skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Attention:

The NSF Public Access Repository (PAR) system and access will be unavailable from 10:00 PM ET on Friday, February 6 until 10:00 AM ET on Saturday, February 7 due to maintenance. We apologize for the inconvenience.


Title: Can Program Structure Advance Equity in Graduate Education?
The importance of creating diverse and equitable environments in higher education has gained growing recognition in recent years (Allen, 2005). While individual-level bias training has shown limited efficacy, this study proposes that program structure—characterized by clear, transparent, and uniformly applied standards, expectations, and norms—may be a more effective route to equity. Leveraging data from a large U.S. public university, we present evidence from multi-level modeling that demonstrates the positive relationship between program structure and equity-related outcomes, including psychological well-being and academic performance. Notably, these effects appear to disproportionately benefit women and underrepresented minority students, suggesting that structure may be particularly impactful for marginalized students, who are often excluded from informal informational networks within their departments. This research contributes to the ongoing dialogue on practical strategies for achieving equity in higher education, offering an alternative to individual-focused interventions. We discuss the theoretical implications for research on marginalized groups and provide actionable recommendations for practitioners. The study highlights the potential of structural approaches in fostering more equitable and inclusive learning environments in higher education.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2015104 1954923 2014976
PAR ID:
10621244
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ;
Publisher / Repository:
Innovative Higher Education
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Innovative Higher Education
ISSN:
0742-5627
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. The desire to improve and modernize education through educational technology is met with a daunting wall, as educational technologies oftentimes reflect and exacerbate social inequities. This work explores the growth in United States’ educational inequity stemming from the interdependent relationships between education, the digital divide, and social inequities. Diving into three case studies, this paper addresses the privatization consequences that result from the disproportionate funding barriers that schools in marginalized communities face in purchasing Smart Boards, as well as the dangerous impacts of SMART Technologies’ techno-solutionist marketing in worsening educational inequities. In comparison, massive open online courses (MOOCs), which are designed with the goal of improving education equity, appear to circumvent the funding barriers that Smart Boards provide, but fail to address the more tailored educational needs of marginalized communities – ultimately landing at the same fate as that of Smart Boards in worsening educational inequities. Lastly, this paper investigates reading software related to improving education for students with reading issues and blind students. Massively popular and effective in helping these students be more engaged and independent in reading, reading software is overall successful in creating a positive push toward educational equity. However, individual reading software can easily fall to the same failures of Smart Boards and MOOCs in contributing to educational inequity. Although improving educational equity requires a holistic approach, from a technology design standpoint, the following recommendations are made: (a) develop educational technology with the goals of improving education quality and equity, (b) circumvent as many barriers as possible to technology access through technology design, (c) work with marginalized communities to truly understand their needs and create a technology they will use, and (d) continue work toward equitable educational technology. 
    more » « less
  2. Who makes decisions about what K-12 computer science education(CSed) should look like? While equitable participation is a central focus of K-12 CSed, the field has largely thought about equity through the lens of providing access to inclusive and robust CS learning. But issues of who has a "seat at the table" in determining the shape of those experiences, and the larger field that structures them, have been largely under-explored. This panel session argues that equitable CSed must take into account questions of participation in decision-making about CSed, with such issues of power themselves a key dimension of equity in any education effort. We highlight efforts engaging stakeholders from across the education landscape-parents, educators, community members, administrators, and students-exploring how decision-making is structured, how voices that are usually marginalized might be elevated, the tensions involved in these processes, and the relationships between participation and equity. 
    more » « less
  3. Research in science education with multilingual learners (MLs) has expanded rapidly. This rapid expansion can be situated within a larger dialogue about what it means to provide minoritized students with an equitable education. Whereas some conceptions of equity focus on ensuring all students have access to the knowledge, practices, and language normatively valued in K‐12 schools (equity as access), increasingly prominent conceptions focus on transforming those knowledge, practices, and language in ways that center minoritized students and their communities (equity as transformation). In this article, we argue that conceptions of equity provide a useful lens for understanding emerging research in science education with MLs and for charting a research agenda. We begin by tracing how conceptions of equity have evolved in parallel across STEM and multilingual education. Then, we provide an overview of recent developments from demographic, theoretical, and policy perspectives. In the context of these developments, we provide a conceptual synthesis of emerging research by our team of early‐career scholars in three areas: (a) learning, (b) assessment, and (c) teacher education. Within each area, we unpack the research efforts in terms of how they attend to equity as access while pushing toward equity as transformation. Finally, we propose a research agenda for science education with MLs that builds on and extends these efforts. We close by offering recommendations for making this research agenda coherent and impactful: (a) being explicit about our conceptions of equity, (b) paying attention to the interplay of structure and agency, and (c) promoting interdisciplinary collaboration. 
    more » « less
  4. The Inclusive Environments and Metrics in Biology Education and Research (iEMBER) network is a newly forming national community of practice that engages diversity, equity, and inclusion stakeholders in interdisciplinary collaborative projects. iEMBER was initiated with incubator funding from the National Science Foundation program for Research Coordination Networks in Undergraduate Biology Education. In June 2017, biology education researchers, social scientists, biologists, and program and policy administrators, all with interests in diversity, equity, and inclusion, met to lay the foundation for the iEMBER network. iEMBER provides a distinct forum to coordinate efforts through networking, professional development, and the initiation of collaborative research. iEMBER advances science, technology, engineering, and mathematics reform focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion through the initiation of research teams at the iEMBER biennial conference and outreach efforts at discipline-specific meetings and conferences. The focus of iEMBER is on understanding how to create inclusive, supportive, and engaging environments to foster the success of all biology students and trainees. This report focuses on the structure of the iEMBER network, two takeaways that emerged from the 2017 conference (interdisciplinary networking/collaboration and intradisciplinary broadening participation strategies), and ways for prospective members to engage in ongoing dialogue and future events. Learn more at http://iember.org . 
    more » « less
  5. The goal of this qualitative research is to understand equitable teaching practices of computer science classrooms in the Chicago Public Schools through the video analysis specifically for the Latinx students. Data was collected through video recording from 10 different CPS classrooms. The videos were analyzed qualitative to determine the inquiry driven equitable practices. Though the equitable practices were identified based on the classroom video analysis, literature review on equitable practices and core ECS philosophy informed us to recognize and group the themes and their indicators of equity. This research plays a crucial role in terms of informing the current equitable teaching practices based on the videos in ECS classrooms in Chicago, also the research identifies a need to study further cultural references in terms of teaching computer science curriculum. This research has significance for designing professional development for marginalized population in computer science and possibly for other STEM areas. 
    more » « less