Articulo para ONU - CSW 2014 - English

The Gender Focus in the DNA of Science and Technology Education: Proposals for Educational Transformation in and for the Knowledge Society Gloria Bonder Gender Society and Policies Area Director FLACSO Argentina www.prigepp.org www.catunescomujer.org

Paper presented in the 58th Session of CSW (Commission on the Status of Women, 10 – 21 March 2014, NY). In the panel called

“Access and participation of women and girls in education, training, science and technology, including for the promotion of women’s equal access to full employment and decent work Focus: Women’s and girls’ equal access and participation in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education”

Author: Gloria Bonder

Gender Society and Policies Areas – FLACSO, Argentina www.prigepp.org www.catunescomujer.org September 2014 Buenos Aires, Argentina

"The Gender Focus in the DNA of Science and Technology Education: Proposals for Educational Transformation in and for the Knowledge Society”

i

Gloria Bonder

1. The Education we Have, and the Education we Need: the Importance of an Educational Context that Facilitates Gender Equality in Science and Technology No society can afford not to prepare its new generations of women and men to actively participate in understanding and seeking solutions for the problems that contemporary society presents and that jeopardize its future. The conservation and sustainable use of the environment and natural resources, energy production, the improvement of healthcare and education, urban planning, risk and catastrophe reduction, climate change, diverse manifestations of violence, social inequality, and the democratization of access to and strategic use of information and communications technology (from here on ICT) are but some of the central themes in the political agendas of contemporary societies.

At a time of rapid and profound transformation and uncertainty, education should undoubtedly help ensure that both women and men from all social groups develop suitable skills to freely take part in and contribute to the search for solutions to these problems. However, is today’s education up to the challenge?

The responses put forth in the Delors Reportii (UNESCO, 1996) remain applicable and inspirational.

The four pillars on which UNESCO's vision of lifelong learning is based (learning to be, to know, to do, and to live together) are indispensable to any proposal aimed at transforming modern education. The report's perspective--profoundly humanistic and focused on personal and social change, differentiating it from the utilitarian and technocratic attitudes that prevailed at the time of its publication and continue to prevail today--has been criticized for its utopian character that is difficult to apply to the modern-day reality of education, as well as for burdening the latter with excessive responsibility. Among the report's merits, however, is that it illuminates a set of tensions that characterized society at that time and that continue to define the present. The report thus provides a vision and framework of meaning for designing education policies and practices that, if implemented, could be much more receptive to introducing and fostering the integration of a focus on gender in education than the status quo. In other words, the report introduces the idea of a structural change in education in accordance with certain founding principles. The opportunity to contribute to this restructuring with a focus on gender surpasses many of the usual strategies for promoting gender equality that merely involve the introduction of “novel” programs and activities aimed at valuing women and making them visible and/or achieving equal and cooperative gender relations. While such programs are valuable, they tend to occupy a peripheral or temporary space in traditional, conservative teaching environments that uphold a hierarchical order through the knowledge they impart and the methods of teaching and learning that they employ.

The intent to “pour new wine into old wineskins” does not seem to deliver as expected. It is thus paramount to keep in mind that gender studies have advanced. No longer restricted to simply trying to include more women in the institutions and fields from which they have been excluded or in which they are made invisible, contemporary gender studies seeks to provide novel outlooks that help revamp education methods, goals, policies, and plans and associate gender equality with a framework of rights, exercise of citizenship, solidary coexistence, responsible autonomy, diversity, critical thinking, and innovation. The inclusion of gender studies in current debates on education for sustainable human development is inescapableiii.

2. STEMiv (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) Education: Responsibilities to the Knowledge Societyv An interest in transforming science and technology education is not new; in fact, this interest has over the last several decades motivated numerous conventions, debates, and resolutions that have produced foundations and guidelines with the very goal of transformation in mind. In each case, an urgency to enact profound changes in the approaches, content, and processes of education is evident, not only in terms of training researchers and technologists at the universitylevel, but in terms of instilling from childhood the interests, skills, and motivations necessary to understand the role that STEM plays in productive modernization, the lives of diverse social sectors, work methods, preventative medicine and health care, communication, the environment, and even democratic governability and the general way countries participate in a globalized and highly competitive world. These goals, however, are rarely consistent with the science education that is offered in many countries (especially at the high school level), which is based on hammering into the student body the concepts and applications of “classic positivist scientific paradigms, training them so that they can be incorporated in the future into what Kuhn calls a science that is ‘normal and accepted’ within academic settings”vi vii.

