31
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Toward Inclusive STEM Classrooms: What Personal Role Do Faculty Play?

      other

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          To broaden participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), faculty must reflect on how their own privileges, implicit biases, and stereotype threat activation impact their students. This paper synthesizes data and recommends strategies for meaningful reflection and professional development to inspire faculty to create more inclusive STEM classroom climates.

          Abstract

          Private and public policies are increasingly aimed at supporting efforts to broaden participation of a diverse body of students in higher education. Unfortunately, this increase in student diversity does not always occur alongside changes in institutional culture. Unexamined biases in institutional culture can prevent diverse students from thriving and persisting in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. Given the daily personal interactions that faculty have with students, we suggest that individual educators have the opportunity, and responsibility, to improve the retention and persistence of diverse students. However, in our experience, faculty professional development programs often limit discussions of diversity to “comfortable” topics (such as learning styles) and miss opportunities to explore deeper issues related to faculty privilege, implicit bias, and cues for stereotype threat that we all bring to the classroom. In this essay, we present a set of social science concepts that we can extend to our STEM courses to inform our efforts at inclusive excellence. We have recommended strategies for meaningful reflection and professional development with respect to diversity and inclusion, and aim to empower faculty to be change agents in their classrooms as a means to broadening participation in STEM fields.

          Related collections

          Most cited references100

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test.

          An implicit association test (IAT) measures differential association of 2 target concepts with an attribute. The 2 concepts appear in a 2-choice task (2-choice task (e.g., flower vs. insect names), and the attribute in a 2nd task (e.g., pleasant vs. unpleasant words for an evaluation attribute). When instructions oblige highly associated categories (e.g., flower + pleasant) to share a response key, performance is faster than when less associated categories (e.g., insect & pleasant) share a key. This performance difference implicitly measures differential association of the 2 concepts with the attribute. In 3 experiments, the IAT was sensitive to (a) near-universal evaluative differences (e.g., flower vs. insect), (b) expected individual differences in evaluative associations (Japanese + pleasant vs. Korean + pleasant for Japanese vs. Korean subjects), and (c) consciously disavowed evaluative differences (Black + pleasant vs. White + pleasant for self-described unprejudiced White subjects).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm.

            In reporting Implicit Association Test (IAT) results, researchers have most often used scoring conventions described in the first publication of the IAT (A.G. Greenwald, D.E. McGhee, & J.L.K. Schwartz, 1998). Demonstration IATs available on the Internet have produced large data sets that were used in the current article to evaluate alternative scoring procedures. Candidate new algorithms were examined in terms of their (a) correlations with parallel self-report measures, (b) resistance to an artifact associated with speed of responding, (c) internal consistency, (d) sensitivity to known influences on IAT measures, and (e) resistance to known procedural influences. The best-performing measure incorporates data from the IAT's practice trials, uses a metric that is calibrated by each respondent's latency variability, and includes a latency penalty for errors. This new algorithm strongly outperforms the earlier (conventional) procedure.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans.

              Stereotype threat is being at risk of confirming, as self-characteristic, a negative stereotype about one's group. Studies 1 and 2 varied the stereotype vulnerability of Black participants taking a difficult verbal test by varying whether or not their performance was ostensibly diagnostic of ability, and thus, whether or not they were at risk of fulfilling the racial stereotype about their intellectual ability. Reflecting the pressure of this vulnerability, Blacks underperformed in relation to Whites in the ability-diagnostic condition but not in the nondiagnostic condition (with Scholastic Aptitude Tests controlled). Study 3 validated that ability-diagnosticity cognitively activated the racial stereotype in these participants and motivated them not to conform to it, or to be judged by it. Study 4 showed that mere salience of the stereotype could impair Blacks' performance even when the test was not ability diagnostic. The role of stereotype vulnerability in the standardized test performance of ability-stigmatized groups is discussed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Monitoring Editor
                Journal
                CBE Life Sci Educ
                CBE-LSE
                CBE-LSE
                CBE-LSE
                CBE Life Sciences Education
                American Society for Cell Biology
                1931-7913
                Fall 2016
                : 15
                : 3
                : es3
                Affiliations
                [1] Department of Biological Sciences, Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA 02481
                [2] Department of Neuroscience, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA 02111
                Author notes
                *Address correspondence to: Tess L. Killpack ( tkillpac@ 123456wellesley.edu ).
                Article
                CBE.16-01-0020
                10.1187/cbe.16-01-0020
                5008899
                27496362
                1008d838-f361-4b4c-9817-7daf01218e25
                © 2016 T. L. Killpack and L. C. Melón. CBE—Life Sciences Education © 2016 The American Society for Cell Biology. This article is distributed by The American Society for Cell Biology under license from the author(s). It is available to the public under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0).

                “ASCB®” and “The American Society for Cell Biology®” are registered trademarks of The American Society for Cell Biology.

                History
                : 15 January 2016
                : 30 May 2016
                : 03 June 2016
                Categories
                Essay
                Custom metadata
                September 1, 2016

                Education
                Education

                Comments

                Comment on this article