skip to main content

Title: Keeping Data Science Broad: Negotiating the Digital and Data Divide Among Higher-Education Institutions
A report summarizing the “Keeping Data Science Broad” series including data science challenges, visions for the future, and community asks. The goal of the Keeping Data Science Broad series was to garner community input into pathways for keeping data science education broadly inclusive across sectors, institutions, and populations. Input was collected from a community input survey, three webinars (Data Science in the Traditional Context, Alternative Avenues for Development of Data Science Education Capacity, and Big Picture for a Big Data Science Education Network available to view through the South Big Data Hub YouTube channel) and an interactive workshop (Negotiating the Digital and Data Divide). Through these venues, we explore the future of data science education and workforce at institutions of higher learning that are primarily teaching-focused. The workshop included representatives from sixty data science programs across the nation, either traditional or alternative, and from a range of institution types including community colleges, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU’s), Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI’s), other minority-led and minority-serving institutions, liberal arts colleges, tribal colleges, universities, and industry partners.
Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Award ID(s):
1747961
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10075971
Journal Name:
Workshop: Bridging the Digital and Data Divide
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Broadening participation in engineering among underrepresented minority students remains a big challenge for institutions of higher education. Since a large majority of underrepresented students attend community colleges, engineering transfer programs at these community colleges can play an important role in addressing this challenge. However, for most community college engineering programs, developing strategies and programs to increase the number and diversity of students successfully pursuing careers in engineering is especially challenging due to limited expertise, shrinking resources, and continuing budget crises. This paper is a description of how a small engineering transfer program at a Hispanic-Serving community college in California developedmore »effective partnerships with high schools, other institutions of higher education, and industry partners in order to create opportunities for underrepresented community college students to excel in engineering. Developed through these partnerships are programs for high school students, current community college students, and community college engineering faculty. Programs for high school students include a) the Summer Engineering Institute – a two-week residential summer camp for sophomore and junior high school students, and b) the STEM Institute – a three-week program for high school freshmen to explore STEM fields. Academic and support programs for college students include: a) Math Jam – a one-week intensive math placement test review and preparation program; b) a scholarship and mentoring program academically talented and financially needy STEM students; c) a two-week introduction to research program held during the winter break to prepare students for research internships; d) a ten-week summer research internship program; e) Physics Jam – an intensive program to prepare students for success in Physics; f) Embedded Peer Instruction Cohort – a modified Supplemental Instruction program for STEM courses; g) STEM Speaker Series – a weekly presentation by professionals talking about their career and educational paths. Programs for community college STEM faculty and transfer programs include: a) Summer Engineering Teaching Institute – a two-day teaching workshop for community college STEM faculty; b) Joint Engineering Program – a consortium of 28 community college engineering programs all over California to align curriculum, improve teaching effectiveness, improve the engineering transfer process, and strengthen community college engineering transfer programs; c) Creating Alternative Learning Strategies for Transfer Engineering Programs – a collaborative program that aims to increase access to engineering courses for community college students through online instruction and alternative classroom models; and d) California Lower-Division Engineering Articulation Workshop – to align the engineering curriculum. In addition to describing the development and implementation of these programs, the paper will also provide details on how they have contributed to increasing the interest, facilitating the entry, improving the retention and enhancing the success of underrepresented minority students in engineering, as well as contributing to the strengthening of the community college engineering education pipeline.« less
  2. There is a critical need for more students with engineering and computer science majors to enter into, persist in, and graduate from four-year postsecondary institutions. Increasing the diversity of the workforce by inclusive practices in engineering and science is also a profound identified need. According to national statistics, the largest groups of underrepresented minority students in engineering and science attend U.S. public higher education institutions. Most often, a large proportion of these students come to colleges and universities with unique challenges and needs, and are more likely to be first in their family to attend college. In response to thesemore »needs, engineering education researchers and practitioners have developed, implemented and assessed interventions to provide support and help students succeed in college, particularly in their first year. These interventions typically target relatively small cohorts of students and can be managed by a small number of faculty and staff. In this paper, we report on “work in progress” research in a large-scale, first-year engineering and computer science intervention program at a public, comprehensive university using multivariate comparative statistical approaches. Large-scale intervention programs are especially relevant to minority serving institutions that prepare growing numbers of students who are first in their family to attend college and who are also under-resourced, financially. These students most often encounter academic difficulties and come to higher education with challenging experiences and backgrounds. Our studied first-year intervention program, first piloted in 2015, is now in its 5th year of implementation. Its intervention components include: (a) first-year block schedules, (b) project-based introductory engineering and computer science courses, (c) an introduction to mechanics course, which provides students with the foundation needed to succeed in a traditional physics sequence, and (d) peer-led supplemental instruction workshops for calculus, physics and chemistry courses. This intervention study responds to three research questions: (1) What role does the first-year intervention’s components play in students’ persistence in engineering and computer science majors across undergraduate program years? (2) What role do particular pedagogical and cocurricular support structures play in students’ successes? And (3) What role do various student socio-demographic and experiential factors play in the effectiveness of first-year interventions? To address these research questions and therefore determine the formative impact of the firstyear engineering and computer science program on which we are conducting research, we have collected diverse student data including grade point averages, concept inventory scores, and data from a multi-dimensional questionnaire that measures students’ use