (duh) science.

Now, I've been in this industry for 3 years now and let me tell you, it's not what you think it is.  Unless you are in the industry or actively involved as a client, you can't imagine what it's like.  I can share a few things with you.

It takes over 18 months for a question to go from an idea in someone's head to an operational item (that means it's scored and the score counts for whatever the test is for).  Each question, depending on the project requirements, will be seen by 2-3 content specialists (usually each one more than twice), artists, copy editors, fact checkers, clients, client committees, and a bias/sensitivity expert before ever even seeing a test form.  Then there is field testing, data review, final review by the client... then it MIGHT get on a test.

The first thing most people think of when they hear 'standardized testing' is the recently ended No Child Left Behind and maybe Obama's Race to the Top programs.  I will say that it is my opinion that these standardized tests in these contexts are used for entirely incorrect purposes and at incorrect times.  But those are client decisions and "him what pays, says".  But there are a lot of tests that have to be standardized that you might not think about.  Every industry that has some kind of certification exam has standardized tests... nurses, IT techs, aircraft mechanics, etc. etc.  Those are generally used properly.

When I say properly, let me explain.  What is the purpose of a test?  To see if the tester knows something.  Now, a well designed test question will not only tell you if the student knows the information, but can also tell you why the student got it wrong.  That last bit is critically important and why much of the high school testing... isn't properly used.  There's accountability with no chance at improvement. If the tester doesn't learn, then there' s very little point in doing it... if you don't learn, there's very little point in doing anything.

A properly designed test should have a diagnostic component.  Which is a pre-test.  What does the tester know now?  It can identify areas of improvement and even (sometimes) over clues into the misconceptions the tester has so they may be taught correctly.  Any assessment is a tool that students, teachers, parents, state officials can use to see what's going on with education at their level.  Unfortunately, it's not being used this way (mainly because it is expensive).  Again, there's a big difference between public school assessments (which are free for the students to take) and professional certification tests that are not free.

But why a standardized test?  Well, that just means that over a given period or group, all the testers take the same test.  Their are several reasons for this.  One is so that scores can be compared between students, schools, classrooms, socioeconomic groups, gender, ethnicity, ect.  And yes, we do compare every test question in every single one of these ways to check for issues.  Because tests are standardized, they can even be compared year to year.  Usually a group of questions are carried over from one year to the next and these form the basis of some extensive statistical analyses to determine how students compare year over year.  It is truly staggering the amount of information that is developed from these tests.

It can go even further.  A few of you may remember Obama's "Sputnick Moment".  Well that's from another standardized test (PISA) that is given to students all over the world.  The same questions given to students in 70+ countries.  The US didn't do so well in the latest one, hence the "Sputnick Moment".

Another complaint that people often have about standardized testing is that it is too easy to guess.  99% of the time, the questions are 4 option multiple choice.  Well, that is changing.  A number of industry leading companies have a variety of new products out.  Items that are hot spots, where a tester selects one or more portions of an image and the computer tabulates the location of each click to determine a score.  Drag and drop, which is a glorified matching question, but often with some advanced features.  There is even some significant research into computer scored essay questions.  I've seen a demo and it is absolutely stunning.  It is not a word count type of system.  It is a learned relational database.  It can tell the difference between a BS answer with lots of technical terms and one that has the exact same terms, but correct.  I've seen it.  It is truly amazing tech.

Sorry for the digression, but I hope that this has given you some insight into the industry.  Like any industry, there is a lot of proprietary technology, processes, clients, etc.  I can't get into that.  If you have any questions, then I'll try to answer them if I can... the more general the better.

But standardized testing is here to stay.

Now, on to my project that I am epically excited out.  This is really a pinnacle of the career type of thing.  I am responsible for the development of the science standards for a MAJOR client.  This isn't state wide or even national.  We are likely to go multi-national with it.  Now, I'm not doing this by myself.  There is the client, various advisory committees, consultants, consultant groups, and a host of businesses all involved.  But I'm the guy that is actually putting the words on paper.  Which means, a lot of what I say will be incorporated into the science standards.  I've made a number of changes and recommendations and the client seems to pleased.

