XOTİN-QİZLARNİ IT VA RAQAMLİ KASBLARGA JALB QİLİSH LOYİHALARİNİNG SAMARADORLİGİNİ OSHİRİSH
Keywords:
Gender tengligi, IT talimi, Raqamli koʻnikmalar, Loyiha samaradorligi, Integral indeks.Abstract
Raqamli iqtisodiyotning jadal rivojlanishi axborot texnologiyalari (IT) sohasida malakali kadrlarga boʻlgan talabni keskin oshirmoqda, biroq bu sohada xotin-qizlarning ulushi jahon miqyosida ham, Oʻzbekistonda ham past boʻlib qolmoqda. Soʻnggi yillarda xotin-qizlarni IT va raqamli kasblarga jalb qilishga qaratilgan koʻplab loyihalar – bepul oʻquv kurslari, grant va stipendiya dasturlari, mentorlik hamda stajirovka tizimlari – amalga oshirilmoqda. Shu bilan birga, ularning samaradorligi koʻpincha faqat oʻquvchilar soni kabi miqdoriy koʻrsatkichlar orqali baholanib, yakuniy natija – barqaror bandlik va kasbiy oʻsish – etibordan chetda qolmoqda. Mazkur maqolaning maqsadi ushbu loyihalar samaradorligini kompleks baholash va oshirish modelini ishlab chiqishdan iborat. Tadqiqot normativ hujjatlarni tahlil qilish, ilmiy adabiyotlarni tizimli sharhlash hamda koʻp mezonli baholash usullariga asoslangan. Natijada xotin-qizlarning IT sohasiga kirishi va unda qolishiga toʻsqinlik qiluvchi omillarning besh darajali tasnifi, Kirkpatrik modeliga tayangan besh guruhli indikatorlar tizimi hamda samaradorlikning integral indeksi taklif etilgan. Indikatorlar vaznlari ierarxiyalarni tahlil qilish usuli yordamida aniqlanadi. Model shartli malumotlar asosida sinovdan oʻtkazilib, uning loyihalarni taqqoslash va zanjirning zaif boʻgʻinlarini aniqlash imkonini berishi koʻrsatilgan. Taklif etilgan yondashuv loyiha tashkilotchilari va soha siyosatini ishlab chiquvchilar uchun resurslarni samarali taqsimlash vositasi boʻlib xizmat qilishi mumkin.
References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005). Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education, 17(4), 369–386.
Charles, M., & Bradley, K. (2009). Indulging our gendered selves? Sex segregation by field of study in 44 countries. American Journal of Sociology, 114(4), 924–976.
Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Montoya, A. K., & Jiang, L. (2017). Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others? Psychological Bulletin, 143(1), 1–35.
Dasgupta, N., & Stout, J. G. (2014). Girls and women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: STEMing the tide and broadening participation in STEM careers. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 21–29.
Eccles, J. S. (1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18(4), 585–609.
International Telecommunication Union. (2023). Measuring digital development: Facts and figures 2023. ITU.
Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79–122.
Master, A., Cheryan, S., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2016). Computing whether she belongs: Stereotypes undermine girls’ interest and sense of belonging in computer science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 424–437.
OECD. (2018). Bridging the digital gender divide: Include, upskill, innovate. OECD Publishing.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill.
Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychological Science, 29(4), 581–593.
Thayer, K., & Ko, A. J. (2017). Barriers faced by coding bootcamp students. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 245–253). ACM.
UNESCO. (2017). Cracking the code: Girls’ and women’s education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2019). I’d blush if I could: Closing gender divides in digital skills through education. UNESCO & EQUALS Skills Coalition.
Vitores, A., & Gil-Juárez, A. (2016). The trouble with ‘women in computing’: A critical examination of the deployment of research on the gender gap in computer science. Journal of Gender Studies, 25(6), 666–680.
Эшмурадов Д. Э., Борисова Е. А. ИННОВАЦИОННЫЕ ПОДХОДЫ И ТЕХНОЛОГИИ В ФИНСКОМ ВЫСШЕМ ОБРАЗОВАНИИ: КЛЮЧИ К УСПЕХУ БУДУЩЕГО //Science and innovation. – 2024. – Т. 3. – №. Special Issue 38. – С. 771-775.
Wang, M.-T., & Degol, J. L. (2017). Gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): Current knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 119–140.
World Economic Forum. (2023). Global gender gap report 2023. World Economic Forum.
Ўзбекистон Республикасининг Қонуни. (2019). Хотин-қизлар ва эркаклар учун тенг ҳуқуқ ҳамда имкониятлар кафолатлари тўғрисида (ЎРҚ-562-сон, 2 сентябрь). Қонун ҳужжатлари маълумотлари миллий базаси. https://lex.uz
Eshmuradov D., Mirabdullaeva S. FORMATION OF LEADERSHIP QUALITIES OF CADETS MILITARY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS: THEORETICAL REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE //Science and innovation. – 2024. – Т. 3. – №. B4. – С. 285-289.
Ўзбекистон Республикаси Президентининг Фармони. (2020). «Рақамли Ўзбекистон — 2030» стратегиясини тасдиқлаш ва уни самарали амалга ошириш чора-тадбирлари тўғрисида (ПФ-6079-сон, 5 октябрь). Қонун ҳужжатлари маълумотлари миллий базаси. https://lex.uz
