Is Adding the E Enough?: Investigating the Impact of K-12 Engineering Standards on the Implementation of STEM Integration.

The problems that we face in our ever-changing, increasingly global society are multidisciplinary, and many require the integration of multiple science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) concepts to solve them. National calls for improvement of STEM education in the United States are driving changes in policy, particularly in academic standards. Research on STEM integration in K-12 classrooms has not kept pace with the sweeping policy changes in STEM education. This study addresses the need for research to explore the translation of broad, national-level policy statements regarding STEM education and integration to state-level policies and implementation in K-12 classrooms. An interpretive multicase study design was employed to conduct an in-depth investigation of secondary STEM teachers\u27 implementation of STEM integration in their classrooms during a yearlong professional development program. The interpretive approach was used because it provides holistic descriptions and explanations for the particular phenomenon, in this case STEM integration. The results of this study demonstrate the possibilities of policies that use state standards documents as a mechanism to integrate engineering into science standards. Our cases suggest that STEM integration can be implemented most successfully when mathematics and science teachers work together both in a single classroom (co-teaching) and in multiple classrooms (content teaching—common theme)

The African Open Science Platform: The Future of Science and Science for the Future

This document presents a draft strategy and makes the scientific case for the African Open Science Platform (AOSP). It is based on an expert group meeting held in Pretoria on 27-28 March 2018. Its purpose is to act as a framework for detailed, work on the creation of the Platform and as a basis for discussion at a stakeholder meeting to be held on 3-4 September 2018, which will lead to a definitive strategy for implementation from 2019. Expert group members at the March meeting were drawn from the following organisations: African Academy of Sciences (AAS), Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf), Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA), International Council for Science (ICSU), National Research and Education Networks (NRENS), Research Data Alliance (RDA), South African Department of Science & Technology (DST) and National Research Foundation (NRF), Square Kilometre Array (SKA), UNESCO. The African Open Science Platform The Future of Science and Science for the Future 4 The African Open Science Platform. The Platform’s mission is to put African scientists at the cutting edge of contemporary, data-intensive science as a fundamental resource for a modern society. Its building blocks are: • a federated hardware, communications and software infrastructure, including policies and enabling practices, to support Open Science in the digital era; • a network of excellence in Open Science that supports scientists & other societal actors in accumulating and using modern data resources to maximise scientific, social and economic benefit. These objectives will be realised through seven related strands of activity: Strand 0: Register & portal for African & related international data collections & services. Strand 1: A federated network of computational facilities and services. Strand 2: Software tools & advice on policies & practices of research data management. Strand 3: A Data Science Institute at the cutting edge of data analytics and AI. Strand 4: Priority application programmes: e.g. cities, disease, biosphere, agriculture. Strand 5: A Network for Education & Skills in data & information. Strand 6: A Network for Open Science Access and Dialogue. The document also outlines the proposed governance, membership and management structure of the Platform, the approach to initial funding and the milestones in building up to the launch. The case for Open Science is based on the profound implications for society and for science, of the digital revolution and of the storm of data that it has unleashed and of the pervasive and novel means of communication that it has enabled. No state should fail to recognise this potential or to adapt their national intellectual infrastructure in exploiting benefits and minimising risks. Open Science is a vital enabler in maintaining the rigour and reliability of science; in creatively integrating diverse data resources to address complex modern challenges; in open innovation and in engaging with other societal actors as knowledge partners in tackling shared problems. It is fundamental to realisation of the Sustainable Development Goals. National science systems worldwide are struggling to adapt to this new paradigm. The alternatives are to do so or risk stagnating in a scientific backwater, isolated from creative streams of social, cultural and economic opportunity. Africa should adapt and capitalise on the opportunities, but in its own way, and as a leader not a follower, with broader, more societally-engaged priorities. It should seize the challenge with boldness and resolution

The African Open Science Platform: The Future of Science and Science for the Future