My trip to New York, next week, will be the first of a series of committee reviews of these standards.

When I think about, which I try not to do, I am excited that I am working on such a major project.  Then I get seriously nervous.  What if I say something wrong, what if I didn't push hard enough to get something vitally important in or get something that ends up a waste of time out?

I actually started another draft document today and that's why I'm thinking about this now.  We're talking about being an influence (however small it might be) on literally hundreds of thousands of students a year.

I can say for certain that evolution will be a major theme.  The client unambiguously agrees with me and a consultation group that I assembled from experts in science education.  We're not going to beat around the bush either.  Common descent, speciation, selection, etc.  will all be fair game.  I am very happy about that.  Even if students don't believe it, they still have to learn it and they will learn what evolution is really about instead of the misinformation that is promoted almost everywhere in the US.

I'm just babbling now... and as usual... I'm not sure where to stop.  So, if I can answer any questions you might have, let me know.

Share

12 responses so far

Why Variance Matters: Race, Education, and Income

Aug 13 2011 Published by under Uncategorized

Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College in Los Angeles. She blogs every day at Sociological Images.

Kelsey C. sent in a some great data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that helps illustrate why variance matters as much as a measure of the average.  The figure shows the median income by race and education level, as well as the typical earnings of each group’s members in the third quartile (or the 75th percentile) and first quartile (or the 25th percentile).  What you see is that the median earnings across these groups is different, but also that the amount of inequality within each group isn’t consistent.  That is, some groups have a wider range of income than others:

 

So, Asians are the most economically advantaged of all groups included, but they also have the widest range of income.  This means that some Asians do extremely well, better than many whites, but many Asians are really struggling.  In comparison, among Blacks and Hispanics, the range is smaller.  So the highest earning Blacks and Hispanics don’t do as well relative to the groups median as do Whites and Asians.

Likewise, dropping out of high school seems to put a cap on how much you can earn; as education increases it raises the floor, but it also raises the variance in income. This means that someone with a bachelors degree doesn’t necessarily make craploads of money, but they might.

Share

4 responses so far

Lifetime Earnings Gaps, by Sex and Race/Ethnicity

Aug 10 2011 Published by under Uncategorized

Dolores R. and Andrew S. let us know about the report “The College Payoff: Education, Occupations, Lifetime Earnings,” by researchers at Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce, based on 2007-2009 American Community Survey data (via Feministing and Kay Steiger). Not surprisingly, higher education significantly increases lifetime earnings of U.S. workers:

But education doesn’t pay off equally for all groups. Women, not surprisingly, make less at every level of education than men do; in fact, their median lifetime earnings are generally on par with men a couple of rungs down the educational ladder:

Ah, but, you might think, women are more likely to take time out of the workforce than men, so perhaps that accounts for the difference. But the gaps calculated here are only for full-time, year-round workers and do not include periods out of the workforce — that is, this is the “best-case scenario” in terms of comparing gender earnings, and yet women still make about 25% less than men at the same educational level. When they include workers taking time out of the workforce, the pay gap would be significantly larger. The far right column in this table shows how much less women make compared to men based on the “typical” work pattern for workers in each educational category:

The benefits of education also vary by race and ethnicity, with non-Hispanic Whites generally making more at each educational level than all other groups, though Asians outearn them at the highest levels:

Though the authors don’t include a table showing the gap if you include workers who do not work full-time year-round throughout their careers, they state that as with gender, the gap widens significantly, since non-Whites are more likely to experience periods without work.

So does education pay? Undoubtedly, for all groups. But due to factors such as occupational segregation (especially by gender) and discrimination in the workplace, the return on an educational investment is clearly a lot higher for some than others.

Also see related posts on the gender gap in science and tech jobs, racial differences in job loss during the recession, unemployment among Black and White college grads, and trends in job segregation by sex.