of support practices across their four to five years in their degree program, and diverse background information necessary to determine the impact of such factors on students’ persistence to degree. Background data includes students’ experiences prior to enrolling in college, their socio-demographic characteristics, and their college social capital throughout their higher education experience. For this research, we compared students who were enrolled in the first-year intervention program to those who were not enrolled in the first-year intervention. We have engaged in cross-sectional 2 data collection from students’ freshman through senior years and employed multivariate statistical analytical techniques on the collected student data. Results of these analyses were interesting and diverse. Generally, in terms of backgrounds, our research indicates that students’ parental education is positively related to their success in engineering and computer science across program years. Likewise, longitudinally (across program years), students’ college social capital predicted their academic success and persistence to degree. With regard to the study’s comparative research of the first-year intervention, our results indicate that students who were enrolled in the first-year intervention program as freshmen continued to use more support practices to assist them in academic success across their degree matriculation compared to students who were not in the first-year program. This suggests that the students continued to recognize the value of such supports as a consequence of having supports required as first-year students. In terms of students’ understanding of scientific or engineering-focused concepts, we found significant impact resulting from student support practices that were academically focused. We also found that enrolling in the first-year intervention was a significant predictor of the time that students spent preparing for classes and ultimately their grade point average, especially in STEM subjects across students’ years in college. In summary, we found that the studied first-year intervention program has longitudinal, positive impacts on students’ success as they navigate through their undergraduate experiences toward engineering and computer science degrees.« less
  3. We evaluated the efficacy of a technical assistance (TA) model for increasing the competitiveness of historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and other minority-serving institutions (MSI) seeking funding to expand their teacher training through the National Science Foundation (NSF)’s Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship (Noyce) Program. The Noyce Program addresses the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) goal to support at least 100,000 new STEM middle and high school teachers. The Quality Education for Minorities (QEM) Network engaged in a series of strategies to broaden participation of Noyce to MSIs, with the long-term goal of diversifying the pipelinemore »of new STEM teachers. Results found that of the 335 active Noyce awards, 39 were awards to MSIs. Of the 39, 23 (59%) were awarded to institutions represented in at least one QEM Noyce TA workshop. This study looks at the potential of TA models for HBCUs and MSIs to generalize across a spectrum of initiatives aimed at strengthening the nation’s teacher education programs, and graduating quality STEM teachers.« less
  4. Modern societies rely extensively on computing technologies. As such, there is a need to identify and develop strategies for addressing fairness, ethics, accountability, and transparency (FEAT) in computing-based research, practice, and educational efforts. To achieve this aim, a workshop, funded by the National Science Foundation, convened a working group of experts to document best practices and integrate disparate approaches to FEAT. The working group included different disciplines, demographics, and institutional types, including large research-intensive universities, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, teaching institutions, and liberal arts colleges. The workshop brought academics and members of industry together along with governmentmore »representatives, which is vitally important given the role and impact that each sector can have on the future of computing. Relevant insights were gained by drawing on the experience of policy scholars, lawyers, statisticians, sociologists, and philosophers along with the more traditional sources of expertise in the computing realm (such as computer scientists and engineers). The working group examined best practices and sought to articulate strategies for addressing FEAT in computing-based research and education. This included identifying methodological approaches that researchers could employ to facilitate FEAT, instituting guidelines on what problem definition practices work best, and highlighting best practices for data access and data inclusion. The resulting report is the culmination of the working group activities in identifying systematic methods and effective approaches to incorporate FEAT considerations into the design and implementation of computing artifacts.« less
  5. In 2016, 10 universities launched a Networked Improvement Community (NIC) aimed at increasing the number of scholars from Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP) populations entering science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) faculty careers. NICs bring together stakeholders focused on a common goal to accelerate innovation through structured, ongoing intervention development, implementation, and refinement. We theorized a NIC organizational structure would aid understandings of a complex problem in different contexts and accelerate opportunities to develop and improve interventions to address the problem. A distinctive feature of this NIC is its diverse institutional composition of public and private, predominantlymore »white institutions, a historically Black university, a Hispanic-serving institution, and land grant institutions located across eight states and Washington, DC, United States. NIC members hold different positions within their institutions and have access to varied levers of change. Among the many lessons learned through this community case study, analyzing and addressing failed strategies is as equally important to a healthy NIC as is sharing learning from successful interventions. We initially relied on pre-existing relationships and assumptions about how we would work together, rather than making explicit how the NIC would develop, establish norms, understand common processes, and manage changing relationships. We had varied understandings of the depth of campus differences, sometimes resulting in frustrations about the disparate progress on goals. NIC structures require significant engagement with the group, often more intensive than traditional multi-institution organizational structures. They require time to develop and ongoing maintenance in order to advance the work. We continue to reevaluate our model for leadership, climate, diversity, conflict resolution, engagement, decision-making, roles, and data, leading to increased investment in the success of all NIC institutions. Our NIC has evolved from the traditional NIC model to become the Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning (CIRTL) AGEP NIC model with five key characteristics: (1) A well-specified aim, (2) An understanding of systems, including a variety of contexts and different organizations, (3) A culture and practice of shared leadership and inclusivity, (4) The use of data reflecting different institutional contexts, and (5) The ability to accelerate infrastructure and interventions. We conclude with recommendations for those considering developing a NIC to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts.« less