This document presents a draft strategy and makes the scientific case for the African Open Science Platform (AOSP). It is based on an expert group meeting held in Pretoria on 27-28 March 2018. Its purpose is to act as a framework for detailed, work on the creation of the Platform and as a basis for discussion at a stakeholder meeting to be held on 3-4 September 2018, which will lead to a definitive strategy for implementation from 2019. Expert group members at the March meeting were drawn from the following organisations: African Academy of Sciences (AAS), Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf), Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA), International Council for Science (ICSU), National Research and Education Networks (NRENS), Research Data Alliance (RDA), South African Department of Science & Technology (DST) and National Research Foundation (NRF), Square Kilometre Array (SKA), UNESCO. The African Open Science Platform The Future of Science and Science for the Future 4 The African Open Science Platform. The Platform’s mission is to put African scientists at the cutting edge of contemporary, data-intensive science as a fundamental resource for a modern society. Its building blocks are: • a federated hardware, communications and software infrastructure, including policies and enabling practices, to support Open Science in the digital era; • a network of excellence in Open Science that supports scientists & other societal actors in accumulating and using modern data resources to maximise scientific, social and economic benefit. These objectives will be realised through seven related strands of activity: Strand 0: Register & portal for African & related international data collections & services. Strand 1: A federated network of computational facilities and services. Strand 2: Software tools & advice on policies & practices of research data management. Strand 3: A Data Science Institute at the cutting edge of data analytics and AI. Strand 4: Priority application programmes: e.g. cities, disease, biosphere, agriculture. Strand 5: A Network for Education & Skills in data & information. Strand 6: A Network for Open Science Access and Dialogue. The document also outlines the proposed governance, membership and management structure of the Platform, the approach to initial funding and the milestones in building up to the launch. The case for Open Science is based on the profound implications for society and for science, of the digital revolution and of the storm of data that it has unleashed and of the pervasive and novel means of communication that it has enabled. No state should fail to recognise this potential or to adapt their national intellectual infrastructure in exploiting benefits and minimising risks. Open Science is a vital enabler in maintaining the rigour and reliability of science; in creatively integrating diverse data resources to address complex modern challenges; in open innovation and in engaging with other societal actors as knowledge partners in tackling shared problems. It is fundamental to realisation of the Sustainable Development Goals. National science systems worldwide are struggling to adapt to this new paradigm. The alternatives are to do so or risk stagnating in a scientific backwater, isolated from creative streams of social, cultural and economic opportunity. Africa should adapt and capitalise on the opportunities, but in its own way, and as a leader not a follower, with broader, more societally-engaged priorities. It should seize the challenge with boldness and resolution

The African Open Science Platform: The Future of Science and Science for the Future

This document presents a draft strategy and makes the scientific case for the African Open Science Platform (AOSP). It is based on an expert group meeting held in Pretoria on 27-28 March 2018. Its purpose is to act as a framework for detailed, work on the creation of the Platform and as a basis for discussion at a stakeholder meeting to be held on 3-4 September 2018, which will lead to a definitive strategy for implementation from 2019. Expert group members at the March meeting were drawn from the following organisations: African Academy of Sciences (AAS), Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf), Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA), International Council for Science (ICSU), National Research and Education Networks (NRENS), Research Data Alliance (RDA), South African Department of Science & Technology (DST) and National Research Foundation (NRF), Square Kilometre Array (SKA), UNESCO. The African Open Science Platform The Future of Science and Science for the Future 4 The African Open Science Platform. The Platform’s mission is to put African scientists at the cutting edge of contemporary, data-intensive science as a fundamental resource for a modern society. Its building blocks are: • a federated hardware, communications and software infrastructure, including policies and enabling practices, to support Open Science in the digital era; • a network of excellence in Open Science that supports scientists & other societal actors in accumulating and using modern data resources to maximise scientific, social and economic benefit. These objectives will be realised through seven related strands of activity: Strand 0: Register & portal for African & related international data collections & services. Strand 1: A federated network of computational facilities and services. Strand 2: Software tools & advice on policies & practices of research data management. Strand 3: A Data Science Institute at the cutting edge of data analytics and AI. Strand 4: Priority application programmes: e.g. cities, disease, biosphere, agriculture. Strand 5: A Network for Education & Skills in data & information. Strand 6: A Network for Open Science Access and Dialogue. The document also outlines the proposed governance, membership and management structure of the Platform, the approach to initial funding and the milestones in building up to the launch. The case for Open Science is based on the profound implications for society and for science, of the digital revolution and of the storm of data that it has unleashed and of the pervasive and novel means of communication that it has enabled. No state should fail to recognise this potential or to adapt their national intellectual infrastructure in exploiting benefits and minimising risks. Open Science is a vital enabler in maintaining the rigour and reliability of science; in creatively integrating diverse data resources to address complex modern challenges; in open innovation and in engaging with other societal actors as knowledge partners in tackling shared problems. It is fundamental to realisation of the Sustainable Development Goals. National science systems worldwide are struggling to adapt to this new paradigm. The alternatives are to do so or risk stagnating in a scientific backwater, isolated from creative streams of social, cultural and economic opportunity. Africa should adapt and capitalise on the opportunities, but in its own way, and as a leader not a follower, with broader, more societally-engaged priorities. It should seize the challenge with boldness and resolution

