ISTP Research Plan and Rationale: The goal of this NSF-funded project is to train individuals in more inclusive teaching strategies. The goal of this study is to investigate how well the program accomplishes that goal. Thus, the purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of a professional development program (online, asynchronous MOOC through the edX platform and on-campus components administered by facilitators at participating campuses) designed to improve the awareness, confidence, and ability of current and future faculty to create inclusive science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) learning environments for their undergraduate students. We seek to explore impact on program participants and additionally, the undergraduate students of a small number of program participants in a limited set of courses. Furthermore, we seek to investigate the formation and impact of a community of program facilitators and MOOC Centered Learning Communities (consisting of program participants engaging in campus-based program activities) on community participants.
The study launched with the beginning of the professional development program pilot in Oct 2020 and continues to develop (with additional methods) through program full launch in spring of 2021 with additional iterations in Fall 2021, Spring 2022, Fall 2022, Spring 2023, Fall 2023, Spring 2024 and Fall 2024. Beyond this, only trained facilitators will have access to the course.
Research Questions.
- What is the impact of the inclusive teaching professional development program on graduate student, postdoc, and faculty participants?
- What impact does our program have on project-related communities, and on their facilitators and community participants?
- How do program participants trained in inclusive teaching practices affect their undergraduate students?
- Research Question 1 (RQ1): To address RQ1, we employ surveys with program participants at multiple timepoints to investigate changes in key variables related to awareness of key concepts, self-efficacy beliefs, and behavior. We also examine program participants’ artifacts from their participation in the online MOOC such as assignments and reflections about inclusive teaching. In addition, we conduct semi-structured interviews with a subset of program participants to further explore participant perceptions of impact. Lastly, for a small number of program participants who agree to an interview, we will conduct case studies of these individuals that, beyond their survey and interview responses, including: observations of their teaching, their teaching artifacts (e.g., syllabus), reflection journals, and pre/post semester faculty surveys to investigate impact on program participants.
- Research Question 2 (RQ2): Based on the research literature, we created survey instruments for institutional learning community and affinity group facilitators to investigate community dynamics, experiences, and perceived impact with community participants. We also explore how facilitators sustain and advance inclusive teaching professional development at their institutions. A separate survey is used with program participants who participate in local, on-campus and non-local, virtual Learning Communities or affinity groups to likewise investigate their experiences and perceptions of impact as a result of being in the community. In addition, we interview a small sample of facilitators and individuals in both community types to further investigate their experiences and the impact of the communities.
- Research Question 3 (RQ3): For RQ3, we employ surveys with undergraduate students who are in the case study faculty members’ classrooms to explore how program participants trained in inclusive teaching affects these students’ sense of belonging, self-efficacy, and science identity. We will also request course outcome data from course instructors in the study to further explore impacts of the professional development and learning community programming.
Higher education plays a critical role in building a strong STEM workforce. However, our current academic system does not attract students to STEM fields equitably. The groups most underrepresented in STEM disciplines also are the fastest growing among our general population, and their lack of success creates a disparity within the national talent pool. National data shows that the disparity in STEM degree attainment for women and underrepresented minority (URM) students [1] increases at each degree level, compared with white and Asian students (H.E.R.I., 2010). In addition, fewer than 40% of U.S. students who enter college intending to major in a STEM field complete a STEM degree (Chen, 2009), and more than half of STEM bachelor’s degree recipients switched to non-STEM fields when they entered graduate school or the job market (Lowell et al., 2009; National Science Board, 2007).
Research has demonstrated that URM attrition from STEM disciplines can be attributed to inconsistent undergraduate teaching, advising, and mentoring practices (Gloria, 1997; Thompson, 2011). A recent report recommends the adoption of evidence-based teaching practices to transform undergraduate STEM education, with an emphasis on reaching a diversity of instructors and students (Olson & Riordan, 2012). The challenge is that most faculty have not adopted these practices (Henderson et al., 2012; Khatri et al., 2015). Many instructors lack sufficient pedagogical training, often modeling their teaching on their graduate classes or on observations of others over time (Austin, 2011; Felder & Brent, 2016; Rugarcia et al., 2000).
