Presentations: Session IX

Undergraduate STEM disciplines have notoriously large equity gaps and suffer from disproportionate rates of attrition of systemically minoritized groups. Evidence-based inclusive teaching practices can both mitigate equity gaps and improve student retention—yet many instructors continue to teach in non-equitable ways. This is partially due to a lack of training; while STEM instructors have expertise in their respective fields, few have received formal pedagogical training. Although some instructors independently pursue professional development opportunities to learn about inclusion and equity in the classroom, ensuring such training is easily accessible to all instructors is critical. Together with our Center for Science and Math Success, we have developed an approach for broad dissemination of inclusive pedagogies called STEM-FIT (Forum for Inclusive Teaching). At the core of STEM-FIT is a bi-monthly infographic delivered via email using a college-wide listserv, which enables the information to be accessed by all instructors in six distinct departments within the college of Natural Sciences and Mathematics at our university. Each STEM-FIT infographic describes a different inclusive teaching practice in three sections: 1) the "Concept" section defines the practice, 2) the "Tips and Tools" section provides strategies for its implementation and includes examples used by instructors on campus, and 3) the "Resources" section presents references for those interested in accessing published studies. We house all STEM-FIT infographics, which range from 350-500 words, and an expanding bank of resources on a Canvas webpage that all instructors have access to. Finally, we hold intermittent virtual meetings to facilitate in-depth conversations about equity-focused, student-centered, inclusive teaching practices. Since its inception in Fall 2020, STEM-FIT has covered nine inclusive practices, including syllabus decolonization, growth mindset-based activities, alternative assessments, and community building. Instructors will be surveyed at the end of Spring 2021 to measure the impact of STEM-FIT on inclusive teaching practices in our college.  

Spurred by twin crises of COVID-19 and climate change, and an uncertain employment horizon, the goals for STEM education have shifted from developing a STEM capable workforce to broader and more durable undergraduate learning outcomes, such as evidence-based and informed civic engagement, life-long learning, and systems thinking. At the same time, our polarized and weakened democracy has generated new demands for greater attention to civic education. This confluence represents an unparalleled opportunity for curricular reform.

For over 20 years Science Education for New Civic Engagements and Responsibilities (SENCER) has supported curricular and institutional change to improve civic capacity and STEM learning through context and problem-based teaching. Designated a "community of faculty transformation" and a "lever for change" in literature on STEM reform, SENCER's programs help faculty re-frame traditional course content by teaching disciplinary concepts through real-world, relevant, civic challenges. Gen Bio becomes "Biomedical Issues of HIV-AIDS," or "COVID-19" Environmental Sci 100 becomes "The Future of Natural Resources," Gen Chem becomes "Assessing Exposure to Toxic Chemicals," Cellular and Molecular Biology becomes "Cancer," Math 102 is "Statistical Analysis of Community Challenges." Learning research confirms the effectiveness of SENCER's problem-based, inquiry driven pedagogies, as well as the importance of social and community relevance to retention and persistence of traditionally underserved students. But significantly, because our most pressing public challenges all demand STEM knowledge, SENCER offers an integrative model of STEM learning that is situated in the complex civic contexts of policy, legislation, politics, economics, culture, history, ethics, and public opinion. This session will argue that truly transformative civic education will not involve the abstract study of governance and political theory, but will be integrated into the civically relevant, problem-based STEM learning needed for the future.  

Like many institutions of higher education, Brown University has established an institutional imperative to address diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) on many levels, and like many centers for teaching and learning, the Sheridan Center devoted substantial resources to supporting this strategic effort through a focus on inclusive teaching and anti-racist pedagogy. While associated programs and workshops were well received by faculty participants, a review of departments' annual reports of DEI-related activities suggested that there was not deep impact at the department level. This was possibly because Center programs were largely oriented to a dissemination approach, or short workshops in departments (Henderson, Beach, and Finkelstein, 2011). Here, we describe a pivot in change strategy, to one of shared vision. Three faculty (2 STEM, 1 humanities) and three Center staff developed the Seminar on Transformation around Anti-Racist Teaching (START) Program, a longer-term educational development initiative. START aims to address all three levels of anti-racist pedagogy: (1) critical reflection of ourselves as learners and teachers, (2) course content and teaching approaches, and (3) institutional change (Kishimoto, 2018).

While teams are not new to the change literature (e.g., Kezar, Gehrke, & Bernstein-Sierra, 2019; Reinholz & Apkarian, 2018), our approach focuses on the value of intergenerational teams: faculty, staff, postdocs, graduate students, and undergraduates. Seven intergenerational department change teams are currently participating in the nine-month START program to revise a core course or modules in their department and then engage in a broader change project. The departments represent a range of programs in terms of size, discipline, and career stages (chairs, lecturers, staff, postdocs, PhD candidates, new graduate students and undergraduates at multiple levels). This presentation will offer an overview of the START application process and curriculum and -- although the first cohort is still in progress -- present preliminary outcomes.  

The COVID-19 global pandemic presented unanticipated challenges for undergraduate education. Early in the pandemic, many institutions of higher education were left scrambling as they tried to maintain academic quality and equitable access while ensuring the safety of faculty, staff, and students. We hypothesize that the degree to which institutions were successful in overcoming challenges of the pandemic can be understood by examining the institutional response through a systems-thinking lens. Specifically, we adopted the Four Frames Model of organizational change (e.g., Bolman & Deal, 2008; Reinholz & Apkarian, 2018) to understand how institutions of higher education supported undergraduate education in response to the pandemic.

Institutions of higher education are complex systems. As such, actions of one component of the system will have anticipated and unanticipated effects on other components. Additionally, properties emerge from the system as a result of the interactions between constituent components. For example, the university standards against which faculty are held for promotion and tenure impact the values they hold in their work as well as how they prioritize tasks (e.g., teaching, research). The Four-Frames model (symbols, structures, people, power) is a useful framework for intentionally viewing a system from distinct perspectives and anticipating how those perspectives interact as a function of the system. In this exploratory work, we will describe how we used theory to (a) identify appropriate artifacts for understanding organizational resilience to the global pandemic (e.g., official emails and stated policies), (b) generate protocols for qualitative data analysis of these artifacts, and (c) reflect on preliminary analyses to design subsequent data collection and analysis (e.g., semi-structured interviews of key stakeholders). Included in our analysis will be artifacts that document how institutions have attended to issues of equity and inclusion throughout the multiple crises of 2020.