Talk:Female education in STEM

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 February 2019 and 13 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MarkFlores X'O.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 4 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jramos1299. Peer reviewers: Kassidydn.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2021 and 15 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fmei00.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Isabelladj.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 September 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chacha2019. Peer reviewers: N.EDU5287, Pennyseilyon.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This is propaganda

This article at the moment is almost pure propaganda. It presents a number of highly dubious opinions as facts, including that there's no biological basis for the difference in STEM participation between men and women, and that increasing the participation of women is desirable because it will lead to "sustainable development". The source for many of these assertions is this highly biased 2017 UNESCO report, which does in fact repeat the phrase "sustainable development" about 100 times but doesn't seem to ever define it, or explain why having more women will help bring it about. I'm going to try to rewrite this article to be more encyclopedic. Korny O'Near (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Some sources for my future edits:' https://link-springer-com.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/article/10.1007%2Fs11218-012-9185-3 https://journals-sagepub-com.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/full/10.1177/0894845316633787?utm_source=summon&utm_medium=discovery-provider https://www-jstor-org.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/stable/10.1525/bio.2013.63.1.9?pq-origsite=summon&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents https://search-proquest-com.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/docview/1462044809?accountid=14506&pq-origsite=summon

Article Evaluation:

The lead section of the article is written well. The first sentence gives an overview, while the first paragraph gives slightly more detail. The lead section as a whole provides even more information while still being concise and leaving space for more information and detail in the rest of the article.

The article's content is definitely relevant to the topic. The article's information is mostly up to date, as it references information from 2015 and 2017, but it could definitely include more recent statistics. There is not content that does not belong in the article.

The viewpoint of the article mostly provides a neutral perspective. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader, although the lead section does include a controversial statement from UNESCO.

Most of the facts from the article are backed up by information from reliable sources. There are definitely locations throughout the article where sources are needed or could be improved. The sources are relatively recent. Some date back to 2018 and 2017 which are very recent sources, while others are from 2009, which are still recent, but less so. The source links work.

The article is easy to read with information clearly split up into different organized sections including overall trends, factors, and different levels including societal, school, individual, and family and peers. The article is grammatically accurate.

The article contains visuals including graph sources supporting the claims of the article. They are visually appealing and easy to read. The captions are precise while staying brief.

Previous talk discussions stated that the article was poorly sourced and written in a persuasive way. The article has since been edited and improvements were made to make it more neutral and to provide better sources.

Overall, the article is well written, but it is missing some citations and could be improved to be even less persuasive. The article's strengths includes its recent sources and organization. The article is well developed.

--Jalfield (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Writing 10 Dean

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 August 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ashtonwool (article contribs).

How can we help women get involved in STEM education in the future and what are some ways to promote the motive that women can excel in science and technology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashtonwool (talk • contribs) 23:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

— Assignment last updated by Minerman101 (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Some of the wording in this article

I'd like to call attention to the following passage:

"A study demonstrating the effects of construal level priming conditions between men and women, concluded that high construal levels facilitate the use of representativeness heuristic. In contrast, low construal conditions portrayed a decrease in the use of representativeness heuristic."

I have a pretty decent vocabulary, but I can't make any sense of this at all. I don't know what "construal level priming conditions" are. I don't know what is meant by "low construal conditions." And the phrase "representativeness heuristic" means nothing to me. I attempted to look at the source directly to see if I could figure it out from context, but it's behind a paywall, and I'm not going to pay $15 just so I can (possibly) make a Wikipedia article a bit less abstruse. I suspect it might make sense to someone with a degree in psychology, but a Wikipedia article should at least attempt to be understandable to the average reader. At the very least, if it uses technical terms that are beyond the experiences of those outside of a given field, it should link to another article which can shed some light on those terms.

Here's another one:

"In a heavily male populated environment, men are more critical of women because they do not appear how the abstract representation in STEM fields typically appear."

I think that this is attempting to say that men tend to be more critical of women working in STEM fields because women don't look like your average male engineer's or scientist's or mathematician's mental image of someone working in a STEM field (i.e. they don't look like men). But it's difficult to tell for sure. Plus the whole sentence is just bizarrely constructed..."they do not appear how the abstract representation"...couldn't that be written in such a way that it could be parsed a bit more easily?

I'm going to wade into that paragraph, do some minor rewording, and spread a few commas around in an effort to make it at least a bit more comprehensible, but I'm not going to touch the sentences that are so convoluted that I can't be sure of what was meant. I hope that someone with the appropriate degree can tease out a way to express it so that that it makes sense to the rest of us. If you are that person, please skip the part where you explain to me the bits I can't understand, and simply edit the article in such a way that it's more comprehensible to the typical Wikipedia user. Ormewood (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I did some minor cleanup and added a few links so that some of the undefined terms would make a little more sense. It still needs work, though. Ormewood (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)