Since the 1990s, gender theoryviii has played a central role in the questioning of positivist principles of universality, neutrality, and objectivity of the researcher, as well as the dissociation of science and technology from the knowledge-power relations prevalent in society. Gender theory has shed light on the androcentricix nature of the creation of technical knowledge and artifacts, as well as the patriarchal and sexist practices of relevant communities and institutions that underestimate or marginalize women and their capabilities, legitimizing a hierarchy of male prevalence. These biases are expressed on multiple levels, from the institutions' research processes (as far as criteria for the selection of problems and methodologies, composition of samples, and interpretation of results are concerned) to the structure of scientific institutions that, as is common knowledge, remains pyramidal and limiting of women’s professional development and, consequently, of their contribution to decision-making processes. As Evelyn Fox Keller affirms, “women, men, and science are created, together, out of a complex dynamic of interwoven cognitive, emotional, and social forces”x.

Despite the volume and quality of studies, the gender perspective has failed to fully penetrate the scientific community or science and technology education. In the words of Maffía, gender theory continues to be considered “an ideology or a social criticism from outside the methods legitimated by science;” xi or, we could add, a “content” and/or specific activity that is politically correct, but has little or no value in relation to the core issues surrounding legitimate knowledge policy or institutional organizationxii.

A critical school of thought that agrees on several points with the aforementioned is the Science, Technology, and Society Movement (STS).xiii On an educational level, this movement proposes that science and technology education have an interdisciplinary character and a humanistic orientation that is proactively linked to the significant problems of local societies and communities and whose ultimate goal is to promote public awareness and participation in science, technology, and innovation policies.

Conceptions regarding ICT and education on it or that uses it are likewise an object of analysis of various schools of thought within the field of gender theory.xivxv These schools offer compelling arguments for transcending the fetishist discourse that portrays ICTs as neutral artifacts, products of the rational development of technology and useful for multiple purposes (most of which are considered positive in terms of personal wellbeing and socio-economic growth). Instead, basing themselves in social analyses of technology, these schools promote an understanding of ICTs as techno-cultural devices conditioned by economic and political interests and an analysis of the dynamic of co-construction between gender and technology.xvi These contributions--along with studies on the digital divide in access and differential use of ICT by men and women, the participation of each in ICT production, and gender biases in content and language of ICT--should be integrated into teacher training as well as into the learning processes in this field (and in all fields), given the widespread use of ICT within society.

3. Educational Innovation from the Perspective of Gender in STEM: A Curricular, Pedagogical, or Cultural Change? Or, a New Learning Ecology?

For years, the attempts to foster interest and improve the performance of children and youth of both genders--and females in particular--through STEM education have repeated very similar strategies: modifying STEM curricula and related textbooks; training teachers to apply gender studies in their classes; and creating extracurricular activities such as science fairs, camps, and fieldtrips to laboratories and companies, among others. There is insufficient evidence regarding the impact of these experiences on the choice of related university degrees, and systematic assessments that would enable conclusions to be drawn and lessons taken away are scarce across all regions.xvii Innovation in STEM education, however, cannot be delayed, especially if we take into account that educational institutions are going through a process of shock triggered by the global diffusion of ICT, of which children and youth are the main users. This is because they have accessed digital media early on and use it intensively and/or because of policies adopted by various governments; for example, the so-called “One Laptop Per Child (OLPC)�xviii xix policy, which has already been implemented in primary and/or secondary schools in 44 countries.

Therefore, it would be both erroneous and ineffective to attempt to transform STEM education by integrating a gender focus into a traditional educational model that refuses to disappear, without first understanding how the use of these devices is changing the lives of new generations--their ways of thinking, communicating, forging their identities and sense of intimacy, gathering information, creating, putting scientific and technological skills into practice, and, above all, learning independently--most often with their peers. It is also necessary to study in depth how these cognitive, identity and cultural processes are expressed in women and men from different social groups (Gardner and Davis, 2013).xx xxi This wealth of knowledge would allow for the increased and optimized exploitation of ICTs potential by designing appropriate educational plans

for this new learning ecology.xxii xxiii This concept refers to a body of teaching and learning conditions that include: the constant and immediate access to information and the global community; ubiquitous,xxiv intensive, relevant, and personalized learning; students with a creative and curious disposition who are inclined to self-manage and self-monitor; and teachers capable of facilitating, improvising, and acting as advisers or mentors.

