Search for: All records

Despite the tumultuous sociocultural climate that they face in the United States, educators have continued to champion efforts to build more equitable school systems. For their part, researchers have sought to buttress these efforts through advancing a range of humanizing pedagogical approaches that support educators to effectively engage with the experiences and strengths that students gain from their otherwise marginalized identities. Much of the literature on these approaches exists at a conceptual level, however, with recent scholarship highlighting the need to ground them in additional psychological theory and empirically evaluate how they influence both educators and their students. The current article helps meet this call through synthesizing the work on humanizing pedagogical approaches with identity-based motivation theory to test (a) whether educators can be led to adopt humanizing pedagogical approaches in the first place, and (b) what consequences this has for students’ long-term learning outcomes. Specifically, we designed and evaluated a novel model for educator development termed “strength-based learning groups” that created collaborative opportunities for educators to learn about and apply these approaches in their classrooms. Across two research–practice partnership studies (Nobservations = 1,077), we provide experimental (Study 1) and longitudinal mixed-methods (Study 2) evidence that the learning groups not only sustainably increased university educators’ positive beliefs about their students who held economically marginalized identities, but also were linked to these students having more positive academic experiences and earning higher grades in courses taught by educators in the learning groups compared to educators in randomly assigned and propensity score matched control conditions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) 

Science is undergoing rapid change with the movement to improve science focused largely on reproducibility/replicability and open science practices. This moment of change—in which science turns inward to examine its methods and practices—provides an opportunity to address its historic lack of diversity and noninclusive culture. Through network modeling and semantic analysis, we provide an initial exploration of the structure, cultural frames, and women’s participation in the open science and reproducibility literatures ( n = 2,926 articles and conference proceedings). Network analyses suggest that the open science and reproducibility literatures are emerging relatively independently of each other, sharing few common papers or authors. We next examine whether the literatures differentially incorporate collaborative, prosocial ideals that are known to engage members of underrepresented groups more than independent, winner-takes-all approaches. We find that open science has a more connected, collaborative structure than does reproducibility. Semantic analyses of paper abstracts reveal that these literatures have adopted different cultural frames: open science includes more explicitly communal and prosocial language than does reproducibility. Finally, consistent with literature suggesting the diversity benefits of communal and prosocial purposes, we find that women publish more frequently in high-status author positions (first or last) within open science (vs. reproducibility). Furthermore, this finding is further patterned by team size and time. Women are more represented in larger teams within reproducibility, and women’s participation is increasing in open science over time and decreasing in reproducibility. We conclude with actionable suggestions for cultivating a more prosocial and diverse culture of science.