Poster Session C

A regional COMmunity for Mathematics Inquiry in Teaching (COMMIT) is a local group of college mathematics educators interested in practicing and disseminating teaching and learning techniques centered on student inquiry. These communities aim to provide evidence-based support mechanisms, through professional development, mentoring, and collaborations, to help members sustainably transform their teaching. Each regional COMMIT is part of the growing COMMIT Network. This network brings together the leadership teams of all the communities under one loose structure. The COMMIT network is supported by an NSF grant (NSF-DUE #1925188) and consists of 10 communities with over 500 members total.

While student inquiry in the classroom is characterized by the 4 pillars of Inquiry-Based Mathematics Education, we can humanize and generalize these pillars to our work with faculty in the COMMITs:

1. Participants should engage teaching with inquiry deeply and experience it as a living discipline. That teaching with inquiry should be driven by questions that make sense and are valuable from participants' perspectives and should allow them to develop new insights and ideas. (transformative learning)
2. Participants should collaborate, developing their own authority and collective ownership of the teaching with inquiry, engaging their full selves and bodies and learning about themselves and their peers through these interactions.
3. Facilitators should leverage participants' thinking to broaden teaching with inquiry and deepen the community discourse.
4. Facilitators should attend to positioning each participant as a knower and person who is represented in teaching by inquiry and should actively resist historical and ongoing oppressive hierarchical systems.

The COMMIT toolkit provides resources to start and sustain a COMMIT, as well as information about the activities and events that COMMITs have done in the past. The poster will include questions to actively engage the audience in making sense of the 4 pillars and the COMMIT network.

Background: Clinical Learning Triad is the existing relationship between the nursing student, clinical instructor and the support environment, which includes mainly nurses and healthcare teams in the hospitals. Strengthening this relationship is highly essential for a sound learning for nursing students.

Objectives: This study explores the student nurses' perception of the clinical learning triad, its benefits and challenges with regards to their clinical learning.

Method: A qualitative descriptive methodology guided this study. Using semi‐structured interview focus group discussions were conducted to elicit data from 30 participants. Data was analyzed manually to identify the key themes. The credibility and consistency were maintained through utilization of a systematic framework for data analysis.

Results:Five themes identified are Bridging the gap between theory and practice, Skill Acquisition, Interpersonal Skills and Communication, Clinical Instructor-the Centre for Clinical Learning Triad, Benefits and Challenges of Clinical Learning Triad. Students verbalized that the availability of nurses enhanced their learning experience. However, expressed that at times the busy ward routines hindered them from approaching the staff nurses for their learning needs. A specialized clinical instructor is mandatory to channelize objective based clinical learning in nursing education. They also verbalized support from the clinical environment alleviated anxiety and progressed their practical learning. The clinical learning triad intensified the students' knowledge and skills, thereby developing a healthy attitude towards the nursing profession.

Conclusion: Clinical Instructors coordinate the clinical learning from the beginning of a shift but staff nurses too play a major role in helping students to complete student learning through skill training while the instructor is busy handling other students. The study concludes that the practical knowledge of staff nurses combined with the efforts of clinical instructors to bridge the gaps between the theory and practice supported by the positive clinical environment equips the nursing students with required skills and knowledge thus establishing the effectiveness of the Clinical Learning Triad.  

 Those seeking to change the policies, practices, and cultures of universities to support effective educational practices often find it a challenge. To navigate this work, some transformation efforts are being focused at the department-level, including two models for departmentally-based change developed at the University of Colorado Boulder: the Departmental Action Team (DAT) Project and Teaching Quality Framework (TQF) Initiative. In the DAT Project, externally-facilitated working groups, composed of students, faculty, and staff, pursue collectively-determined projects aimed broadly at improving the undergraduate experience in their department. In the TQF Initiative, externally-facilitated working groups of faculty (modeled on those of the DAT Project) focus on transforming teaching evaluation practices in their department. To better understand these related models of institutional change, we conducted interviews with individuals from the DAT Project and TQF Initiative, including working group facilitators, developers of the models, and grant PIs. Our results indicate that there are meaningful differences in the working group process in the two models, including the models' overall goals, their approach to participants' development, and the styles of facilitation they employ. These differences have connections to the theories underlying each model, and they have implications for the experiences participants have in each model and the outcomes they achieve. In this poster, we present these differences in the working group process in the two change models, the potential impact of these differences, and avenues for growth in the models.