Cross-posted at Sociological Images.

Share

2 responses so far

The Gender Gap in Science, Tech, Engineering, and Math Occupations

Aug 04 2011 Published by under Uncategorized

The U.S. Department of Commerce just released a report on the continuing gender gap in STEM jobs - that is, science, technology, engineering, and math. While women make up roughly half of the total paid workforce, they still held only a quarter of STEM jobs as of 2009:

In fact, we saw no change in the gender make-up of STEM fields between 2000 and 2009.

There is significant variation in the gender composition within the STEM category, however. At the high end, women hold 40% of jobs in the physical and life sciences; the low point is engineering, where only 14% of employees are women. And the proportion of women in computer science and math jobs actually fell between 2000 and 2009, from 30% to 27% of workers.

This isn't simply because of differences in education, either. Here we see the proportion of both men and women in STEM jobs at various educational levels; while increased education correlates with a higher likelihood of having a STEM job for both groups, women are significantly less likely than men at every educational level to have a STEM job:


The gender disparity in STEM jobs is especially noteworthy because, on average, STEM occupations pay significantly more than other private-sector jobs, and the gender gap in pay is actually lower than in non-STEM sectors:

If we look only at women with bachelor's degrees, women who earn STEM degrees and work in STEM jobs earn, on average, 29% more than other women.

So the underrepresentation of women in STEM jobs means that women are missing out on some of the best-paying occupations in the U.S.; in fact, this type of gender-segregation of jobs is one of the leading causes of gender gap in yearly and lifetime earnings.

The authors of the report don't go into detail about potential causes of the gender gap in STEM careers, though they note that among those earning STEM degrees in college, women are significantly less likely than men to hold jobs in related STEM fields. They suggest this might be because STEM jobs are relatively unaccommodating to those who take time off for family obligations (disproportionately women), because of a lack of female role models in STEM fields (including as college professors), or because of gender stereotyping about math or science aptitude (like this, or this if you prefer a t-shirt) that pushes women away from STEM degrees and careers.

The complex interplay of factors that lead to a gender gap in who holds STEM-sector jobs provides significant challenges to increasing the proportion of women in these occupations --- as indicated by the lack of change over the past decade. But particularly as we see increasing economic divergence between well-paid tech and information sector and low-paid service sector jobs, addressing the underrepresentation of women in STEM jobs will be essential as part of any effort to improve women's lifetime earnings potential and overall economic outlook.

Share

18 responses so far

Empowerment, science, girls...okay, and cookies too

Mar 01 2011 Published by under Uncategorized

Did you get your Thin Mints yet?

It's Girl Scout cookie season, at least in some parts of the US.  (Cookie sales periods, prices, and even varieties vary by region.)  But Girl Scouts all over the world just celebrated Thinking Day too.  World Thinking Day is in late February every year, and most troops mark the occasion somehow.  A holiday about thinking!  What could be more science-friendly than that?  This year's theme for World Thinking Day was "Empowering Girls Will Change Our World."

So I thought I'd look through my daughter's badge book for what science-related badges Junior Girl Scouts can earn.  Juniors are in grades 4-5-6 in the US; they're the ones with the green sashes.  Science badges for this age include "Aerospace," "Rocks Rock," "Weather Watch," "Science Discovery," "Science in Everyday Life," "Science Sleuth," "Sky Search," "Computer Fun," "Water Wonders," "Discovering Technology," "Plants and Animals," "Environmental Health," "Humans and Habitats," "Math Whiz," and others, depending on your definitions.  Even "Car Care" has girls learning to check the oil, brake fluid, tire pressure; learning about the composition of tires; researching the technologies of energy efficiency, emissions reduction, and passenger safety.  Most of the badge requirements today cannot be done sitting at a table during scout meetings--they require girls to go out and try things, keep journals of their observations, attend events, and talk to experts in the community.

