09.01.2023 International Scientific Journal "Science and Innovation". Series B. Volume 2 Issue 1
Abstract. The core of being who we are is our family and setting us an example demonstrates the view of tomorrow. In what kind of conditions are we growing up, what kind of education are giving our parents and certainly which direction they are showing us is vital for becoming who will be in future. Furthermore, what kind of generation would we have after us, certainly depends on us!
Keywords: science, family, childhood, STEM, the Republic of Uzbekistan, EcoGIS centre, gender, knowledge, investment, sustainable development, Presidential decree
1. Zakaria 2011 2. 2019, Christine R. Starr, Campbell Leaper Do adolescents’ self‑concepts moderate the relationship between STEM stereotypes and motivation? 3. Dweck 2007 4. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002354/235406e.pdf 5. 20.08.2002, Ulmas Gafurov, Women in physics in Uzbekistan 6. 2018 Profiles of women scientists in Asia 7. 2014 Nilanjana Dasgupta1 and Jane G. Stout Girls and Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: STEMing the Tide and Broadening Participation in STEM Careers 8. Ates, G., Holländer, K., Koltcheva, N., Krstic, S., & Parada, F. (2011). Eurodoc Survey I: The First Eurodoc Survey on Doctoral Candidates in Twelve European Countries. Brussels: Eurodoc. 9. Byrne, J., Jørgensen, T., & Loukkola, T. (2013). Quality Assurance in Doctoral Education – results of the ARDE project. Brussels: European University Association. 10. ENQA. (2015). Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). Brussels: EURASHE. 11. EUA. (2010a). Salzburg II recommendations. European Universities Achievements Since 2005 in Implementing the Salzburg Principles. Brussels: European University Association. 12. EUA. (2010b). Trends 2010: A decade of change in European Higher Education. Brussels: European University Association. 13. European Commission. (2008). The European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF). 14. European Commission. (2011). Principles for Innovative Doctoral Training. Brussels. 15. European University Association. (2006). Quality Culture in European Universities: A Bottom-Up Approach. 16. Naqvi, N. H., & Kheyfets, I. (2014). Uzbekistan: Modernizing Tertiary Education. 17. UNESCO. (2013). The International Standard Classification of Education 2011. Comparative Social Research. 18. http://doi.org/10.1108/S0195-6310(2013)0000030017 19. Wan Endut, W. J., Abdullah, M., & Husain, N. (2000). Benchmarking institutions of higher education. Total Quality Management, 11(4–6), 796–799. http://doi.org/10.1080/09544120050008237 20. World Bank, World Development Report 2012: Gender Equality and Development (World Bank, Washington, DC, 2011); http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/book/10.1596/ 978-0-8213- 8810-5. SCI 21. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, The State of Food and Agriculture 2010-2011: Women in Agriculture: Closing the Gender Gap for Development. (FAO, Rome, 2011); available at www.fao.org/docrep/013/i2050e/i2050e00.htm. 22. C. M. Blackden, Q. Wodon, Eds., Gender, Time Use, and Poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa, working paper (World Bank, Washington, DC, 2006). 23. Grameen Foundation, Women, Mobile Phones, and Savings: A Grameen Foundation Case Study (Grameen Foundation USA, Washington, DC, 2012). 24. World Bank, Voice and Agency: Empowering Women and Girls for Shared Prosperity (World Bank, Washington, DC, 2014). 25. D. Thomas, in Intrahousehold Resource Allocation in Developing Countries: Models, Methods and Policy, L. Haddad, J. Hoddinott, H. Alderman, Eds. (Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD, 1997), pp. 142–164. 26. R. L. Blumberg, Ed., Engendering Wealth and Well-Being: Empowerment for Global Change (Latin America in Global Perspective) (Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1995). 27. E. Duflo, “Women’s empowerment and economic development,” working paper 17702 (National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, 2011); available at www.nber.org/papers/w17702. 28. B. K. Herz, G. B. Sperling, What Works in Girls’ Education: Evidence and Policies from the Developing World (Council on Foreign Relations, New York, 2004); available at http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7a0W_ bqvzA0C&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=%22girls+may+seem+overwhelming,+a+strategic+mix+o f+proven+policies%22+%22the+Carnegie+Corporation+for+their+%EF%AC%81nancial+s upport+of+this%22+%22of+the%22+%22Center+for+Research+on+Women.+For+providin g+extensive+materials,%22+&ots=UdDRvUlTXe&sig=ypRBzWhCFGrNZSkWTqJ2gD0ny k8. 29. R. Levine, Center for Global Development, Girls Count: A Global Investment & Action Agenda (Center for Global Development, Washington, DC, 2009); available at www.coalitionforadolescentgirls.org/sites/default/files/Girls_Count_2009.pdf. 30. M. O’Sullivan, A. Rao, R. Banerjee, K. Gulati, M. Vinez, “Levelling the Field: Improving Opportunities for Women Farmers in Africa,” working paper 86039 (World Bank, Washington, DC, 2014); available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2014/01/19243625/levellingfieldimprovingopportunities-women-farmers-africa. 31. M. Corroon et al., Matern. Child Health J. 18, 307–315 (2014). 32. M. R. Shroff et al., Soc. Sci. Med. 73, 447–455 (2011). 33. L. C. Smith, F. Kahn, T. R. Frankenberger, A. Wadud, Admissible Evidence in the Court of Development Evaluation? The Impact of Care’s Shouhardo Project on Child Stunting in Bangladesh (Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, UK, 2011) 34. www.aassa.asia 35. