Inclusive STEM teaching learning community facilitator survey data
Creators: name: Codding, Diane
name: Yen, Alexandria H.
name: Lewis, Haley A.
name: Johnson-Ojeda, Vanessa
name: Frey, Regina F.
name: Hokanson, Sarah Chobot
name: Goldberg, Bennett B.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2024
Subjects: facilitation
learning community
facilitator training
inclusive teaching
STEM pedagogy
Cultural diversity
Professional Development
blended learning
Computer Science Applications
History
Education

description: Inclusive teaching requires more than good intentions; it is an ongoing commitment to learning, reflecting, and making equitable and inclusive changes to pedagogical practices and curriculum to support all students. This paper examines a professional development program designed to advance the awareness, self-efficacy, and ability of STEM educators to cultivate inclusive learning environments for all their students and to develop themselves as reflective, inclusive practitioners. Specifically, we examine how this training model impacted learning community facilitator self-reported confidence and practices in facilitating an inclusive teaching learning community. 

This mixed methods study reports on survey data from project trained facilitators (n=71) collected over four course runs. Quantitative results indicate that facilitators reported significant increases in confidence, with the largest effect sizes occurring in areas of facilitation related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and identity. Additionally, significant increases were reported across all levels of prior DEI experience. Qualitative findings indicate that the program training model effectively aligned facilitators to project-defined inclusive facilitation approaches. Facilitators also reported significant utilization of the Facilitator Workbook to support learning community (LC) facilitation, benefitted from our co-facilitation structure, and increased their inclusive facilitation skills through the act of LC facilitation.

This inclusive teaching program has demonstrated that professional development in inclusive teaching, and by extension in other equity and diversity topics, can be successfully done at a national scale by centering identity, power, and positionality while upholding 'do no harm.' Further, the program has shown that dissemination through project-trained facilitators of local LCs can be successful across a wide range of institutional and disciplinary contexts. This paper provides a strategy for how DEI-focused faculty development efforts can select, train, and support facilitators on a national scale while maintaining high fidelity to project goals.
description: Funding provided by: National Science FoundationROR ID: https://ror.org/021nxhr62Award Number: 1821684
Funding provided by: National Science FoundationROR ID: https://ror.org/021nxhr62Award Number: 1821571
Funding provided by: National Science FoundationROR ID: https://ror.org/021nxhr62Award Number: 1821528
Funding provided by: National Science FoundationROR ID: https://ror.org/021nxhr62Award Number: 1821510
Funding provided by: National Science FoundationROR ID: https://ror.org/021nxhr62Award Number: 1821574
description: Surveys were distributed via Qualtrics to all active facilitators from each course run shortly following the close of the course and several reminders were sent in subsequent weeks. Using a mix of Likert scale, multiple choice, and open ended questions, the survey asked facilitators to reflect on their experiences. Likert scale and multiple choice questions addressed topics pertaining to facilitation methods and pedagogy, perceived participant experiences, similarity and difference to general DEI facilitation, and utilization of various facilitation resources. The survey explored multiple confidence scales using a retrospective pre- post- approach (Stake, 2002) that examined confidence before facilitator training, after facilitator training, and after LC facilitation. Open ended questions asked facilitators to elaborate on their Likert scale responses and provide insight into their experiences as a facilitator. Demographic data were also collected. 

Datasets for four course runs were evaluated for this analysis, Summer 2021, Fall 2021, Spring 2022, and Fall 2022. We excluded 25 survey participants for either not providing consent to use their responses for research or for completing less than 50% of the survey. Distinct IDs were then assigned to each response (n=71) based on the course run and all analyses performed were de-identified. After the datasets were cleaned, descriptive statistics were run on Likert scale questions.