According to Gardner (2013), “education is no longer restricted to the formality of schooling.” It can also be found on our mobile devices and in the countless, incessantly created applications that attract youth. “We live in a time in which individuals may study or acquire abilities whenever they want to, on their own or with others, with or without certifications, and through various paths and means.”

We are moving toward a learning ecology 2.0 (Spires, Oliver and Corn, 2011xxv) in which various actors and media interact; multiple relations are established between students, teachers, families, and diverse sectors of the community; and collaborative knowledge is continuously created.

This transformation in learning and teaching methods could present an extraordinary opportunity for the contributions of gender studies to STEM to be made accessible via all technological devices. Although companies have produced applications for teaching STEM subjects, it will be far more interesting to create applications ourselves, using gender as the core focus and designing attractive formats and aesthetics that draw curiosity--offering an even playful experience--and that encourage more in-depth knowledge of STEM by relating it to everyday life, crossing the boundaries between science, technology, mathematics, art, and even sports by relating them to social, economic, and cultural topics that appeal to youth. The creation of STEM-related videogames with a focus on gender that involve immersive environments, simulations, webquests, visualization software, and blogs are but some of the many creations young people can make or use as part of their education.

Our subject matter until now has focused on elementary and middle school education, with particular emphasis on junior high, as it is the level at which vocational training and options for future work and study begin to take shape. Higher education is undoubtedly going through a process of profound change, as well, in large part due to the diffusion of ICT and the opportunities for its use. The controversies surrounding these so-called "personal learning" strategies--of which MOOC courses are one of many expressions--are intense and continuous and span multiple dimensions, from the definition of educational knowledge and meaningful learning to challenges on a pedagogical level, including the preparation and role of teachers and the increasing application of market logic to the production and marketing of educational content and qualifications, etc.

Within this framework of instability, uncertainty, and conflict of interests and visions, new alternatives are presented that could lend renewed impetus to the integration of gender studies and STEM education. What competencies, dispositions, and skills could be further conducive to their acceptance and integration and make them significant?

Without a doubt, the history of these fields' construction gives us some clues: it is crucial to think critically and reflexively about knowledge and instituted values, to be able to identify new problems and dare to solve them, to acknowledge the subjectivity implicit in learning, to value real-life experience, to be sensitive to injustice and discrimination, to have the courage to leave

one's comfort zones, to be curious and imaginative, and to have a sense of personal responsibility to and respect for the role that science and technology play in the present and future.xxvi “The skills of the 21st century require researchers who can link what is (seemingly) unlinkable.” xxvii Gender analyses have done this and continue to do so in multiple ways, one of which is through inter- or trans-disciplinary integration.

Echoing the words of Alvin Toffler (1980),xxviii “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.” The epistemic, cognitive, and social paths that gender studies has traversed since its inception as a field are no stranger to such a skill set. Gender studies should therefore be considered an appropriate model for the structural transformation of science and technology education that so many demand.

4. Inspirational Approaches to and Actions in STEM Education with a Focus on Gender

Over the last few decades, most of the initiatives developed in STEM fields have been directed at trying to stimulate the interest of girls and young women in STEM-related careers and professional arenas. These initiatives vary by region in quantity, resources, and sustainability, Europe and the United States being the pioneers as well as those that report the largest number.

While it is impossible to attribute the increasing worldwide interest in this to one single factor, a number of inter-governmental agreements and regional and international conventions, such as the Millennium Development Goals, the WSIS,xxix the 55 CSW,xxx the monitoring of the Beijing Action Plan (2005, 2010), and the Santo Domingo Consensus (2013),xxxi form a framework that has enabled its propulsion.

The analysis of a series of recent practicesxxxii demonstrates marked differences between initiatives aimed at the elementary/secondary school level and those aimed at higher education/academic research centers.

4.1 Actions at the Elementary and Secondary School Level Carried out by various types of agencies (academic institutions, government bodies, business enterprises, NGOs, international organizations), these actions are generally small-scale, informal, and based on voluntary participation. The majority involve sensitivity- and awareness-building campaigns, platforms for collaborative work, workshops, fieldtrips, science clubs, fairs, awards, seminars, tours, conferences, networks, mentorship programs, or digital literacy programs, among other activities.