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271. 36. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529. 37. Buck, G. A., Leslie-Pelecky, D., & Kirby, S. K. (2002). Bringing female scientists into the elementary classroom: Confronting the strength of elementary students’ stereotypical images of scientists. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 14, 1-9. 38. Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1045-1060. 39. Daniell, E. (2006). Every other Thursday. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 40. Dasgupta, N. (2011). Ingroup experts and peers as social vaccines who inoculate the selfconcept: The stereotype inoculation model. Psychological Inquiry, 22, 231-246. 41. Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., & Scircle, M. (2014). Stereotype inoculation in adolescence: The effect of teacher gender on adolescents’ academic self-concept and beliefs about science. Unpublished manuscript, University of MassachusettsAm-herst. 42. Dasgupta, N., Scircle, M., & Hunsinger, M. (2014). The effect of peers on women in engineering. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts Amherst. 43. Diekman, A. B., Brown, E. R., Johnston, A. M., & Clark, E. K. (2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Psychological Science, 21, 1051-1057. 44. Durik, A. M., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Classroom activities in math and reading in early, middle, and late elementary school. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 41, 33-41. 45. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social–cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273. 46. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598. 47. Eaton, Y. M., Mitchell, M. L., & Jolley, J. M. (1991). Gender differences in the d9velopment of relationships during late adolescence. Adolescence, 26, 565-568. 48. Eccles, J. S. (1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 585-609. 49. Eccles, J. S., Jacobs, J. E., & Harold, R. D. (1990). Gender role stereotypes, expectancy effects, and parents’ socialization of gender differences. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 183- 201. 50. Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Cross-nationalpatterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 103-127. 51. Freeman, T. M., Anderman, L. H., & Jensen, J. M. (2007). Sense of belonging in college freshmen at the classroom and campus levels. Journal of Experimental Education, 75, 203- 220. 52. Frehill, L. M., Di Fabio, N., Hill, S., Trager, K., & Buono, J. (2008, summer). Women in engineering: A review of the 2007 literature. SWE Magazine, 54(3), 6-30. 53. Frome, P. M., & Eccles, J. S. (1998). Parents’ influence on children’s achievement-related perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 435-452. 54. Geist, E. A., & King, M. (2008). Different, not better: Gender differences in mathematics learning and achievement. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35, 43-52. 55. Gentry, M., & Owen, S. V. (2004). Secondary student perceptions of classroom quality: Instrumentation and differences between advanced/honors and nonhonors classes. Journal of Advanced Academics, 16, 20-29. 56. Golden, C., & Rouse, C. (2000). Orchestrating impartiality: The impact of “blind” auditions on female musicians. The American Economic Review, 90, 715-750. 57. Halpern, D. F. (2004). A cognitive-process taxonomy for sex differences in cognitive abilities. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 135-139. 58. Herbert, J., & Stipek, D. T. (2005). The emergence of gender differences in children’s perceptions of their academic competence. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 276-295. 59. Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70, 151-179. 60. Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St. Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women. 61. Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. J. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 139-155. 62. Kanter, N. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books. 63. Konrad, A. M., Ritchie, J. E., Lieb, P., & Corrigall, E. (2000). Sex differences and similarities in job attribute preferences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 593- 641. 64. Leaper, C., Farkas, T., & Brown, C. S. (2012). Adolescent girls’ experiences and genderrelated beliefs in relation to their motivation in math/science and English. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 268-282. 65. Mason, M. A., & Goulden, M. (2002). Do babies matter? The effect of family formation on the lifelong careers of academic men and women. Academe, 88(6), 21-27. 66. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (1999). A study of the status of women faculty in science at MIT. Cambridge: School of Science, Committee on Women Faculty, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 67. Mavriplis, C., Heller, R., Sorensen, C., & Snyder, H. D. (2005, June). The FORWARD to professorship workshop. Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, American Society for Engineering Education. 68. Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics classroom. Journal of Education Psychology, 85, 424-436. 69. Miyake, A., Kost-Smith, L. E., Finkelstein, N. D., Pollock, S. J., Cohen, G. L., & Ito, T. A. (2010). Reducing the gender achievement gap in college science: A classroom study of values affirmation. Science, 330, 1234-1237. 70. Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 16474-16479. 71. Murphy, M., Steele, C. M., & Gross, J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18, 879-885.
SCIENCE & INNOVATION