You are here:

Diversity in Excellence Fostering Programs: The Case of the Informatics Olympiad Article

, , The Technion -- Israel Institute of Technology, Israel

JCMST Volume 26, Number 3, ISSN 0731-9258 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Abstract

This work examines the Israeli National Informatics - Computer Science (CS) Olympiad from the perspective of diversity. A conspicuous phenomena in this olympiad (as well as in other science olympiads) is that very few females participate in the national competition, and none has ever represented the country in any international competition. When examining this phenomenon more closely, but with a broader view, it seems that while the level of external diversity (which addresses characteristics such as gender and race) is quite low also with respect to additional aspects, it does increase with respect to internal traits (such as ways of thinking). Furthermore, alongside the low external diversity among the participants, there are many common features among those who influence students' participation in the competition. The paper outlines the background of the research, the research setting, and, as mentioned above, examines its findings from the perspective of diversity.

Citation

Sagy, O. & Hazzan, O. (2007). Diversity in Excellence Fostering Programs: The Case of the Informatics Olympiad. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(3), 233-253. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved November 14, 2018 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Bowerman, C.E. (1953). Assortative mating by previous marital status: Seattle, 1939-1946. American Sociological Review, 18(2), 170-177.
  2. Brown, P., & Scase, R. (1994). Higher education& Corporate realities. London: UCL Press.
  3. Burgess, R. (2003). Creativity in the sciences: Thinking outside the test tube— Confi dence to be a renegade, conversations on creativity. Retrieved April 4, 2007, from http://www.humanities.wisc.edu/archive/2003/creativity.html
  4. Campbell, J.R. (2002). Gender inequity among academic olympians across the globe. Journal of Research in Education, 12, 75-79. Retrieved April 4, 2007, from http://olympiadprojects.com/v2/pubs_web%5Cch1_SS.pdf Campbell, J.R., Wagner, H., & Walberg, H. (2000). Academic competitions and programs designed to challenge the exceptionally talented. In K. Heller, F. Monks, R. Sternberg, & R. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Retrieved April 4, 2007, edness and talent (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Retrieved April 4, 2007, edness and talent
  5. Eidelman, L. (2005). Gender and sector-based analysis of Israeli high school computer science studies. Unpublished master’s thesis, The Technion—Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel.
  6. Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1998). Reward, intrinsic interest, and creativity: New fi ndings. American Psychologist, 53(6), 676–679. Retrieved April 4, 2007, from http://eisenberger.psych.udel.edu/PDF/11_Reward_Intrinsic_Interest_and_Creativity_New_Findings.html
  7. Feng, A.X., Campbell, J.R., & Verna, M. (2002). Understanding gender inequity in America: Interviews with academic olympians. Journal of Research in Education, 12(1), 93-100.
  8. Hennessey, B.A. (2002). The social psychology of creativity in the schools. Research in the Schools, 9, 23-33.
  9. Hennessey, B.A., & Zbikowski, S.M. (1993). Immunizing children against the negative effects of reward: A further examination of intrinsic motivation training techniques. Creativity Research Journal, 6, 297-307.
  10. Multon, K.D., Brown, S.D., & Lent, R.W. (1991). Relation of self-effi cacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30-38.
  11. Redmond, M.A. (2001). A computer program to aid assignment of student project groups. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(1), 134–138.
  12. Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic defi nitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67. Retrieved April 4, 2007, from http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/Documents/2000_RyanDeci_IntExtDefs.pdf
  13. Shoho, A. (1996). Across-cultural analysis of similarities and differences among math olympiads in China, Taiwan, and the United States. Journal of Educational Research, 25(6), 575-582. Retrieved April 4, 2007, from http://olympiadprojects.com/v2/pubs_web/mo_9.pdf
  14. Siegle D., & ReisS. M. (1998). Gender differences in teacher and student perceptions of gifted students‘ ability and effort. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42(1), 39-47.
  15. Somers, L., & Callan, S. (1999). An examination of science and mathematics competitions for the national science foundation. Retrieved April 4, 2007, from http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/competitions.pdf Tannenbaum, A.J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological perspectives. New York: Macmillan.
  16. Tirri, K. (2002). Developing females’ talent: Case studies of Finnish olympians. Diversity in Excellence Fostering Programs 253 Acknowledgements

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.