Supporting both learning and research in a UK post-1992 university library: a case study

Nationally, there has been debate on the role of research within higher education and increased interest in the teaching/research nexus. A team of Academic Liaison Librarians at Anglia Polytechnic University was awarded funding to investigate the extent to which learning resources overlap with research resources, whether researcher/teachers encourage their students to use the resources they use themselves and how far electronic resources have affected the relationship between learning and research materials. Semistructured interviews were carried out with 21 academics who are both teachers and researchers. They proved to be committed to using research in their teaching. Students were encouraged to engage with research through the recommendation of resources, seminar discussion, and researchers’ own work for reading and illustrating methodologies. Respondents claimed to be making significant use of the APU library website, online databases and journals. The majority of them were also recommending the same resources to their students. Convenience, speed and variety of information sources were quoted as some of the advantages of the new e-environment. A loss of a relationship with librarians and with the physical library was cited as an example of negative effects of the electronic resource environment

Expectancy-Value Models for the STEM Persistence Plans of Ninth-Grade, High-Ability Students: A Comparison Between Black, Hispanic, and White Students

Group differences in the effects of the expectancies and values that high-ability students have for science and mathematics on plans to persist in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) were investigated. A nationally representative sample of ninth-grade students, the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS: 2009; n = 21,444) was used. The analytic sample was 1,757 (48% female, 52% male) Black (13.8%), Hispanic (26.7%), and White (59.6%) students who scored in the top 10% of their race group on the mathematics achievement test. Hierarchical logistic regression models were developed for each race/ethnicity group to examine the relationships of demographic and expectancy-value variables with STEM persistence status. Science attainment value, science intrinsic value, and STEM utility value were predictive of STEM persistence, but these variables operated differently in groups of Black, Hispanic, and White students. Implications for educators include the need for ways to improve perceptions of science identity and awareness of the utility of science and mathematics courses. (C) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc

Creating an Instrument to Measure Student Response to Instructional Practices

BackgroundCalls for the reform of education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) have inspired many instructional innovations, some research based. Yet adoption of such instruction has been slow. Research has suggested that students’ response may significantly affect an instructor’s willingness to adopt different types of instruction.PurposeWe created the Student Response to Instructional Practices (StRIP) instrument to measure the effects of several variables on student response to instructional practices. We discuss the step‐by‐step process for creating this instrument.Design/MethodThe development process had six steps: item generation and construct development, validity testing, implementation, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and instrument modification and replication. We discuss pilot testing of the initial instrument, construct development, and validation using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses.ResultsThis process produced 47 items measuring three parts of our framework. Types of instruction separated into four factors (interactive, constructive, active, and passive); strategies for using in‐class activities into two factors (explanation and facilitation); and student responses to instruction into five factors (value, positivity, participation, distraction, and evaluation).ConclusionsWe describe the design process and final results for our instrument, a useful tool for understanding the relationship between type of instruction and students’ response.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/136692/1/jee20162_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/136692/2/jee20162.pd