Instructional change in STEM courses at the postsecondary level has been advocated for decades with a particular focus on adoption of learner-centered instructional practices. One of the barriers for instructional change identified by faculty and often raised in the literature is the departmental climate around teaching. However, the relationship between the departmental climate around teaching and instructors' adoption of learner-centered instructional practices has not been fully explored.
We addressed this gap by developing a survey that helps

1. characterizing the different types of psychological collective climate around teaching that faculty in STEM departments at postsecondary institutions perceive
2. testing whether departmental collective climate can be measured within these departments
3. exploring the relationships between adoption of learner-centered instructional practices and psychological collective climate/departmental collective climate around teaching.

The survey was collected from 166 instructors from 22 departments at 21 institutions across the U.S. Analysis of the survey data led to

1. the identification of four types of psychological collective climate around teaching by using mixture model clustering
2. the realization that measuring departmental collective climate is challenging as few constructs measured by the survey reached high level of consensus within faculty members from the same department
3. the finding that psychological collective climate did not predict STEM faculty's instructional practices.

Our results suggest that the link between climate around teaching within a department and faculty members' use of learner-centered instructional practices is more unclear than previously thought, and departmental collective climate around teaching may be difficult to measure because most elements that define a climate (e.g., policies, practices, expectations) are lacking when it comes to teaching. The absence of these elements may contribute to the highly autonomous and independent approach to teaching that is seen in higher education and thus the lack of instructional innovation at scale.

What makes some departments stand out in terms of high quality teaching? We report on an interview-based study of 29 instructors in 18 departments to help answer this question. In Fall 2019, we distributed the Research-Based Instructional Strategies (RBIS) national survey to 18,129 US instructors who had taught first-year General Chemistry, Quantitative-Based Physics, or Single-Variable Calculus in the previous two years. Sampling was done by institution, with the goal of obtaining multiple responses from each of the three target departments (chemistry, mathematics, physics) at each institution. We ranked departments in terms of their use of active learning based on the average self-reported percentage of class time spent lecturing, with lower percentages of lecture as a proxy for higher use of active learning. From the departments with multiple instructors in the top quartile of active learning users, we selected a diverse set based on institution type (TYC, undergraduate college, graduate college), discipline, and location. We invited two survey respondents from each department to participate in a semi-structured interview about the teaching in their department. This talk focuses on the qualitative analysis of these interviews. A grounded theory approach was used to develop a theory about why these departments engage in high use of active learning. In all cases, we found that departments do not become high users of active learning by accident. Rather, it is typically the result of consistent efforts by dedicated individuals over a significant period of time. In this talk, we will present our preliminary theory. An important take-away message is that department cultures can change to focus more on high quality teaching, but that this does not happen spontaneously. It requires both an appropriate institutional context (e.g., teaching is valued in tangible ways) as well as motivated individuals who are knowledgeable about educational research.  

 Members of university STEM centers necessarily play a boundary-spanning role within a university and generally between the university and outside organizations as well. Northern Kentucky University's (NKU) Center for Integrative Natural Science and Mathematics (CINSAM) STEM Center is one such center, whose various employees are specifically designated to engage in boundary-spanning to advance CINSAM's mission of promoting enthusiasm, excellence and equity in STEM teaching, learning and scholarship at P-16 levels. These boundary-spanning behaviors—as described by Lucas Hill (2020)—facilitate exchange of ideas across units within NKU and with external partners in a way that allows CINSAM to engage in disruption and stabilization to advance STEM education as described by Deborah Carlisle and Gabriela Weaver. In this presentation, we will examine CINSAM's successes with and opportunities for boundary-spanning in service to advance its mission. We will also discuss parallels with participants' organizations and experiences with boundary-spanning, disruption, and stabilization.

