Built to last: successful habits of visionary companies

The past half-century has witnessed a dramatic increase in the scale and complexity of scientific research. The growing scale of science has been accompanied by a shift toward collaborative research, referred to as “team science.“ Scientific research is increasingly conducted by small teams and larger groups rather than individual investigators, but the challenges of collaboration can slow these teams' progress in achieving their scientific goals. How does a team-based approach work, and how can universities and research institutions support teams? Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science synthesizes and integrates the available research to provide guidance on assembling the science team; leadership, education and professional development for science teams and groups. It also examines institutional and organizational structures and policies to support science teams and identifies areas where further research is needed to help science teams and groups achieve their scientific and translational goals. This report offers major public policy recommendations for science research agencies and policymakers, as well as recommendations for individual scientists, disciplinary associations, and research universities. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science will be of interest to university research administrators, team science leaders, science faculty, and graduate and postdoctoral students.

/pdf/enhancing-the-effectiveness-of-team-science-sz5t6ctjxj.pdf

Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science

with whom they interact in the community. An emerging body of research suggests that service learning is experienced differently by students from underrepresented groups and that boundaries are blurred creating different outcomes for students and community members alike. The perspectives of students of color or students from working class families, for example, are also unheard voices in service learning. In illuminating the experiences and perspectives of community organizations in The Unheard Voices Stoecker and Tryon provide service learning educators (in the broadest and most inclusive definition) with a very useful resource for the effective and respectful design and implementation of service learning. If their findings and recommendations therein are taken to heart and seriously, service learning programs will not only look very different but so too will faculty involvement and most importantly, intended benefits to community organizations may actually be realized.

Educating Engineers: Designing for the Future of the Field

This Handbook describes the extent and shape of computing education research today. Over fifty leading researchers from academia and industry (including Google and Microsoft) have contributed chapters that together define and expand the evidence base. The foundational chapters set the field in context, articulate expertise from key disciplines, and form a practical guide for new researchers. They address what can be learned empirically, methodologically and theoretically from each area. The topic chapters explore issues that are of current interest, why they matter, and what is already known. They include discussion of motivational context, implications for practice, and open questions which might suggest future research. The authors provide an authoritative introduction to the field and is essential reading for policy makers, as well as both new and established researchers.

