More Like this

1. Factors that influence STEM faculty use of evidence-based instructional practices: An ecological model

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281290  

   Sansom, Rebecca L.; Winters, Desiree M.; St. Clair, Bryn E.; West, Richard E.; Jensen, Jamie L. (January 2023, PLOS ONE)

   Dalby, Andrew R. (Ed.)

   Traditional teaching practices in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses have failed to support student success, causing many students to leave STEM fields and disproportionately affecting women and students of color. Although much is known about effective STEM teaching practices, many faculty continue to adhere to traditional methods, such as lecture. In this study, we investigated the factors that affect STEM faculty members’ instructional decisions about evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs). We performed a qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with faculty members from the Colleges of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Life Sciences, and Engineering who took part in a professional development program to support the use of EBIPs by STEM faculty at the university. We used an ecological model to guide our investigation and frame the results. Faculty identified a variety of personal, social, and contextual factors that influenced their instructional decision-making. Personal factors included attitudes, beliefs, and self-efficacy. Social factors included the influence of students, colleagues, and administration. Contextual factors included resources, time, and student characteristics. These factors interact with each other in meaningful ways that highlight the hyper-local social contexts that exist within departments and sub-department cultures, the importance of positive feedback from students and colleagues when implementing EBIPs, and the need for support from the administration for faculty who are in the process of changing their teaching. 

   more » « less
2. Refining a DEI Assessment Tool for Use in Optimizing Professional STEM Societies for Gender Equity

   https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2022.755372  

   Leibnitz, G.M.; Peters, J.W.; Campbell-Montalvo, R.; Metcalf, H.; Lucy Putwen, A.; Gillian-Daniel, D.L.; Sims, E.L.; Segarra, V.A. (June 2022, Frontiers in sociology)

   Historic science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplinary cultures were founded in a system that was predominately male, white, heterosexual, and able-bodied (i.e., “majority”). Some societal norms have changed, and so has demand for inclusive STEM engagement. However, legacy mental models, or deeply held beliefs and assumptions, linger and are embedded in the STEM system and disciplinary cultures. STEM reform is needed to maximize talent and create inclusive professions, but cannot be achieved without recognizing and addressing norms and practices that disproportionately serve majority vs. minoritized groups. As leading voices in disciplinary work and application, disciplinary and professional societies (Societies) are instrumental in shaping and sustaining STEM norms. We, leaders of the Amplifying the Alliance to Catalyze Change for Equity in STEM Success (ACCESS+) project, recognize the need to provide Society diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) change leaders with tools necessary to foster systemic change. In this Perspectives article, we present the Equity Environmental Scanning Tool (EEST) as an aid to help Society DEI change leaders elucidate legacy mental models, discern areas of strength, identify foci for advancement, and benchmark organizational change efforts. We share our rationale and work done to identify, and, ultimately, adapt a Society DEI self-assessment tool from the United Kingdom. We share background information on the UK tool, content and structural changes made to create the EEST, and an overview of the resulting EEST. Ultimately, we seek to increase awareness of a Society-specific DEI self-assessment tool designed to help Society DEI change leaders advance inclusive reform. 

   more » « less
3. Do Rubrics Live up to Their Promise? Examining How Rubrics Mitigate Bias in Faculty Hiring

   https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2023.2168411  

   Culpepper, Dawn; White-Lewis, Damani; O’Meara, KerryAnn; Templeton, Lindsey; Anderson, Julia (January 2023, The Journal of Higher Education)

   Many colleges and universities now require faculty search committees to use rubrics when evaluating faculty job candidates, as proponents believe these “decision-support tools” can reduce the impact of bias in candidate evaluation. That is, rubrics are intended to ensure that candidates are evaluated more fairly, which is then thought to contribute to the enhanced hiring of candidates from minoritized groups. However, there is scant — and even contradictory — evidence to support this claim. This study used a multiple case study methodology to explore how five faculty search committees used rubrics in candidate evaluation, and the extent to which using a rubric seemed to perpetuate or mitigate bias in committee decision-making. Results showed that the use of rubrics can improve searches by clarifying criteria, encouraging criteria use in evaluation, calibrating the application of criteria to evidence, and in some cases, bringing diversity, equity, and inclusion work (DEI) into consideration. However, search committees also created and implemented rubrics in ways that seem to perpetuate bias, undermine effectiveness, and potentially contribute to the hiring of fewer minoritized candidates. We conclude by providing stakeholders with practical recommendations on using rubrics and actualizing DEI in faculty hiring. 

   more » « less
4. Strengthen the case for DEI

   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adp4397  

   Malcom, Shirley (March 2024, Science)

   Three years ago, addressing racial justice in the United States moved firmly into the mainstream. Following the murder of George Floyd, the ongoing struggle for social justice was again laid bare, and pledges to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) began sprouting everywhere. Now, the pendulum is swinging back on these commitments. A backlash against DEI initiatives is rising across all sectors, especially at the state level. Last year’s decision by the US Supreme Court to strike down the consideration of students’ racial status in college admissions has emboldened many who oppose any advancement of DEI. Although there has been specific attention to higher education, other sectors have also been attacked. The retreat includes recent anti-DEI legislation that would affect structures, programs, practices, and curricula that aim to support success for all, including persons who have been historically excluded from or marginalized within science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM). Before this backlash worsens, DEI advocates, the scientific community, universities, and federal agencies need to collectively call out the dangers of setting aside DEI and come up with robust ways to demonstrate its value to society. 

   more » « less
5. Can rubrics combat gender bias in faculty hiring?

   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abm2329  

   Blair-Loy, Mary; Mayorova, Olga V.; Cosman, Pamela C.; Fraley, Stephanie I. (July 2022, Science)

   Research has documented the presence of bias against women in hiring, including in academic science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Hiring rubrics (also called criterion checklists, decision support tools, and evaluation tools) are widely recommended as a precise, cost-effective remedy to counteract hiring bias, despite a paucity of evidence that they actually work (see table S8). Our in-depth case study of rubric usage in faculty hiring in an academic engineering department in a very research-active university found that the rate of hiring women increased after the department deployed rubrics and used them to guide holistic discussions. Yet we also found evidence of substantial gender bias persisting in some rubric scoring categories and evaluators’ written comments. We do not recommend abandoning rubrics. Instead, we recommend a strategic and sociologically astute use of rubrics as a department self-study tool within the context of a holistic evaluation of semifinalist candidates. 

   more » « less