An official website of the United States government
To broaden efforts for improving diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in biomedical engineering (BME) education—a key area of emphasis is the integration of inclusive teaching practices. While BME faculty generally support these efforts, translating support into action remains challenging. This project aimed to address this need through a 3-phase inclusive teaching training, consisting of graduate students, faculty, and engineering education consultants. In Phase I, graduate students and faculty participated in a 6-week learning community on inclusive teaching (Foundational Learning). In Phase II, graduate students were paired with faculty to modify or develop new inclusive teaching materials to be integrated into a BME course (Experiential Learning). Phase III was the implementation of these materials. To assess Phases I & II, graduate student participants reflected on their experiences on the project. To assess Phase III, surveys were administered to students in IT-BME-affiliated courses as well as those taking other BME-related courses. Phases I & II: graduate students responded positively to the opportunity to engage in this inclusive teaching experiential learning opportunity. Phase III: survey results indicated that the incorporation of inclusive teaching practices in BME courses enhanced the student learning experience. The IT-BME project supported graduate students and faculty in learning about, creating, and implementing inclusive teaching practices in a collaborative and supportive environment. This project will serve to both train the next class of instructors and use their study of inclusive teaching concepts to facilitate the creation of ideas and materials that will benefit the BME curriculum and students.
more »
« less
Inclusive Engineering Classrooms and Learning Communities: Reflections and Lessons Learned from Three Partner Universities in Year 2
Minoritized and underrepresented students have historically experienced prejudice and discrimination within and outside of their classrooms, negatively impacting their educational outcomes. Research has illustrated that student academic and social success can be improved through instructors creating inclusive classroom environments that facilitate a sense of belonging. The impact of creating more inclusive environments is well-studied, however actionable guidance on how to do this, especially in more technical disciplines such as engineering, is lacking. This study aims to address this gap by developing an inclusive engineering classroom practices menu along with accompanying tools for faculty seeking to improve their classrooms. The first year of this study, as detailed at ASEE’s Annual Conference in June 2022, saw the development of the inclusive engineering classroom practices menu as well as the pilot of the inclusive learning communities for faculty across three partner institutions. The student and faculty assessment plans were also curated and involved both a student and faculty survey as well as the opportunity for students and faculty to engage in short-format interviews. This presentation will focus on the survey and interview data that has been collected in the second year of the project and the website that has been developed to further engage faculty and other institutions and partners interested in the study. This second year of this study will also see the creation of a decision matrix to aid faculty and instructors to further promote and support the implementation of inclusive practices in engineering classrooms. The continued refinement of the menu and creation of both the website and decision matrix are the next steps in the development of an inclusive classrooms toolkit that can be used across all engineering classrooms and curriculums.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2021335
- PAR ID:
- 10482377
- Publisher / Repository:
- American Society of Engineering Education
- Date Published:
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Despite many studies confirming that active learning in STEM classrooms improves student outcomes, instructors’ adoption of active learning has been surprisingly slow. This work-in-progress paper describes our broader research study in which we compare the efficacy of a traditional active learning workshop (AL) and an extended version of this workshop that also specifically highlights instructor strategies to reduce resistance (AL+) on instructors’ beliefs about and actual adoption of active learning in undergraduate STEM classrooms. Through a randomized control trial (RCT), we aim to understand the ways in which these workshops influence instructors’ motivation to adopt and the actual use of active learning. This RCT involves instructors and students at a large number of institutions including two-year college, four-year college, and large research institutions in three regions of the country and strategies to reduce student resistance to active learning. We have developed and piloted three instruments, which allow for triangulation of classroom data: an instructor survey, a student survey, and a classroom observation protocol. This work-in-progress paper will cover the current progress of our research study and present our research instruments.more » « less
-
Despite many studies confirming that active learning in STEM classrooms improves student outcomes, instructors;' adoption of active learning has been surprisingly slow. This work-in-progress paper describes our broader research study in which we compare the efficacy of a traditional active learning workshop (AL) and an extended version of this workshop that also specifically highlights instructor strategies to reduce resistance (AL+) on instructors' beliefs about and actual adoption of active learning in undergraduate STEM classrooms. Through a randomized control trial (RCT), we aim to understand the ways in which these workshops influence instructors' motivation to adopt and the actual use of active learning. This RCT involves instructors and students at a large number of institutions including two-year college, four-year college, and large research institutions in three regions of the country and strategies to reduce student resistance to active learning. We have developed and piloted three instruments, which allow for triangulation of classroom data: an instructor survey, a student survey, and a classroom observation protocol. This work-in-progress paper will cover the current progress of our research study and present our research instruments.more » « less
-
Despite many studies confirming that active learning in STEM classrooms improves student outcomes, instructors’ adoption of active learning has been surprisingly slow. This work-in-progress paper describes our broader research study in which we compare the efficacy of a traditional active learning workshop (AL) and an extended version of this workshop that also specifically highlights instructor strategies to reduce resistance (AL+) on instructors’ beliefs about and actual adoption of active learning in undergraduate STEM classrooms. Through a randomized control trial (RCT), we aim to understand the ways in which these workshops influence instructors’ motivation to adopt and the actual use of active learning. This RCT involves instructors and students at a large number of institutions including two-year college, four-year college, and large research institutions in three regions of the country and strategies to reduce student resistance to active learning. We have developed and piloted three instruments, which allow for triangulation of classroom data: an instructor survey, a student survey, and a classroom observation protocol. This work-in-progress paper will cover the current progress of our research study and present our research instruments.more » « less
-
Flexible classroom spaces, which have movable tables and chairs that can be easily rearranged into different layouts, make it easier for instructors to effectively implement active learning than a traditional lecture hall. Instructors can move throughout the room to interact with students during active learning, and they can rearrange the tables into small groups to facilitate conversation between students. Classroom technology, such as wall-mounted monitors and movable whiteboards, also facilitates active learning by allowing students to collaborate. In addition to enabling active learning, the flexible classroom can still be arranged in front-facing rows that support traditional lecture-based pedagogies. As a result, instructors do not have to make time- and effort-intensive changes to the way their courses are taught in order to use the flexible classroom. Instead, they can make small changes to add active learning. We are in the second year of a study of flexible classroom spaces funded by the National Science Foundation’s Division of Undergraduate Education. This project asks four research questions that investigate the relationships between the instructor, the students, and the classroom: 1) What pedagogy do instructors use in a flexible classroom space? 2) How do instructors take advantage of the instructional affordances (including the movable furniture, movable whiteboards, wall-mounted whiteboards, and wall-mounted monitors) of a flexible classroom? 3) What is the impact of faculty professional development on instructors’ use of flexible classroom spaces? and 4) How does the classroom influence the ways students interpret and engage in group learning activities? In the first year of our study we have developed five research instruments to answer these questions: a three-part classroom observation protocol, an instructor interview protocol, two instructor surveys, and a student survey. We have collected data from nine courses taught in one of ten flexible classrooms at the University of Michigan during the Fall 2018 semester. Two of these courses were first-year introduction to engineering courses co-taught by two instructors, and the other seven courses were sophomore- and junior-level core technical courses taught by one instructor. Five instructors participated in a faculty learning community that met three times during the semester to discuss active learning, to learn how to make the best use of the flexible classroom affordances, and to plan activities to implement in their courses. In each course we gathered data from the perspective of the instructor (through pre- and post-semester interviews), the researcher (through observations of three class meetings with our observation protocol), and the students (through conducting a student survey at the end of the semester). This poster presents qualitative and qualitative analyses of these data to answer our research questions, along with evidence based best practices for effectively using a flexible classroom.more » « less