/pdf/the-cambridge-handbook-of-computing-education-research-4648mu3xgq.pdf

The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research

Novice Programmers and Introductory Programming

In Greek Mythology, Mentor was Odysseus’s trusted counselor and served as a guardian and teacher to Telemachos. It is from this story that the term Mentoring originated. Mentoring is often defined as a way to coach and guide individuals to a successful career path and is used as a positive organizational tool. The organizations usually implement mentoring programs to promote a healthy work life and create a better outcome for organizational goals. But what happens when the traditional and stereotypical methods of mentoring are haphazardly applied to organizations and academic institutions? How do these group constructs deal with regressive, rather than progressive, mentors? How does the traditional myth of mentoring skew the perspective of mentoring and organizational improvement? Previous literature shows that a traditional dyadic mentoring scheme is not necessarily the correct paradigm for mentoring; pairing mentors based solely on protégé gender or department do not always result in a strong mentoring pair. Mentoring cannot be used as a solution that is thrown at an organizational problem, especially issues such as climate and equity. Rather, the organization must identify its own characteristics and outcomes for organizational improvement and for its mentoring program and develop accordingly. Also, research has shown that mentoring programs also need a supplementary training program for mentors and, in some instances, prospective protégés. These training programs allow for all participants within the program to clearly identify key goals and desired results for everyone involved. This paper will focus on various obstacles building mentoring programs that support sustainable, positive organizational change and possible solutions. In addition, it will identify preconceived notions about mentoring that, if not addressed, may become obstacles. Mentoring programs that exist within various institutions will be discussed along with corresponding training programs. The Origin of Mentoring The term mentor originates from Greek Mythology in Homer’s Odyssey 12,32 . Mentor was a trusted friend of Odysseus and provided counseling and guidance to Odysseus’s son, Telemachos 12,31 . As Odysseus left his home to fight in the Trojan War, he left Mentor, his elder and wise friend, in charge of his household and all that dwelled there. Mentor’s role included assuring that Telemachos developed in the traditional ways approved by his father. In the first book of The Odyssey, a dinner is held within Odysseus’s household and an argument erupts between Telemachos and the other men dining with him. Mentor was one of those men partaking in the dinner; but rather than arguing with Telemachos, Mentor protected him and provided a stable backing for him as he argued with the other men. In this instance, Mentor appears as himself. However, within other books contained in The Odyssey, Mentor often appears as the P ge 22937.2 disguised Athena, Zeus’s daughter, advising and assisting Telemachos throughout his journeys during his father’s absence 12 . In addition to the origin of the meaning of the word mentor, this Greek myth also presents some key assumptions that are translated into popular belief of mentoring relationships today such as: • Mentoring occurs only between two individuals • Mentoring occurs between individuals of the same gender • Mentoring may only provide a traditional solution to career and work life obstacles • Mentors are fully trusted by protégés • Mentoring relationships are easily formed and last for long time periods • Implementing a mentoring program will solve any organizational problem The myth does not present these issues as key components of a successful mentoring program; however, many organizations in various cultures have developed these ideas for how a mentoring relationship should be created. Traditionally, mentoring is thought of as a relationship similar to the one presented within The Odyssey. It is typically believed that mentoring occurs between two people of the same gender. In this relationship, the individual that serves as the mentor is older and wiser than the individual being mentored. The younger, less experienced individual seeks the mentor for advice on various obstacles, similar to the advice that Telemachos sought from Mentor in The Odyssey. When an organization or an institution implements a “traditional” mentoring program under the common assumptions presented above, the outcome of the program for its participants may be devastating. Such assumptions may lead to participant alienation and even reversing the intended outcome of the program, negatively impacting the organization. As these mentoring programs are implemented within organizations and institutions all over the world, many participants and program coordinators are realizing that mentoring is not a “one-size-fits-all” solution to organizational problems. Throughout this paper these issues, in conjunction with the common myths and misconceptions associated with them, will be discussed. Possible solutions to these problems and potential positive organizational outcomes will also be presented. Why is Mentoring Necessary? As mentoring in a topical sense grows more popular within our culture, the need for mentoring and its benefits are also identified. Institutions and organizations develop various mentoring programs to assist new members and employees. Within these programs, mentors provide two general types of behaviors for their protégés: career developmental functions and psychosocial functions 21 . Career developmental functions promote the advancement of the individual within an organization or institution such as promotion and tenure. Psychosocial functions are mentorsupported aspects of the protégé’s life such as personal and career-based activities and P ge 22937.3 relationships. These functions generally include the protégé’s home-life and professional development, such as making contacts within the protégé’s given profession 21 . Previous studies and literature have shown that these functions benefit new employees as well as beginning faculty members by assisting them with outlining career goals, identifying key opportunities, and providing encouragement throughout the individual’s career. Protégés obtain an increased sense of commitment to an organization 28 , receive more promotions, obtain higher incomes, possess a higher career satisfaction and increased mobility within their institutions than non-protégés 21,22 . Mentoring programs also assist individuals with work stress and demands and aid in professional development 19 . It is because of these benefits that any institution or organization implements a mentoring program. With these types of career developmental support, a positive work environment is created for program participants. However, many institutions and organizations implement mentoring programs with the assumption that formal mentoring programs are effective and successful; however, they are often implemented without the guide of any empirical research 21 . As more mentoring programs are adopted into organizations and institutions throughout the industrial and academic fields, individuals holding upper level management positions are realizing that the simple task of applying a mentoring program does not completely solve every organizational problem and does not ensure the success of its participants. Below are some common myths and misconceptions when implementing and carrying out a mentoring program. Myth #1: A Mentoring Relationship is Strictly Dyadic As previously discussed, the traditional concept of a mentoring relationship is a dyadic one; an older individual guides a younger individual through various career and life paths. Many institutions and organizations have attempted implementing such programs. Often programs consisted of a program coordinator that blindly paired mentors to protégés. Depending on the institution, mentoring pairs belonged to the same college and even the same department. Mentoring pairs were then required to make contact during the mentoring relationship, which generally lasted an academic year for universities. The program coordinator then surveyed the participants and made adjustments to the program accordingly. Yes, traditional programs may assist individuals with career decisions and career advancement, but there are often underlying difficulties that are not easily detected from an outside perspective. Scheduling conflicts do not allow participants to meet the required contact time for each mentoring pair 10 . Some protégés do not feel comfortable with their mentor, questioning the confidentiality of their mentor and felt that the mentor did not truly have the desire to be participating in the program 21 . In other instances, the mentor became controlling; rather than providing advice to guide the protégé the mentor constricted and enhanced a protégé’s career by only allowing specific opportunities to reach the protégé. Such specific opportunities may be held only in the interest of the mentor. In short, the mentor would develop a new faculty member P ge 22937.4 into younger, less experienced version of themselves, not allowing for any individual career growth of the protégé 21 . These flaws often left many participants feeling unchanged and institutions were skeptical of funding future programs. To assist in combating such outcomes in mentoring programs, many organizations and institutions developed various ways of pairing mentors to protégés. Activities such as Speed Mentoring 25 , personality surveys, and protégé chosen mentors 13 have been utilized in forming a more cohesive mentoring pair. Although these pairing mechanisms have assisted program coordinators in slowly diminishing stated flaws within a program, these flaws are still not completely overcome. Myth #2: Informal Mentoring Programs are Always More Effective than Formal Mentoring Programs Formal mentoring

