Presentation on theme: "Widening the Research Pipeline Update to NSF/CISE BPC Evaluation Workshop December 7, 2006."— Presentation transcript:
Widening the Research Pipeline Update to NSF/CISE BPC Evaluation Workshop December 7, 2006
Purpose of Project Broadening participation in the research end of computing In particular, encouraging underrepresented groups to earn PhDs and develop research careers in academia or industry This means starting at the undergraduate level to put students on a research track, then continuing to support researchers throughout their careers
Alliance Participants CRA-W Computing Research Association Committee on the Status of Women Focus on women in research CDC Coalition to Diversify Computing Focus on underrepresented minorities in grad school and workforce
Multiple Points of Intervention Undergraduates Think of grad school and research as a possibility Know how to apply to grad school Have credentials for acceptance to grad school Know how to obtain funding Grad Students Persist in grad school Find a research area and project Do quality research Complete degree Career Management Find a job Continue research Manage career
CRA-W and CDC Programs Covering the Research Pipeline
Alliance Activities Discipline specific mentoring: Connect senior and junior researchers and graduate students within a specialty area to provide discipline specific mentoring and tutelage best journals and conferences, hot research areas networking skills and building collaborations Undergraduate Mentoring: Coordinate and improve existing undergraduate programs (CREU, DMP, DRS) Extended mentoring: Continue and build relationships after initial research experience Publish results, help with grad school application. Tri-mentoring: one student, two mentors – perhaps one academic and one industry, or one at students home school and one at a research U. Distinguished Lectureship: fine-tuning the Lectureship Series to focus on recruiting students, especially students from underrepresented groups, into grad school.
First Year Activities Improve coordination between CRA-W and CDC weekly phone calls Changes and coordination for mentoring programs Develop co-leadership for CREU Define an expanded DMP program for women and minorities Institute changes in the mentoring programs Hold first discipline specific workshop
Computer Architecture Summer Workshop Area selected because women are even more underrepresented than in the field overall minority numbers are so low that area representation is meaningless Workshop participation Held in Princeton, NJ, July 19-21 2006 45 attendees, most grad students or new PhDs or faculty 83% female, 27% underrepresented minority 22 presenters including very senior experts Workshop content Technical sessions (e.g. What Computer Architects Should Know About Compilers and Systems Software) Career / research process sessions (e.g. Communication Skills: Presenting Research and Talking Informally About your Work) Networking opportunities, e.g. poster session, picnic dinner
Workshop Evaluation Paper surveys to participants at end of workshop Online survey to presenters a few weeks after workshop Because this was the first discipline-specific activity and others are to follow, focus was strongly formative: what worked, what didnt, recommendations for future organizers General reaction highly positive, praised the discipline focus, the networking opportunities, and the level and variety of content
Future Plans for Workshops General Call for Proposals First workshop pulled together in a short time after funding was confirmed, but topic had been decided and organizers were waiting To continue, must identify additional disciplines and workshop leaders and develop a selection process Significant interest from other disciplines Programming languages planned for May 2007 Operating Systems has a tentative proposal Machine learning held a lunch at AAI with our support Because of interest, will pursue additional funding
Coordination Challenges Some overlap in existing CRA-W and CDC programs Needs of women and minorities are similar in some ways and different in others Need to balance goals and working methods of alliance members Balancing activities that reach many students less individually vs. few students more intensively Needs vary by environment a minority student in a majority institution may need different support/encouragement than a student in a nurturing MSI or womens small liberal arts school
Coordination Approaches Regular teleconferencing between leaders of Alliance members Gradual integration of existing programs, e.g. adding CDC representatives to the selection committees for undergraduate research programs that were previously all-women Co-leadership of activities
Evaluation Challenges Evaluate both individual activities and overall program Plan evaluations to encourage cross- activity comparisons e.g. ask similar questions Maintain ongoing evaluation of changing programs e.g. add the extended mentoring aspect to the existing Distributed Mentoring Program
Evaluation Approaches Continue evaluation approach we have used in the past Immediate post-activity evaluations Long-term follow-up by tracking survey Expand it to include new activities Mix of internal and external evaluation Ask same questions across activities, when reasonable, to help comparisons The question is not just Does it work? Try to answer For whom does it work best? or Under what circumstances does it work best?, or What parts of the experience are key to it working? Differences between women & minorities Differences between undergrads at large research universities and smaller schools Participants at different points in their schooling Different aspects of the mentoring experience Keep in mind the big picture while looking at the individual activities
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.