 The poster will share strategies and lessons learned from research studying institutional change projects to enhance gender equity on STEM faculties. Our 2020 book, Building Gender Equity in the Academy: Institutional Strategies for Change, comes from over a decade of research studying the experiences of ADVANCE Institutional Transformation projects that take a systemic and institution-focused approach to the problem of gender inequity. We have distilled this research into a handbook and how-to guide for leaders in academic institutions—aimed at busy people who want to make evidence-based decisions on what they can do to increase gender equity, and at emerging leaders of all ages and stages who can nudge those in power and prepare to lead themselves someday.

The heart of the book is a collection of 12 research-based strategies, organized in four groups by what part of the gender equity problem they address. For each strategy, we offer a rationale for each strategy, a variety of models, and advice from experience and data about how an institution might choose, implement and evaluate them. The opening section offers a succinct literature review—what is the problem, how is it gendered and grounded in STEM—and describes our research. And the book closes with a synthesis about how the strategies are context-sensitive and how to analyze your own organizational context to make choices about which of the strategies best fit for your particular institution. While the ADVANCE projects we studied were focused on gender, many of the strategies also readily adapt to address other dimensions of equity, such as race, ethnicity, class, disability, Indigenous status, and country of origin, and to other domains of institutional change, including STEM instruction.

The School of Science and Technology at Georgia Gwinnett College has incorporated Course-embedded Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs) for 9 years as part of a comprehensive systems approach model to transform STEM learning, student engagement, and inclusivity for our student population. Central to our model is the growing body of evidence that shows a link between student research, lasting learning, and students' interest in careers in STEM. An internal mini-grant program was used to incentivize faculty to redesign courses to incorporate CUREs to help students develop STEM skills and competencies. Unlike traditional apprentice-style research that is highly selective, CUREs increase inclusivity because they offer research experiences to all students enrolled in the course irrespective of their background and skills. Our CURE model incorporates multiple CUREs throughout all four years of matriculation for all STEM majors and provides a mechanism for successfully engaging large numbers of students in undergraduate research and provide them with the skills and confidence to seek out independent, faculty-mentored research or alternative summer research opportunities. Results from an on-going, in-depth study that currently includes 5 semesters of quantitative and qualitative assessment data on the impact of CUREs on student success and engagement, including impact on ethnicity, gender, course grades, and student attitudes show:

1. CUREs have led to a more positive belief in self-efficacy in communication, experimental design, career choices, and critical thinking/problem solving;
2. overall, CUREs no significant effect of on course grade;
3. African American students performed significantly better in CURE sections than controls;
4. African American students performed significantly better in MATH CUREs than controls;
5. CUREs are inclusive and allow for repeated exposures to STEM skills.

Our current data suggest that CUREs, a High Impact Practice, may be helping to close the performance gap in under-prepared and under-represented groups in STEM fields.

The Science Student Diversity Initiative at the University of British Columbia (UBC), launched in 2019, aims to build capacity within science and mathematics programs and classrooms to create and sustain inclusive environments for teaching and learning. This collaborative initiative is a partnership between Skylight (Science Centre for Learning and Teaching), UBC Science, and the central UBC Equity and Inclusion Office, and is grounded in strategies and practices of Inclusive Excellence (Williams et al., 2005). The impetus for this grassroots UBC Science-specific initiative grew out of student, staff, and faculty concerns around belonging and community within our programs and the growing need for a more strategic focus on equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI). For this poster, we will highlight the people, processes, and next steps involved with this critical work to promote cultural change. This initiative is led by a team of committed faculty, staff, and students, and in particular, supported by an Equity Strategist acting as a change agent to build awareness and capacity among our community. A comprehensive needs analysis was a key starting point for better understanding our cultural context and was explored by: facilitating workshops with faculty members, reviewing undergraduate student experience surveys, conducting interviews with students, department heads, and EDI leaders, and consulting literature and practices around EDI in STEM education. These efforts revealed strengths and gaps in the EDI space and informs our current work of leading and supporting EDI specific projects, training, and resource development. Being able to present our work is an opportunity to share our approach for institutional change, to gain insight and feedback from others, and to have a broader discussion around how EDI activities are being infused into and evaluated in higher education.