Whether explicitly or implicitly, most of these initiatives aim at encouraging a career choice in STEM fields; the scarce assessments available, however, reveal that the impact of these initiatives is limited in this regard. Although many claim as one of their guiding principles the need revert gender inequitiesxxxiii in (educational and professional) institutions, very few actually develop activities that directly impact these inequities.

A study conducted in Englandxxxiv on 150 programsxxxv dedicated to improving the recruitment, retention, and advancement of women in science, engineering, construction, and technology

questions that, in an attempt to motivate women to opt for careers in those fields, the programs argue for the need to help women overcome certain "deficits" (of interest, ability, trust, etc.). This conception of girls and women as a disadvantaged group--often placed on the same level as other social groups--persists despite the strong criticism that gender studies scholars have leveled against it over the last decade.

While the study highlights the value of programs targeted exclusively at women for the mutual support, peer mentorship, and female role models they provide, it challenges the lack of actions aimed at transforming the structural conditions of (educational and professional) institutional culture in STEM fields, in which gender stereotypes that discourage or restrain female contributions to these areas of knowledge are explicitly and, above all, implicitly reinforced.

Finally, the study offers an inviting proposal: the promotion of a "cross-fertilization" between feminist research in science and technology and policy planning and implementation.

The outcomes of this study agree in part with the recent report, “Cascading Influences: Long-Term Impacts of Informal STEM Experiences for Girls,”xxxvi which evaluates six programs considered successful that were developed in the informal sector in the United Kingdom between 2008 and 2013. One hundred seventy-four young women who had been actively involved in the programs' development were asked to: 1) identify whether the program experiences influenced their choice of career and 2) verify whether these experiences contributed to their empowerment, social capital, civic commitment, and perceptions of the sciences.

Although they did not necessarily result in participants choosing a STEM career, these programs proved to have had a transformative effect on participants' lives. Those who did not opt for a STEM career still expressed a new appreciation for STEM disciplines and stressed that gaining a familiarity with these areas of study influenced their lives both in a general sense (for example, in their choice of hobbies and their desire to teach and share what they had learned with other women) and a subjective sense (by increasing their leadership skills and abilities, among other things).xxxvii Their testimonies show that STEM careers are important and valued, but are not the only possible way to embrace science and include it in one's life.xxxviii 4.2 Actions in Higher Education and Science and Technology Research Centers Since the late 1990s, numerous initiatives have been carried out in the European Union and the United States with the goal of achieving gender equality in scientific fields at universities and research institutes.

These initiatives are listed in the policy agendas of universities, national research institutes, funding organizations, prestigious scientific magazines, and international governmental organizations like the United Nations and its specialized agencies (for example, UNESCO and OECD).

These findings come out of a report prepared by genSET (European Commission, 2011)xxxix entitled, “Advancing Excellence in Science through Gender Equality.” This report also points out that gender mainstreaming is a top priority in European scientific policy, inasmuch as it expands opportunities for women to utilize their potential and, in doing so, contribute to the achievement of excellence in science. Actions dedicated to gender mainstreaming, however, vary in number and continuity depending on governments’ commitment to their implementation.

A paper published by the Economic Commission for Africaxl also suggests progress in this regard, detailing a series of actions aimed at promoting gender equality in universities in East Africa and their policies of gender mainstreaming in science, technology, and innovation.

Despite these promising examples, the integration of a focus on gender into these fields remains slow and uneven across regions and political situations.

To conclude this section, we would like to highlight some initiatives whose goals and methodology may serve as inspiration for future actions:xli - Athena-SWAN, Charter for Women in Sciencexlii (United Kingdom): Every two years, this institution grants awards to academic institutions that have shown progress in structural and multidimensional changes that promote female students’ achievement in STEM disciplines and their subsequent career development. Selection is based on the following criteria: integration of a focus on gender equality into the institutional culture, balance between personal lives and work, and support for female researchers (through mentorships, scholarships, and other strategies). By June 2013, 87 institutions had been awarded.

- NSF Advance Programxliii (United States): This program develops systemic actions aimed at increasing women’s representation and promotion in STEM careers and contributing to the formation of a scientific community that thrives on diversity. It grants awards, scholarships, and significant funding for projects at 56 institutions of higher education and civil society organizations.

- University of Tromsøxliv (Norway): This university adopted genSET’s recommendations as tenets for gender equality policies across all of its departments, with particular emphasis on senior faculty. In 2011, the university received the gender equality award from the Government of Norway, which includes significant funding. In 2014, the number of female professors is expected to increase by 23 - 30%.