You don't have to be a Girl Scout leader or parent to help empower girls with science experiences.  Offer yourself as a guest speaker at a local troop meeting; determine if your workplace can be made available for a troop to tour; or put together a packet of interesting materials that troop leaders might not be able to find in a craft store.  If there's a Girl Scout camp in your area, see if they need any science equipment you have to spare (even just magnifying glasses!).

Again and again, if you ask adults who were Girl Scouts, they'll tell you specific events, experiences, or people that stuck with them and even affected their career and life paths.  (For me?  Mrs. Cannon.  Taught a bunch of us left-handed girls to crochet, bless her.)  Wouldn't it be cool if, twenty years from now, a woman said "it was that person, that day, that moment," and she was talking about you?

Also?  If you offer your services in the springtime, I can almost guarantee you'll get some cookies as a thank you.   Thin Mints, if you're really good.

Share

12 responses so far

Future of Engineering

Feb 26 2011 Published by under Uncategorized

As my final guest post here I thought it would be appropriate to talk about the future of engineering: both in education and in western society. I thank you all for reading my few posts here, not as many as I would have wanted, but of course I keep myself busy posting on my own blog Design. Build. Play. and over at Engineer Blogs. I have really enjoyed the conversations and comments here.

On that note, on my first post here a subject that came up in the comments was whether to teach engineering in school. But even in my public education experience we did plenty of engineering projects, only didn't know what that's what they were. I'm sure many students are familiar with the infamous egg drop project.

There's been discussions on the 'net about how we teach science before college. There have been a lot of complaints that teaching science in elementary, middle and high schools is akin to teaching auto repair without actually having a car to work on. I think more hands on experiments are crucial for where we want to go before college and in college as those were my most memorable experiences.

I've built an egg drop case, a car that was propelled by a C02 cartridge, a ramp and even a trebuchet. The problem with the last two were that a lot of work was required on our own and for those of us who didn't have parental support in building these projects they were much more difficult and it was much easier to cut corners. It'd be nice if build projects in school were done with access to a school shop and school materials. This is what made my engineering projects actually doable. It's not teaching if you have to do and learn everything on your own.

The other concern is if we're recruiting only people who have a familiarity with the topic due to the support of family and friends. And that's not always going to bring in the most qualified people.

But as I discussed in my last post on this guest blog, how do you recruit people into an industry that has its problems?  Besides the obvious problems I mentioned there there's a lack of government and public support for the STEM fields right now. I mean, there's a pretend support that we "need more scientists and engineers" but that has yet to be backed up with government money or private corporations doing business here.

One of my fellow engineers, Chris Gammel, just wrote a great post on starting a technology manufacturing company- then and now. He looked at the success of the guys who started HP and the relative comparison of startup costs and how to compete with low cost foreign manufacturing sectors.

It's definitely difficult to start up a company that actually makes something in the US these days and that's a problem much of western society has had to deal with. When intellectual property is often absorbed by the countries that make the high tech devices designed by engineers here they no longer need the education and higher paid engineers in the west.

But there are still some places where western nations could succeed and even cooperate with the rising and growing manufacturing countries. I think about Germany that's been able to keep much of its manufacturing by focusing on high precision and high quality items. In fact, German engineering is renowned in many places and many auto components manufacturers are based over there with not only the engineering but the manufacturing as well. And that may be where other countries can find their niche.

Right now we're exporting software and financial instruments. But these are not products from a country that was great because it could make things. Auto makers, aviation and defense manufacturers tend to be the last holdouts in this country and I think we can do better. There's probably not enough profit in green and sustainable energy by itself but combine that with space exploration, machine manufacture, energy equipment for industrial applications, and high tech building design and I think we have a start. If we could take back much of the computer, cell phone and medical device manufacturing we've exported I think we'd be even stronger.

So I hope the future in education and in the grand art of making stuff is bright. Thanks for reading me, please chime in with your own opinion on STEM education and the future of engineering and manufacturing, and I hope to still have great conversations with many of you I've met here in the future.