/pdf/intentions-and-expectations-are-not-enough-the-reality-of-3axqpsoha9.pdf

Intentions and Expectations are not Enough: The Reality of Organizational Improvement and Mentoring Programs

SEED (System of Entrepreneurialism and Economic Development) is an evidence-based co-curricular learning environment This paper provides an overview of the SEED process, three of the core areas of learning theory on which it is based (holistic learner development, mentoring, and authentic learning contexts), and how the learning theories are applied in the implementation of SEED

SEEDing evidence-based educational practices into economic development

Sub-cultures within the organisation or the enterprise (a chain of organisations) rarely receive sufficient attention considering the role they play in sustaining or changing the dominant culture of an organisation This paper specifically considers the role of sub-cultures as it addresses one step of a project to create, validate and use experimentally an indicator that captures the level of organisational learning for multiple levels of the organisational culture without the members of the organisation repeatedly completing the instrument This is done through revisiting two case studies and comparing the results of the previous analysis of these cases to the rating scale created for the new instrument

Sub-cultures as leverage for organisational learning and lean thinking

The department has adopted a holistic student-centered approach to support attributes of the Engineer of 2020. Among these include a culture that embraces intellectual diversity, better team skills, improved problem solving skills, and better complex thinking skills. Strategies incorporating classroom inversion, active learning, and team projects have demonstrated remarkable gains in retention, intellectual diversity, and general problem solving skills. While well above the national average, continued intellectual growth has stagnated over the past three years and remains below that desired both by industry and by the department. In an effort to improve complex thinking skills the department is adopting a developmental approach modeled by Alverno College which has demonstrated substantial growth in many of the attributes of the Engineer of 2020. As a first step towards reducing this "Alverno Gap", the department has adopted a developmental approach which is focused on improved problem solving skills within a team environment. In this paper, we describe the Alverno model, discuss an explicit developmental approach to team skills and processes, and provide some initial insight into using embedded assessment as an integral component of transformative curriculum.

Work in progress: A developmental approach to better problem solving: A model for bridging the Alverno Gap

This work discusses the results of the first part of a National Science Foundation funded study to consider the question: How are the needs, strategies, and tactics of smaller and geographically isolated universities trying to diversify their faculty similar and dissimilar to their counterparts? How can this knowledge be used to create positive gains in the diversity of the workforce and climate changes to facilitate such gains? This paper discusses the stage one results in the area of mentoring using data from a faculty work life survey conducted across the STEM faculties in all six public universities in the U.S. state of South Dakota and relevant information, policies, and procedures available to faculty. Initial results and next steps are discussed.

/pdf/when-critical-mass-is-not-an-option-diversifying-smaller-2rq649ib8e.pdf

Jennifer Karlin

Papers

Intentions and Expectations are not Enough: The Reality of Organizational Improvement and Mentoring Programs

SEEDing evidence-based educational practices into economic development

Sub-cultures as leverage for organisational learning and lean thinking

Work in progress: A developmental approach to better problem solving: A model for bridging the Alverno Gap

When Critical Mass is Not an Option: Diversifying Smaller Faculties