These initiatives, of course, do not even scrape the surface of the wide range of related programs and activities that are being carried out and whose comprehensive review and evaluation are tasks that should be performed promptly. We single these programs out, however, for adopting systemic approaches that affect the structures, cultures, and management of institutions as a means of removing the factors that determine gender inequalities. In this sense, these initiatives suggest that it is possible to opt for a more ambitious path toward gender equality in STEM fields and obtain increasingly good results.

5. Suggestions for Action “Considering the value that scientists place on objectivity and avoiding bias, there should be no tolerance for gender inequalities.”

Shirley Malcom, American Association for the Advancement of Science

The paper drafted at the 55 CSW in 2011 contains a set of recommendations that, in our opinion, remain applicable. Little time has elapsed since then, which could explain why the progress made on these recommendations has been little, if any at all.

Implementing these recommendations could take two (not necessarily mutually exclusive) paths: continued insistence, searching for more and better incentives (not only moral or political, but financial, as well) so that all stakeholders commit to carrying out concrete actions, and/or developing, from a gender-based perspective, a holistic conception of structural change in education and, within it, of educational development in STEM fields, that is aimed at lifelong learning.

This second option calls for long-term planning, firm commitments, and financial and human resources that permit its sustainability. These demands seems utopian considering the constraints experienced by many countries as a result of the current economic crisis, the outstanding debts related to promoting social and educational equality, and the lessons learned from previous educational reforms that warn of the numerous hurdles, objections, and confrontations among the sectors of diverse political and economic interests that are responsible for envisaging the models and goals of education and that play active roles in the decisions being made at the myriad conferences and events at which the future of post-2010 or -2011 education,xlv whichever the case, is currently being debated.

We have thus attempted in this paper to underline two fundamental points: 1) The achievement of gender equality in STEM education is intrinsically linked to profound changes in the epistemological, theoretical, and methodological conceptions that dominate these fields, in innovations in teaching and learning processes, and in the ethical premises on which they are based.

2) The community of researchers, educators, professionals, and organizations whose work is based in the gender approach is prepared to take part in the debates and formulation of policies and programs related to “general” matters of STEM education that demand a development based in equality and sustainability. The “gender lens” has served for much more than simply tallying women or revealing stereotypes: it has redefined the foundations of the theories, practices, and institutions that create a patriarchal social order.

Based on this framework, we provide some concrete suggestions: 1. “Before deciding on the future of education, it is essential to determine the future(s) of society.”xlvi This statement, with which we are in agreement, supports the need to undertake prospective or future studies on gender relations (in all of their social, economic, ethnic, generational, and sexual orientation-related diversity), as well as on STEM education in different regions and countries and on an ideal and attainable education that defines the horizon towards which the changes we make should be strategically oriented.

2. There is a need for more sectorial studies based on disciplinary field, age, gender, and ethnicity, as well as on conditions that enable and hinder the participation of both genders in the development of STEM.xlvii It is true that there exists a significant body of work with

similar purposes, but comparisons across countries, genders, generations, disciplinary fields, and longitudinal analyses, among other variants, are needed.

3. It is also necessary to make a broader and more in-depth assessment of the programs and activities that are being conducted based on indicators and methodologies that allow for an understanding of both their processes as well as their results, both quantitative and qualitative (the perceptions, observations, and experiences of all participating actors).

4. It is critical to gain insight into the living conditions and lifestyles of youth of both genders and diverse social groups, their perceptions and evaluations of STEM education, and the impact it has on their career and/or fieldwork choices, as well as on their everyday lives.xlviii 5. There is a need for policies and programs that consider mid- and long-term measures and resources. A discourse is often reiterated that warns against the complexity and depth of processes of change, particularly in cultural and educational matters; however, we have not yet seen this assertion translated into action. These policies would require contributions and agreements from multiple key sectors, including the youth themselves, teachers, researchers, politicians and government decision-makers, related institutions, communicators, publishers, digital content producers, businesses, and organizations of women in STEM fields, among others.