Share

One response so far

Anger & Engineering Outreach

Feb 24 2011 Published by under Uncategorized

This week is National Engineer's Week in the US. Universities across the country are engaging in activities, competitions, build challenges, and outreach activities. GeekDad over at Wired has a great list of engineering links so you can celebrate the week with the young people in your life. I love the outreach aspects of this because I think engineering, but science in general, is often done behind the curtains from the public. And while I wouldn't advocate every single kid grow up to be an engineer they shouldn't be afraid to be an engineer and those who are not should still have some idea of what the profession is.

Today's day in E-Week is Introduce a Girl to Engineering. It's not been too long since we've had our first engineer barbie so we're at that point where it's easy to feel like we're succeeding. Like Luke in fending off TIE fighters we have to be reminded, great kid, now don't get cocky! Over at Engineer Blogs my colleague Fluxor wrote a great post about women in engineering.  And this is where you see the total disconnect of those that get it and those that don't. The comments there were generally supportive but the comments on the article over at reddit are enough to make me sick. Bitter enough I ranted angrily on my own blog. The comments were of the flavor that women engineers are basically taking jobs away from qualified (white?) dudes (they took 'r jooobs!) and doing some piss poor justifications that women aren't as good as men.

But the post on my own blog shows that what they won't say to your face will still come all wrong. And it's frustrating to have to deal with that crap every day. I know so many women in academia, industry, science, engineering, technology- who all have to deal with that daily battle. And even at my youngish age, you just get tired. And thankfully I can come here and write about it and laugh about it and feel like I'm not alone and that not all men are total douchebags (just the ones I work with apparently). But I've also seen my industry serve as a training ground to indoctrinate once decent fellows into the ways of the sexist and racist dinosaurs that run the place. So I'm not convinced a sudden infusion of women or minorities is going to change anything.

Which brings me back to introducing a girl to engineering. Sometimes I feel like the young women I know and care about, there is no way I would want to convince them to go into this field. I would have a hard time being genuine in encouraging them. Or a hard time glossing over all of the tough parts. I mean, don't get me wrong. Most professions have their pitfalls and require a lot of hard work and dedication, at least at some point, that might or might not pay off later. But when a woman has to work 2.5 times as hard as a man to be considered equally capable it's difficult for me to sell the parts of the field that I love. This article from womens enews provides a great rebuttal of a lot of the articles lately that have chimed in with some false research conclusions about how it's all okay now and women having supposedly achieved parity.

But past all the difficulties and drudgeries and long, angry days, I do love engineering. It's going to be less than two hours now until the final Space Shuttle launch at NASA. I hope on this day that girls, and boys, and all of us supposed adults have a chance to watch this memorable day. It's hard for me to think that the space shuttle era is an era at all. That it has to end. That I won't be able to stream live launches anymore of the shuttle that means so much to me. I'm not sure why it's emotional to me, but maybe because the shuttle was to my youth what the Apollo program was to the generation before me. I'd go buy this shirt but I think wearing it will only make me sad.

When you hear the astronauts speak, many of whom are training on future missions that will be using the Russian's Soyuz rocket to get people to the space station, they don't sound sad at all. They know that closing of certain programs is just something that happens in technology and another era will eventually take its place. They know whatever the future of space flight is that there will be a future and that whatever that future is it's worth believing in and worth taking risks for.

And maybe that's how I should look at engineering. It hasn't been easy and sometimes it tries to break my heart but sometimes it gives me gifts and fulfillment I never would have suspected. I know that for me at least the risk is worth it that had I to do it all over again I would do everything exactly the same.

So how about you dear readers, do you ever have trouble trying to encourage young people into your discipline? Do you wonder whether the pitfalls of your particular field were worth it, or maybe worth it only for you? Do you think it'll be better some day, that telling our daughters to go into STEM isn't sending them into an ultimately frustrating place? Do you worry the general attitudes towards STEM fields in general will discourage people or do you think the future will be brighter? Are you as heart broken as I am about the final shuttle launch?

Share

5 responses so far

Bad Behavior has blocked 563 access attempts in the last 7 days.