 While Black access to higher education has been increasing, Black students who attend predominantly white institutions (PWIs) are not having the same experiences as their white peers. Black students who attend PWIs report lower levels of satisfaction and sense of belonging than their white peers and Black students who attend HBCUs (Allen, 1992; Grier-Reed, 2010; Johnson et al., 2007). Studies suggest these experiences are caused, in part, by the negative, and often racist campus climates that many Black students experience at their PWIs (Carter, 2007; Harper, 2015; Solorzano et al., 2002; Grier-Reed, 2010). Studies also suggest these experiences can have many adverse effects including, lower academic achievement and higher attrition rates for Black students than white students (Allen, 1992; Harper, 2015; Strayhorn, 2018). To rectify this issue, researchers call for numerous interventions like the development and cultivation of safe spaces. However, most research focuses on student perceptions of the college environment, social relationships, or campus involvement. Instead, this study focuses on the individual actions of institutional actors. Using phenomenology, a form of qualitative research that focuses on lived experiences, I examine the role institutional actors play in establishing a sense of belonging for Black students attending PWIs. Specifically, I investigate the practices institutional actors use to draw Black students to specific spaces. I also explore the reasons why some environments feel safer than others and the characteristics of the institutional actors that attract these students. The results underscore the significance that institutional agents play in promoting a sense of belonging for Black students on PWI campuses. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

In this project, we are studying the effects of a two-year institution's response to a state mandate that requires students to be placed in gateway courses within their first year of studies. We define a gateway mathematics course as the first transfer-level mathematics course taken by most students intending to pursue a STEM major. These courses traditionally have high failure rates, and are a common barrier for STEM-intending students from historically underserved communities. We will share preliminary findings that will inform professional development (PD) focused on enabling instructors to foster inquiry- and equity-oriented practices. In addition we will discuss how the four frames as adapted by Reinholz and Apkarian (2018) will be used to characterize a department-based change effort at a two year college. A key outcome of this study will be improved understandings of how department-based gateway math course reform can be accomplished at a two-year Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) and how to best support students from historically underrepresented groups. Our team is composed of a partnership between a two-year HSI and a four-year HSI in the same region that serve the same student population. We focus on holistic, cultural shifts that need to happen within a two-year institution's mathematics department to more effectively support Latinx students in gateway mathematics courses (Garcia, 2017). To broaden participation within STEM fields, the MPIE project will make three critical contributions in undergraduate education:

provide insight into the classroom conditions of gateway mathematics courses
investigate systemic change efforts at multiple levels (e.g. institutional, departmental, courses, instructors, students)
track student success as it relates to issues of equity across several dimensions of the student experience.  

Test-optional and test-blind college admissions have become increasingly popular in the US due in part to the strong correlation between SAT scores and income. Bias associated with any aspect of an admissions file is argued to degrade the process as unfair and non-meritocratic. As test-optional admissions become even more widely adopted due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the presumptive reweighting of other application materials raises the need to examine these other components with similar scrutiny. For Latinx applicants, who are vastly underrepresented in higher education, this imperative is even greater. The application essay, a student-produced component, is at once an opportunity for both bias and democratization in selective admissions. There is a burgeoning but limited literature that shows that the content of admissions essays are strongly related to gender among Latinx applicants and have a stronger relationship with household income than SAT scores do. This poster presents preliminary results from computational analyses of 79,330 admissions essays written by 39,665 Latinx applicants to the University of California in 2016. We extend related work by examining the relationship between geographic context, reported first language, and parental education levels of applicants to the topical and thematic content of their essays. To model the content of the essays, we use correlated topic modeling; to compare essays, we use traditional statistical tools such as t-tests and boxplots on the individual topic scores for each essay. We discuss how the patterning we find complicates and brings nuance to ongoing conversations about fairness, access, and equity in college admissions beyond the binary inclusion/removal of single components like test scores.