Although forums have been organized with this purpose in mind, the challenge lies in shifting from simply sharing opinions to embarking on more participative and democratic decision-making and commitment-monitoring procedures.

i

Director of the Gender, Society, and Policies Department (FLACSO-Argentina). Coordinator of the Woman, Science, and Technology in Latin America Regional UNESCO Chair. ii

Delors, Jaques (1996): “Learning, the Treasure Within,” The International Commission on Education for the st 21 Century Report to UNESCO, UNESCO Editions, Paris. iii

Tawil, Sobhi (2013): “Revisiting Learning: The Treasure Within, Assessing the Influence of the 1996 Delors Report,” UNESCO Education Research and Foresight, Occasional Papers, Paris. iv

STEM (Stands for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics).

v

UNESCO redefines the vision of the Knowledge Society, asserting that if its goal is to foster peace and sustainability; it is imperative that its strategies for action ensure that decisions at all levels promote the integration of knowledge into people’s lives, keeping in mind the goals of inclusive economic prosperity and social equity. Moreover, it asserts that a real Knowledge Society will not exist as long as basic education is not accessible to all. For further insight on this matter, refer to Mansell, Robin and Tremblay, Gaëtan (2013): “Renewing the Knowledge Society Vision for Peace and Sustainable Development,” a report prepared by UNESCO for the WSIS+10 Review Event, Paris, 25-27 February 2013. vi

Bonder, Gloria (2009): Contributions of the Gender Approach to Science and Technology. Woman, Science, and Technology in Latin America Regional UNESCO Chair, www.catunescomujer.org vii

Historically speaking, scientific education was conceived as a preliminary means to influence students into choosing university studies in these fields, attaining a good performance. This approach is profoundly elitist.

In all countries, the percentage of high school students that reach the university is limited and a smaller still minority are inclined toward science and technology studies, perhaps in part because of this very characterization. viii

Evelyn Fox Keller, Helen Longino, Donna Haraway, and Sandra Harding are but a few of its precursors.

ix

Diana Maffía points out, “Not only women have been left out of these communities. Many men subordinated by a hegemonic subjectivity were also expelled (indigenous males and African descendants are more than sufficient proof of this).” For further insights on this topic, refer to Maffía, D. (2005): “Feminist Epistemology: For Another Inclusion of the Feminine in Science,” Graf Blázquez N. y Flores, J. (Editors), Science, Technology, and Gender in Latin America, Mexico: UNAM-UNIFEM-CIICH-Plaza y Valdés, (p. 623633). x

Keller, Evelyn Fox (1985): “Reflections on Gender and Science,” Yale UP, New Haven.

xi

Maffía, Diana (2007): "Feminist Epistemology: The Semiotic Subversion of Women in Science." Revista Venezolana de Estudios de la Mujer, volume 12 Nº 28. xii

Although they are intrinsically valuable initiatives, awards granted to prominent STEM women and the celebration of a special day for girls in science or technology could be included in this category. xiii

“The CTS originated three decades ago as a result of new trends of research on the philosophy and sociology of science, and of an increase in social and institutional sensitivity regarding the need for a democratic regulation of scientific-technological change. It attempts to understand the social aspects of the scientific-technological phenomenon, in relation to its social conditioning as well as its social and environmental consequences.” http://www.oei.es/cts.htm xiv

Faulkner, Wendy (2001): “The Technology Question in Feminism: a View from Feminist Technology Studies,” in Women's Studies International Forum Nº 24, p. 79–95. Wajcman, Judy (2000): “Reflections on Gender and Technology Studies: In What State is the Art?” in Social Studies of Science vol. 30 Nº 3, pp. 447464. xv Constructionism, technofeminism, cyberfeminism, ecofeminism, etc. xvi Wacjman, J. (2000) and Faulkner, W. (2001), Op. Cit. xvii An interesting example in this sense is the European Commission’s report (2009), “Gender Differences in Educational Outcomes: Study on the Measures Taken and the Current Situation in Europe,” published by the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA Eurydice). xviii See http://one.laptop.org/

