Page 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
Page 2
Goals of Our Session
• Empower institutions to evolve a comprehensive framework
• Where do you begin? How do you move?
• Find collaborators• Online resources
Page 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
Page 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.
Page 5
Evolution of a Comprehensive Framework
• The nature of the problem• Relevant data and assessment• Political context• Kinds of programs
Page 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
Page 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…
Page 8
2008: Comprehensive Framework Emerges
Page 9
Grinnell CollegeWhere We Started• “Minority Student Retention Committee”• Some Assertions That We Were Admitting the
Wrong StudentsData Analysis
What 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
Page 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
Page 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’
Page 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
Page 13
Williams College
Our beginnings:
- “folklore” assumptions had dulled our senses about African American students
- data gave us a wake-up call
Page 14
Enrollments across undergraduate biology curriculaat 24 liberal arts colleges (2002-05)
Rete
ntion
rela
tive
to a
ll st
uden
ts
White
Latina/o
African Am.
Asian Am.
Page 15
Progress at Williams: inclusion in the biology major
Graduation year
% AfricanAmerican
% White % Latina/o
All graduating Williams students
2001-2004(baseline)
6.4 73 6.2
2008 9.8 67 8.7
2009 8.9 65 9
Graduating biology majors at Williams
2001-2004(baseline)
2.0 78 3.0
2008 9.7 65 9.7
2009 8.8 65 11
Page 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
Page 17
Introduce Interactive Case
Your committee charge - see case handout on tables
1. Bring yourselves into the case. Add 1-2 new challenges or circumstances to the case and note why.
2. What do you propose as the next several steps, and why?
Page 18
Synthesis of Responses
1. Bring yourselves into the case. Add 1-2 new challenges or circumstances to
the case and note why.
Page 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)
Page 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?
Page 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
Page 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