An Inclusive Teaching approach (Ambrose et al., 2010) offers a means for instructors to reflect critically on all aspects of their courses, rethinking their curricular choices, their teaching methods, activities and assessments as well as the intersections of their own identities and those of their students. Additionally, inclusive teaching approaches and scholars such as Freire, Hooks, Ladson-Billings and Tuitt can guide instructors to reflect on how power, privilege and positionality play out in different learning environments (Danowitz & Tuitt, 2011; Freire, 2000; Hooks, 1994; Ladson-Billings, 2014). Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 2014) and more recently Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy (Cole, 2017) are founded on the idea that culture is critical for learning, and that it is the instructor’s responsibility to frame the content in this way, such pedagogical approaches take into account—and value—students’ cultural references and recognize that culture helps shape how groups and individuals think about and make sense of the world. For STEM courses that have traditionally not included these elements as a part of the curriculum, instructors have the opportunity to revisit their pedagogical choices to foster a more inclusive learning environment.
Professional development programs at many of our institutions offer support for and motivate current and future faculty [2] change by recognizing the value of and providing programming for inclusive teaching approaches. However, the requests for workshops, conferences and trainings focused on inclusive teaching practices are greater than the current capacity in many of our teaching and learning centers around the country, and in colleges which have no centers – more facilitators nationally and more opportunities are needed to scale up inclusive teaching nationally.
Teaching as well as diversity, equity and inclusion professional development programs regularly employ participant group structures to build community, explore content in greater depth, share experiences and perspectives. Learning communities can increase faculty’s enthusiasm and interest in student-centered teaching even after subsequent semesters of participation (Anderson and Finelli, 2014). In some cases, even when faculty might not be able to immediately apply the pedagogical skills discussed in the Learning Community, their participation provides an opportunity for self-reflection and a future goal to continuously work on pedagogical skills (Nadelson, 2013). On an institutional level, Learning Communities also foster opportunities for cross-departmental collaboration and community building. Especially when staff and faculty determine the curriculum, participants feel the space as more inclusive and relevant and a more productive space to share diverse opinions (Cherrington et al. 2017).
Inclusive teaching and diversity, equity and inclusion professional development also utilize intragroup sharing with groups made up of different racial and ethnic identities to address intercultural and promote anti-racist learning and development (Zúñiga, Naagda & Sevig, 2002, Alimo, 2012). Affinity groups provide benefits as well, by providing individuals with spaces for conversations about their identity-based experiences with others who share similar identities (Michael & Conger, 2009; Blitz & Kohl, 2012; Pour-Khorshid, 2018).
Notes
- The NSF definition of underrepresented students is African Americans, American Indians including Native Alaskans, Hispanics and Native Pacific Islanders.
- We refer to ‘future faculty’ as STEM and SBE graduate students and postdocs with intent to pursue a career in academia.
References
Alimo, C. J. (2012) From Dialogue to Action: The Impact of Cross-Race Intergroup Dialogue on the Development of White College Students as Racial Allies, Equity & Excellence in Education, 45:1, 36-59, DOI: 10.1080/10665684.2012.643182
Ambrose, S.A., Bridges, M.W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M.C., & Norman, M.K., Why Do Student Development and Course Climate Matter for Student Learning?, in How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching 2010, 183-187, Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA.
Austin, A.E., Promoting Evidence-Based Change in Undergraduate Science Education. Paper commissioned by the Board on Science Education of the National Academies National Research Council. 2011: Washington, DC.
Blitz, L. V., & Kohl Jr, B. G. (2012). Addressing racism in the organization: The role of white racial affinity groups in creating change. Administration in Social Work, 36(5), 479-498.
Chen, X., Students Who Study Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) in Postsecondary Education in Institute of Education Sciences, National Council for Education Statistics, Editor. 2009: Washington, DC.
Cole, C.E., Culturally sustaining pedagogy in higher education: Teaching so that Black Lives Matter. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 2017. 36(8): p. 736-750.
Danowitz, M.A. & Tuitt, F., Enacting Inclusivity Through Engaged Pedagogy: A Higher Education Perspective. Equity & Excellence in Education, 2011. 44(1): p. 2011.