xix

ECLAC (2008): “Technology Policies for Schools in Latin America and the World: Visions and Lessons.” By Ignacio Jara Valdivia, Project Documents Collection, United Nations Editions, Santiago de Chile. Online version (in Spanish): http://www.eclac.cl/ddpe/publicaciones/xml/8/34938/w214.pdf xx Gardner, Howard and Davis, Katie (2013): “The App Generation: How Today’s Youth Navigate Identity, Intimacy, and Imagination in a Digital World," Yale University Press. xxi According to Gardner and Davis (2013), “Digital media influence practically all areas of life…we call ‘App Generation’ a generation inundated with applications…"web 2.0–blogs, wikis, networking sites-; multiuser games and virtual worlds; instant messages and texts; Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Instagram, and a proliferation of apps…,they grow up not only immersed in these applications--they begin to think about a world as an ensemble of applications; to see their lives as a chain of organized applications.” xxii We are not referring here to e-learning as a program specifically designed for online learning, but rather to transformations that the use of ICT has on all educational environments, even in-person ones. xxiii This concept was developed by Spires, Wiebe, Young, Hollebrands and Lee in 2009 within the framework of experiences regarding laptop inclusion in schools. xxiv At any time or place. xxv Spires, Hiller A.; Oliver, Kevin and Corn, Jennifer (2011): “The New Learning Ecology of One-to-One Computing Environments: Preparing Teachers for Shifting Dynamics and Relationships,” Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, volume 8 Nº2, Canada. xxvi The Regional Guide ICT TRANSFORMING EDUCATION by Jonathan Anderson (UNESCO Bangkok, 2010) systematizes the competencies for work and life that new generations should develop to participate in the st complex contexts that characterize the 21 century. xxvii Popova, María (2013): “How to Save Science: Education, the Gender Gap, and the Next Generation of Creative Thinkers.” Article published on the site Brain Pikings, available at: http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2013/02/12/saving-our-science-anissa-ramirez/ xxviii Toffler, Alvin (1980): “The Third Wave, Plaza & Janes.” S.A. Editors, Colombia. xxix

World Summit on the Society of Information. In its two phases (Geneva, 2003 and Tunis, 2005) it included a specific committee for gender issues and succeeded in including a paragraph on this subject in the Action Plan. xxx

Commission on the Status of Women, 2011 edition.

xxxi

Centered on gender equality, women's empowerment, and information and communication technologies. xxxii

Quoted in the position paper and others of longer-standing.

xxxiii

Undervaluing of jobs predominantly occupied by women, obstacles to accessing senior positions, disparity in salary, training, and responsibility, and difficulties in balancing work and personal life, among others. xxxiv

Phipps, Alison (2008): “Women in Science, Engineering, and Technology: Three Decades of UK Initiatives,” Stoke on Trent, UK: Trentham Books. xxxv

Carried out starting in 1970 in the United Kingdom.

xxxvi

McCreedy, Dale y Dierking, Lynn D. (2013): “Cascading Influences: Long-Term Impacts of Informal STEM Experiences for Girls,” The Franklin Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. xxxvii

As for the representations of the sciences, the conclusions are less optimistic. Many participants, despite showing interest in this field and attaching importance to it, report difficulties in identifying with it and relating to it.

xxxviii

Moreover, they indicate that the barriers to women’s performance in these areas are associated with: gender stereotypes in the representation and practice of science, fears related to mathematics, and a lack of programs sustainable in the long-term. xxxix

Refer to http://www.genderinscience.org/index.php/advancing-excellence-in-science-through-genderequality xl

Second session of the Committee on Development Information, Science and Technology (CODIST -II), United Nations Conference Center (UNCC), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (May 2 to 5, 2011). xli

The paper “Structural Change in Scientific Institutions: Enhancing excellence, Gender Equality, and Efficiency in Research and Innovation” (2011) lays out these experiences together with others that are also considered of interest in terms of their methodology, purposes, and results. Available at: http://www.idi.mineco.gob.es/stfls/MICINN/Ministerio/FICHEROS/UMYC/Cambio_estructural_instituciones _cientificas.pdf xlii

Created in 2005 with the support of the Equality Challenge Unit (ECU) and the UK Resource Centre (UKRC). Available at: http://www.athenaswan.org.uk/ xliii

Created in 2001 by the National Science Foundation. Available at: http://www.portal.advance.vt.edu/

xliv

Available at: www.uit.no

xlv

For example, the Ibero-American Conference on Education “Advancing together towards the 2001 IberoAmerican Educational Goals,” which will be held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in November 2014. xlvi

Dator, J. (2014): “Education Fit for the Futures,” University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu.

xlvii

An evaluation recently conducted by WISAT and OWSD under the direction of Sophia Huyer about the status of women in the knowledge society—both in the science, technology, and innovation sectors (STI) as well as in those of information and communication technologies (ICT)—analyzed the potential and contributions of women in six countries and one region: Brazil, South Korea, United States, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and the European Union. (Argentina’s study is in progress.) xlviii

The survey of Ibero-American youth conducted by the Organization of Ibero-American States for Education, Science, and Culture (2011) on students and science is, in our view, a good precedent in this sense.