Developing Comprehensive Frameworks for Inclusive STEM Undergraduate Education

1. Developing Comprehensive Frameworks for Inclusive STEM Undergraduate Education Trish Ferrett (Carleton) Wendy Raymond (Williams) Jim Swartz (Grinnell) With: Arjendu Pattanayak (Carleton) Kate Queeney (Smith) Jeff Tekovsky-Feldman, (Haverford) Jan. 22, 2010

2. Goals of Our Session • Empower institutions to evolve a comprehensive framework • Where do you begin? How do you move? • Find collaborators • Online resources

3. Initiation of Project • June 2009 Mellon 23 workshop • 18 participants from 9 campuses • Mellon Foundation Faculty Career Enhancement grant • Carleton’s Science Education Resource Center (SERC) Synthesize what works across students’ college experience

4. As a start… At your institution, you are on a committee assigned to tackle the challenges of achieving of racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and/or gender diversity and inclusivity in STEM learning.  • What information would you request? • What assumptions would you question? Work at your tables by yourself or with your neighbor and write responses on 3 x 5 cards.

5. Evolution of a Comprehensive Framework • The nature of the problem • Relevant data and assessment • Political context • Kinds of programs

6. 2004: Beginning Challenges • Confusion about nature of problem • Underprepared students struggling in intro STEM courses? • Admissions decisions? • Classroom and climate? • Which students do we target? • Some faculty dedicated to change, ready to act! • Not much data • Cancelled summer bridge program that after 2 decades was starting to increase(?) diversity of STEM majors

7. 2005-2008: Growth of Programming • “Cohort within the curriculum”: 1st and 2nd year students (FOCUS) • HHMI Science Fellows – summer research “cohort of excellence” for 6 students/yr • Team-based learning and other pedagogical change in curriculum • Faculty development – HHMI Diversity Symposia, local groups, etc…

8. 2008: Comprehensive Framework Emerges

9. Grinnell College Where We Started • “Minority Student Retention Committee” • Some Assertions That We Were Admitting the Wrong Students Data AnalysisWhat correlated with poor grades in introductory math and science: • First generation college student • Graduation from high school with < 50% college goers • Being a domestic student of color

10. Pedagogical Goals of Grinnell Science Project To respond to different learning and teaching styles through interactive science and mathematics courses, and being informed by the work of Treisman, Tobias, Project Kaleidoscope, and of HBCUs, we decided to incorporate more engaged, personal elements into courses. • Focus on helping participants excel rather than merely avoid failure • Emphasis on collaborative learning and small group teaching methods • Faculty sponsorship and support

11. Examples of starting points with Pedagogical and Curricular Change at Grinnell College • Pioneers wanted to try reforming an entire course • Workshop Physics-started with available materials • Workshop Computer Science • One credit add on courses • Courses that some students took in parallel with standard introductory courses • Gave the opportunity to ‘sandbox’

12. Pedagogical Changes • Introductory Biology—A research course • Introductory Physics—Half sections are in workshop format • Introductory Chemistry—All sections use modular problems based materials and some are in a workshop format. • Introductory Computer Science—All sections use a workshop format

13. Williams College Our beginnings: - “folklore” assumptions had dulled our senses about African American students - data gave us a wake-up call

14. Enrollments across undergraduate biology curriculaat 24 liberal arts colleges (2002-05) White Asian Am. Retention relative to all students African Am. Latina/o

15. Progress at Williams: inclusion in the biology major

16. Starting points at Williams • faculty/staff reading group • Resultant creation and college-wide distribution of a 2-page “tips” sheet on everyday mentoring • 100% biology faculty participation in recruiting URM summer research students

17. Introduce Interactive Case Your committee charge - see case handout on tables • Bring yourselves into the case. Add 1-2 new challenges or circumstances to the case and note why. • What do you propose as the next several steps, and why?

18. Synthesis of Responses 1. Bring yourselves into the case. Add 1-2 new challenges or circumstances to the case and note why.

19. *** New programs can’t cost any money, or the administration needs to provide funds (3 responses) ** Need a mandate from above (2 responses) **Lack of existing data and data collection resources (2 responses) *** Open enrollment/underprepared students/unknown how well students are prepared; how to address remedial levels (3 responses) • Challenges with URM recruitment into the summer program (or in general to our institution)

20. We’ll be starting from scratch • Large classes: how do you approach? • How to coordinate with or convince Intercultural/EOP Director that students can enter STEM courses in the first year. • How to collaborate in the design of first-year courses to meet both stakeholders’ needs • Challenges with maintaining relationships after summer program • Challenges with transitions to academic year and maintaining momentum from summer program • Rethink the summer program: it’s popular, but is it effective?

21. Kinds of programs: • Pre-matriculation • Special courses • Support in standard courses (by faculty, peer leaders) • Changes in curriculum and pedagogy • Create supportive communities (cohorts, learning communities, etc…) • Student-faculty research or similar engagement • Changes in academic support programs • Faculty development

22. Broadening Access to STEM: Collection at SERC http://serc.carleton.edu/broadening_access/index.html Example comprehensive approaches: The Grinnell Science Project Example program elements: Supplemental Instruction