IEEE Women in Engineering Magazine - December 2016 - 58

"have their hearts out" (meaning, put
volunteering to take part in the program.
their hearts and souls into) and gave
Teachers at the respective schools served
their all. The general experience was
as the link or "gateway." The first meetthat the girls responded well, were
ing at most schools involved most of the
happy to participate, and were excitteachers, after which contact continued
ed to be involved with the university.
with the assigned "guardian" teacher and
One staff member initially struggled
the members of the GirlPower team. At
to get the girls involved in the
one of the schools, the principal and
research but experienced
one teacher remained involved
gradual progress.
throughout. On the posiThe
G u id e d re s e a rc h
tive side, the "guardian"
general
"consultation" and
teachers made arrangeexperience was that
even personal develments, secured the
the the girls responded opment marked the
availability of the girls,
community engageobt a ined per miswell, were happy to
ment of some universion from parents,
participate, and
sity staff members. At
got indemnity forms
were excited to be
the start of the project,
signed, and ensured that
involved.
the GirlPower teams
the girls were released from
knew little to nothing
other school activities. Howabout research. Without using
ever, in some cases, the involveresearch jargon, the girls were given
ment of the teachers was disappointing,
a basic frame of reference at the start
if not problematic, in that they wanted
of the project. Some teams even stated
some type of reward. They continued to
hypotheses and projected outcomes,
maintain a focus on their teaching work
after having selected a topic. In some
only and did not take the mentoring
instances, the university staff member
role seriously; some resigned and left
proposed or even presented a topic to the
the school and the new appointees simteam. "Consultation" entailed discussion
ply did not display any interest.
of the research project, feedback on it,
The extent of contact with the
and correction where necessary.
GirlPower teams varied. Some uniThe research projects of the variversity staff members embraced the
ous teams reflected, to some extent,
community engagement enthusiastit he area of exper tise of t he unically and held weekly meetings with
versity staff member or the area of
their teams at the schools concerned,
personal research. A staff member
even using their own transport. Othobser ved a number of funda meners held meetings every alternative
tal knowledge gaps among his team
week, initially at the schools, but once
members, which he addressed durtransport had been arranged for the
ing the course of the research projGirlPower teams from their respecect. Developmental aspects facilitated
tive schools, these meetings were held
included structured thinking, conat the main campus at Muckleneuk,
fidence building, prioritization, and
Pretoria. One GirlPower team had two
phrasing of questions aligned with
field trips to collect water samples,
the ultimate goal. The importance of
both in the township and at remote
acknowledging sources and referencsites where less water pollution is likeing them was highlighted.
ly. These samples were compared as
Several university staff members
part of the research.
focused on the development of the preThe nature of t he communit y
sentation skills of the GirlPower teams
engagement of the university staff
by devoting two final sessions, prior to
members with the GirlPower teams
presenting the results to the research
also varied. One staff member reportsummit, to polish PowerPoint slides
ed that there was an instant rapport
and presentation skills. One made use
and another reported that the girls

IEEE women in engineering magazine

december 2016

of marking sheets and introduced the
notion of peer review among the girls.
Another emphasized that the entire
team must prepare to answer questions,
not leaving the presenter exposed.
Several university staff members
remarked how amazing the GirlPower team members were. They were
bright but with varied technological
proficiency. Generally, the girls exhibited remarkable skills in accessing
resources. Guidance was given on the
importance of knowing your destiny
when consulting resources. Teamwork
was impressive, with new members
easily assimilated when drop-outs
occurred. However, some disparities
were observed; these were attributed
to disadvantaged circumstances in
townships not being conducive to the
GirlPower intervention.
University staff members generally
experienced their involvement in the
program as a fulfilling one, not just
satisfying a key performance area of
the university's integrated performance
management system. Some remarked
how they loved working with the girls,
experiencing their enthusiasm and
commitment. One staff member voiced
satisfaction with the planning and coordination of the events. Overall, it was an
enriching experience for several participants, and it included lots of fun.
It is hoped that this community
engagement program has a lasting
impact, that research skills will evolve,
and that the involvement of the girls
will impact their career choices. In a
few cases, new team members were
taken on board this year because the
2013 members who were in grade
11 were engaged in end-of-school
examination preparations. However,
the majority were in grade 8 in 2013,
which allowed for working with the
same group for several years. A longitudinal study on the impact of GirlPower is envisaged.
- Thomas Groenewald and
Corina-Maria Mateescu

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Women in Engineering Magazine - December 2016