Search for: All records

This article presents the findings of a scoping review looking at conceptualizations of team equity in academic literature between 2017 and 2021. A search and filter process produced a set of 42 publications containing discussion of equity or equality at the team level. A qualitative thematic analysis was carried out on the data resulting in a set of seven themes characterized as facets of team equity: alignment, dialogism, heterophily, participation, power, ownership, and risk. Each facet is presented and illustrated with excerpts from the scoping review data followed by implications for the operationalization of equity at the team level. This analysis sheds light on the multi-dimensionality of equity in a team space, providing context for discussions about the difficulty of using simple quantitative measures for such a complex phenomenon. We hope the facets help researchers and practitioners use and operationalize the concept in ongoing efforts to combat historically-grounded injustices. 

Grade point average in “other” courses (GPAO) is an increasingly common measure used to control for prior academic performance and to predict future academic performance. In previous work, there are two distinct approaches to calculating GPAO, one based on only courses taken concurrently (term GPAO) and one based on all previous courses taken (cumulative GPAO). To our knowledge, no one has studied whether these methods for calculating the GPAO result in equivalent analyses and conclusions. As researchers often use one definition or the other without comment on why that choice was made, if the two calculations of GPAO are different, researchers might be inducing systematic error into their results and publishing potentially inaccurate conclusions. We looked at more than 3,700 courses at a public, research-intensive university over a decade and found limited evidence that the choice of GPAO calculation affects the conclusions. At most, one in seven courses could be affected. Further analysis suggests that there may be situations where one form of GPAO may be preferred over the other when it comes to examining inequity in courses or predicting student grades. However, we did not find sufficient evidence to universally recommend one form of GPAO over the other. 

Abstract The National Research Council’s Framework for K-12 Science Education and the subsequent Next Generation Science Standards have provided a widespread common language for science education reform over the last decade. These efforts have naturally been targeted at the K-12 levels, but we have argued that the three dimensions outlined in these documents—scientific practices, disciplinary core ideas, and crosscutting concepts (together termed three-dimensional learning)—are also a productive route for reform in college-level science courses. However, how and why college-level faculty might be motivated to incorporate three-dimensional learning into their courses is not well understood. Here, we report a mixed-methods study of participants in an interdisciplinary professional development program designed to support faculty in developing assessments and instruction aligned with three-dimensional learning. One cohort of faculty (N = 8) was interviewed, and four cohorts of faculty (N = 33) were surveyed. Using expectancy-value theory as an organizational framework, we identified themes of perceived values and costs that participants discussed in implementing three-dimensional learning. Based on a cluster analysis of all survey participants’ motivational profiles, we propose that these themes apply to the broader population of participants in this program. We recommend specific interventions to improve faculty motivation for implementing three-dimensional learning: emphasizing the utility value of three-dimensional learning in effecting positive learning gains for students; drawing connections between the dimensions of three-dimensional learning and faculty’s disciplinary identities; highlighting scientific practices as a key leverage point for faculty ability beliefs; minimizing cognitive dissonance for faculty in understanding the similarities and differences between the three dimensions; focusing on assessment writing as a keystone professional development activity; and aligning local evaluation practices and promotion policies with the 3DL framework. 

This full paper sets out a methodological protocol for conducting a scoping review of literature relating to teamwork effectiveness and equity. The goal of the study is to understand how academic discourse over the five-year period prior to the study being carried out has conceptualized teamwork success in educational and professional contexts, and to what extent equitable team practices are embedded within such conceptualizations. In line with ongoing initiatives to promote transparency in research, this protocol paper is intended for dissemination prior to the conduct of the study itself. The research context, questions, and rationale are set out, and a detailed methodology described, outlining procedures for data retrieval, screening, extraction, and analysis. The paper concludes with an outline of intended reporting methods for the study, including the reporting of deviations from the procedures set out herein. This paper contributes to the scoping review methodology, and especially its application in the field of engineering education research and education research more broadly. 

It is difficult for instructors, and even students themselves, to become aware in real-time of inequitable behaviors occurring on student teams. Here, we explored a potential measure for inequitable teamwork drawing on data from a digital pedagogical tool designed to surface and disrupt such team behaviors. Students in a large, undergraduate business course completed seven surveys about team health (called team checks) at regular intervals throughout the term, providing information about team dynamics, contributions, and processes. The ways in which changes in students’ scores from team check to team check compared to the median changes for their team were used to identify the proportions of teams with outlier student scores. The results show that for every team size and team check item, the proportion of teams with outliers at the end of the term was smaller than at the beginning of the semester, indicating stabilization in how teammates evaluated their team experiences. In all but two cases, outlying students were not disproportionately likely to identify with historically marginalized groups based on gender or race/ethnicity. Thus, we did not broadly identify teamwork inequities in this specific context, but the method provides a basis for future studies about inequitable team behavior. 

We evaluate the impact of an institutional effort to transform undergraduate science courses using an approach based on course assessments. The approach is guided by A Framework for K-12 Science Education and focuses on scientific and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas, together called three-dimensional learning. To evaluate the extent of change, we applied the Three-dimensional Learning Assessment Protocol to 4 years of chemistry, physics, and biology course exams. Changes in exams differed by discipline and even by course, apparently depending on an interplay between departmental culture, course organization, and perceived course ownership, demonstrating the complex nature of transformation in higher education. We conclude that while transformation must be supported at all organizational levels, ultimately, change is controlled by factors at the course and departmental levels.