Felder, R.M. & Brent, R., Teaching and learning STEM: A practical guide. 2016: John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ
Freire, P., Pedagogy of the oppressed. 2000, New York, NY: Continuum.
Gloria, A.M., Chicana academic persistence: Creating a university – based community. Education and Urban Society, 1997. 30(1): p. 107-121.
H.E.R.I., Degrees of Success: Bachelor’s Degree Completion Rates Among Initial STEM Majors. 2010: Los Angeles.
Henderson, C., Dancy, M., Niewiadomska-Bugaj, M., Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process? Physical Review Physics Education Research, 2012. 8(020104): p. 1-15.
Hooks, B., Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. 1994, New York, NY: Routledge.
Khatri, R., Henderson, C., Cole, R., Froyd, J., Friedrichsen, D., & Stanford, C., Designing for sustained adoption: A model of developing educational innovations for successful propagation. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(1), 01011215.
Ladson-Billings, G., Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: a/k/a the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 2014. 84(1): p. 74-84.
Lowell, B.L., Salzman, H., Bernstein, H., & Henderson, E., Steady as She Goes? Three Generations of Students Through the Science and Engineering Pipeline, in Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management. 2009: Washington, DC.
Michael, A., & Conger, M. C. (2009). Becoming an anti-racist white ally: How a white affinity group can help. Perspectives on Urban Education, 6(1), 56-60.
National Science Board, A National Action Plan for Addressing the Critical Needs of the U.S. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education System. 2007, National Science Foundation: Arlington, VA.
Olson, S., & Riordan, D. G., Report to the president, engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. 2012, Executive Office of the President: Washington, DC.
Pour-Khorshid, F. (2018). Cultivating sacred spaces: A racial affinity group approach to support critical educators of color. Teaching Education, 29(4), 318-329.
Rugarcia, A., Felder, R. M., Woods, D. R., & Stice, J. E., The future of engineering education I. A vision for a new century. Chemical Engineering Education, 2000. 34(1): p. 16-25.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in intergroup relations. London, England: Academic Press. pg 63.
Thompson, R.A.B., G., Indicators of Success in STEM majors: A cohort study. Journal of College Admission, 2011. 212: p. 18-24.
Zuniga, Ximena, Ed.; Nagda, Biren A., Ed.; Chesler, Mark, Ed.; Cytron-Walker, Adena, Ed., Intergroup Dialogue in Higher Education: Meaningful Learning about Social Justice. ASHE Higher Education Report, Volume 32, Number 4 (2007).
CORE Research Team:
- Gina Frey, PhD
- Lucas Hill, PhD
- Vanessa Johnson-Ojeda, PhD
inclusivity framework Research Team:
- Diamond Buchanan, MS
- Susanna Calkins, PhD
- Gina Frey, PhD
- Don Gillian-Daniel, PhD
- Linden Higgins, PhD
- Vanessa Johnson-Ojeda, PhD
- Sara Woods, MSEd
instrument development & quantitative outcomes Research Team:
- Gina Frey, PhD
- Bennett Goldberg, PhD
- Lucas Hill, PhD
- Vanessa Johnson-Ojeda, PhD
- Haley Lewis, Doctoral Candidate
interview and case study Research Team:
- Diamond Buchanan, MS
- Susanna Calkins, PhD
- Lucas Hill, PhD
- Rob Hill, PhD
- Sara Woods, MSEd
Learning community Research Team:
- Diane Codding, PhD
- Gina Frey, PhD
- Bennett Goldberg, PhD
- Sarah Hokanson, PhD
- Vanessa Johnson-Ojeda, PhD
- Haley Lewis, Doctoral Candidate
- Alex Yen, PhD
external Research collaborators:
- Linden Higgins, PhD
- Haley Lewis, Doctoral Candidate
former Research team members:
- Bipana Bantawa, PhD
- Schnaude Dorizan, PhD
- Ivan Hernandez, PhD
- Stephanie Kuzano, PhD
- Julia Savoy, PhD
- SuYeong (Sophie) Shin, PhD
- Veronica Womack, PhD