Women In Scholarship Research Articles

Margaret-Ann Armour and WISEST – an incredible legacy in advancing women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and the work still to do

Dr. Margaret-Ann Armour was a visionary and leader in addressing the issue of gender inclusivity and discrimination in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). She was instrumental in creating WISEST — Women in Scholarship, Engineering, Science, and Technology — in 1982, which was one of the first programs in Canada intentionally designed to increase the participation of women and girls in STEM career paths. Since then, this innovative organization has designed several programs featuring hands-on learning and mentoring that reduce barriers and empower people from underrepresented and marginalized groups to pursue education and careers in STEM fields. This review provides a template for WISEST programs, discusses their impact on diversity in STEM, and highlights the work still to be done.

Empowered Leaders and Alone in Community: Stories of Romanian Roma Health Mediators

This article investigates the experiences of Roma women who work as health mediators to build bridges between Romani patients and the public health system. Given the precarious socioeconomic conditions, overt discrimination, policy changes, and rights advocacy that mark these women's lives—and at the same time the near invisibility of Roma women in scholarship—this study offers women's stories as communicative practices of telling oneself. The mediators narrate stories of successes and challenges in their profession, of discrimination, of empowerment, and of identity shifts toward hybridity and contextual alliances. This study suggests that although a sense of entitlement makes sense in the context of much responsibility on the Romni's shoulders, speaking for their own ethnicity may become problematic and is accompanied by feelings of loneliness.

Methods in Teacher Training

Measurement of instruction and recognition of the factors contributing to scholarship are important aspects of methods of teaching. There is space only for a brief summary of investigations made to determine the relation between scholarship and high-school records, junior-college transfers, sex, fraternities, attendance, and other factors. It has been stated in this paper that the coefficient of correlation between high-school marks and college marks may be expected to range from about .40 to .50, or even higher. Thornberg concludes that students from large high schools are superior in scholarship in college to students from small high schools. He finds the most marked difference between students from high schools of less than one hundred enrollment and those from high schools of more than one hundred. He attributes this difference to variations in preparatory training rather than to native capacity. Students who enter college at the normal age or a year younger do the best work and are of a superior intellectual equipment. Women surpass men in scholarship and are a more highly selected group, as judged by intelligence scores.(1) Eells points out the superiority of 317 students who transferred from junior colleges to the upper division of Stanford University over a five-year period. This superiority over other students is found in terms of intelligence, previous academic records, academic records in the upper division of the University, honors received, and enrollment for graduate work.(2) The studies are in agreement that college women are superior to men in scholarship. Flickinger is of the opinion that women are more willing to do the type of memory work required in college and therefore receive higher marks. He substantiates this theory by pointing to the fact that men forge ahead of women in the graduate school where independent thinking plays a more prominent part than in the undergraduate institution.(3) Gowen and Gooch report that women are superior to men in scholarship in college and explain the difference by the superior high-school record of the women, which indicates that women are a more select group.(4) Toevs and Emerson seek to explain the superiority of Women in scholarship by suggesting that they are a more select group in terms of native intelligence.(5) They also suggest that women are governed by stricter standards and have more regular hours and better study conditions, which may explain in part their superior performance. Cunningham offers some statistical evidence that popular notions concerning sex favoritism in marking are without foundation.(6) Paterson and Langlie recommend the use of objective tests and examinations to overcome the so-called pseudo-differences in scholarship between the sexes. They are of the opinion that there are a great many instructors who are rewarding the personality traits of women rather than measuring genuine scholastic achievement.(7) Worcester, on the basis of studies secured from the registrars of ten colleges and universities, reports that sorority groups stand above nonsorority groups in scholarship, but that the scholastic standing of nonfraternity groups is higher than that of fraternity groups; the data also indicate that the standing of women is uniformly higher than that of men.(8) Reports of progress on a survey of fraternity scholarship in 118 institutions with five or more fraternities indicate the difficulties encountered in comparing institutions because of variations in marking systems.(9) Turner points out that decrease in scholarship is accompanied by irregular attendance and by an increase in absences from class.(10) There are other studies of scholarship in relation to participation in athletics, vocational success, family background, exposure to Latin, years in college, background educational factors, and extra-mural study. A summary of these investigations is available elsewhere, as well as a resume of studies of detection of cheating, mental characteristics of cheaters, student attitude toward examinations, honesty, bluffing on examinations, safeguarding the administering of examinations, and the honor system. …