The data clearly show that supporting undergraduate women in STEM majors is beneficial to their success. Often, such programs are shared after they have been in place for several years, which is helpful, but may not illuminate challenges and successes during development. We present a project currently in year 2 to showcase early efforts to design and implement a support program. Building a plane while flying can be stressful, but also informative and fruitful. Our story will include early decisions, from the initial ask to the current program form, and touch on the interwoven aspects of philosophy and implementation. We will discuss efforts to align program evaluation with changing outcomes associated with program growth and changes. We will also discuss moving to a virtual space to continue engaging our scholars and greater community during the pandemic. Our donor-funded program is housed in the Fisher College of Science and Mathematics, and our team consists of one program coordinator and three faculty leaders. Scholars enter the program as cohorts of ten, and each year we accept at least ten scholars, with the intent to reach capacity of thirty scholars in year three. Acceptance numbers vary a bit due to possible attrition, which we experienced in our first year. Currently in our second year, we have increased our program offerings to include events open to the university and local community. We are refining our communication plans and have successfully leveraged many on-campus partners. The program has a three-year structure, where each year has an overarching goal. We also created a pre-year for interested students to investigate and gauge interest in applying to the program. Important aspects of our program include mentoring, building community, providing professional development, and supporting career investigation. Our intention is to foster lifelong resilience and retention in STEM.  

This presentation uses data-driven insights to understand how students transition in STEM. Schlossberg's Transition Theory provides the framework to explore how students move-in, through and out of STEM courses and disciplines. The historical STEM data is analyzed through Schlossberg's 4 "S" system to thoroughly unpack multiple situations, guide the design of institutional strategy, expands how the student make sense of the self (learning and understanding), as well as, identify resources for effective support. To maximize support, completion structures must begin with a backward design. The data output guides the development of the ecosystem. Within the complex network is the interconnectedness of high school STEM culture and grade point average (gpa). High school gpa is a standard request on the admissions application and data analysis; however, the diagnosis of culture is not. The predictive and descriptive admissions' data is juxtaposed with five years of college cohort data for an institutional strategy that diminishes misalignment between high school and college STEM cultures, the identification of key priorities, and coordinated academic enrichment activities for students.  

In this presentation we report on the early stages of a study, conducted by Iowa State University, Education Development Center, Inc., and University of North Carolina Charlotte, on the experiences of successful doctoral students from underrepresented groups in the mathematical sciences.
That fewer than 5% of new PhDs in mathematics are awarded to students from underrepresented groups is a problem with far-reaching effects. Broadening participation in STEM requires broadening participation in STEM courses and majors in college. Yet, STEM majors pass through departments of mathematics, which ultimately lack diversity. This lack of diversity perpetuates a systemic barrier to graduate school for most students from historically marginalized groups. Diversifying mathematics faculty is thus critical to broadening participation in STEM.
We are conducting comprehensive, in-depth, semi-structured interviews to study the experiences, perspectives, and stories of doctoral students and recent PhDs from underrepresented groups in mathematics. The students are in four cohorts of success: newly accepted students, early graduate students (pre-qualifying exams), advanced graduate students (dissertation level), and recent PhDs (0-5 years since graduation). In our design, we start by listening to and understanding the voices of graduate students themselves to inform decisions about changing mathematics department cultures and practices (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Berry, 2008). 
In interviews ranging from one to three hours, study participants share their journeys leading into and through mathematics departments.
This presentation zeroes in on the questions we are asking, why we are asking those questions, and what kinds of responses the questions are surfacing. Discussion will include reflecting on the types of questions session participants ask students in their own graduate programs, why and how they ask those questions, and what else they would like to know about their students.