Mara Averick

RESUMENEvaluación del efecto de un curso nivelatorio de matemáticas en educación superior: el caso de Matemáticas Básicas La investigación evalúa los efectos de tomar un curso de nivelación obligatorio, que se ofrece una única vez (i.e.no puede repetirse) para estudiantes de pregrado, sobre la probabilidad de matricularse, el desempeño en las asignaturas universitarias de matemáticas, avance en la carrera y probabilidad de graduarse.La investigación emplea un diseño de regresión discontinua que aprovecha el hecho de que los estudiantes admitidos a la universidad que tengan en la prueba de ingreso un puntaje en matemáticas inferior a un umbral están obligados a tomar el curso de nivelación de matemáticas básicas.Se encuentra que el curso de nivelación no tiene un efecto en la probabilidad de matricularse, de desvincularse del programa ni de graduarse seis años después de haber sido admitido.Hay un efecto

We report on interviews conducted with participants in a novel study about environmental chemicals in body fluids and household air and dust. Interviews reveal how personal and collective environmental history influence the interpretation of exposure data, and how participants fashion an emergent understanding of environmental health problems from the articulation of science and experience. To the illness experience literature, we contribute a framework for analyzing a new category of embodied narratives--"exposure experience"--that examines the mediating role of science. We update social scientific knowledge about social responses to toxic chemicals during a period in which science alters public understanding of chemical pollution. This article is among the first published accounts of participants' responses to learning personal exposure data, research identified as critical to environmental science and public health. Our findings raise the importance of reporting even uncertain science and underscore the value of a community-based reporting strategy

To survive and thrive, a must attract new members, retain them, and help them be productive [1]. As openness becomes the norm in research, software development, and education, knowing how to do this has become an essential skill for principal investigators and managers alike. A growing body of knowledge in sociology, anthropology, education, and software engineering can guide decisions about how to facilitate this. What exactly do we mean by community? In the case of open source and open science, the most usual meaning is a community of practice. As defined by Lave and Wenger [2, 3], groups as diverse as knitting circles, oncology researchers, and web designers share three key characteristics: Participants have a common product or purpose that they work on or toward. They are mutually engaged, i.e., they assist and mentor each another. They develop shared resources and domain knowledge. Brown [4] specializes this to define a community of as …a formed in pursuit of a common goal. The goal can be definite or indefinite in time, and may not be clearly defined, but it is something that (generally speaking) the is aligned on. People working to preserve coral reefs in the face of global climate change are an example of such a community. No central organization coordinates their work, but the scientists who study coral reefs, the environmentalists who work to protect them, and the citizens who support them financially and politically are aware of each other’s efforts, collaborate in ad hoc ways, and are conscious of contributing toward a shared purpose. Open-source software projects are also communities of effort. E.g., the Mozilla Firefox [5] includes a mix of paid professionals, highly involved volunteers, and occasional contributors who not only create software, documentation, and tutorials but also organize events, answer questions in online forums, mentor newcomers, and advocate for open standards. Every of effort has unique features, but they have enough in common to profit from one another’s experience. The 10 rules laid out below are based on studies of such communities and on the authors’ experience as members, leaders, and observers. Our focus is on small and medium-sized projects, i.e., ones that have a handful of to a few hundred participants and are a few months to a few years old but may not (yet) have any formal legal standing, such as incorporation as a nonprofit.

One way to ensure that social and ethical implications (SEI) of nanotechnology research are taken into consideration early in research projects is to incorporate ethical concepts into university science education. In this paper, we describe an interdisciplinary nanotechnology university science course and the ways in which the opinions of students regarding the ethical implications of nanotechnology research were influenced by the course. From an SEI perspective, there is value in scientists being aware of the need to make explicit the uncertainties that always exist in scientific and technological research and development. By the end of the class, a majority of the students felt that risks and ethical issues are not well understood by scientists working in nanomaterials, and ethical training was recommended for these scientists. Findings from this study speak to the importance of this type of interdisciplinary class in preparing students for collaborative research and making them aware of issues important to the general public who someday will become consumers of products derived from nanotechnology research.

We report on interviews conducted with participants in a novel study about envi ronmental chemicals in body fluids and household air and dust.Interviews reveal how personal and collective environmental history influence the interpretation of exposure data, and how participants fashion an emergent understanding of envi ronmental health problems from the articulation of science and experience.To the illness experience literature, we contribute a framework for analyzing a new cat egory of embodied narratives?(i exposure experience "?that examines the medi ating role of science.We update social scientific knowledge about social respons es to toxic chemicals during a period in which science alters public understand ing of chemical pollution.This article is among the first published accounts of par ticipants ' responses to learning personal exposure data, research identified as critical to environmental science and public health.Our findings raise the impor tance of reporting even uncertain science and underscore the value of a commu nity-based reporting strategy.Science increasingly contributes to how peo ple discover and understand environmental problems (Murphy 1997), both aside from and in addition to their embodied or direct experi ence.Biomonitoring science and personal ex