Inclusion

Just like computation, inclusion is most successfully promoted when it is integrated throughout the course in both big and little ways

Team Construction as a Tool to Promote Inclusion

The single biggest tool for promoting inclusion in physics 131 is team formation. As described in the section on TBL, students complete most course activities collaboratively in teams of five. Following Michaelsen et al others, these teams are formed by me the instructor. and I use the CATME system to form them. CATME allows me to build teams which are heterogeneous in terms of major (so chemistry and other such knowledge is well distributed), prior math and physics experience (to promote a sense of fairness), as well as spreadsheet skills all while preventing soloing of students from traditionally under represented groups.

Metacognition as Another Tool to Promote Inclusion

In addition to team formation, research from Muteti et al shows that explicitly teaching metacognition can promote equity in general chemistry. Thus, multiple opportunities for such reflection are built into the course. These activities include:

• Post-exam reflection exercises based on Ambrose et al.
• A post-exam debrief which, in addition to reviewing exam solutions, also explicitly connects each exam question to questions covered in class to facilitate students recognizing how in-class activities were to prepare them.
• An end-of semester activity wherein students explicitly consider how their answers to the essential questions “What is Physics?” and What is Math?” have changed over the course of the semester.
• Journals based Henderson and Harper wherein students reflect on their problem solving throughout the semester.

Inclusion via Accessibility

Of course, inclusion also means making the course accessible to different learners. Some of the accessible practices I include are:

• Plenty of time on assignments: in the finalized version of the course, all homework assignments are posted at the start of the semester.
• A free-to-student textbook: lowers financial barriers and provides presentation in multiple modalities (video, text, simulations) allows students to engage with the material in whatever manner they prefer.
• A low-cost homework system: also lowers financial barriers.
• Giving all students double time on exams: I write exams to take approximately one-hour (average completion time is usually about 1hr 10min), and then give everyone two hours to complete it. As I tell my students, “I don’t care if you can solve the problems fast, just if you can solve them. Moreover, I want you to actually solve problems on your exams and solving problems means having the freedom to take wrong turns.”

The Little Things

True inclusion is a habit of instruction just as much as taking good notes is a habit of good scholarship for our students. In line with this philosophy I have lots of small things I do during the semester which strive to promote a sense of belonging including:

• Team names: Instead of numbers or letters, I use names of traditionally under publicized physicists including women, trans individuals, and scientists from outside the “Western Canon.”
• Celebrate: International Women’s Day and other holidays.
• Acknowledge holidays of multiple faiths: Including Passover, Holi, Eid al-Fatr and others

Bibliography

• Albert C. Kowitz and Thomas J. Knutson, Decision Making in Small Groups: The Search for Alternatives (Allyn and Bacon, Inc., Boston, MA, 1980).
• C. Duhigg, What Google Learned From Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team, The New York Times (2016).
• S. K. Horwitz and I. B. Horwitz, The Effects of Team Diversity on Team Outcomes: A Meta-Analytic Review of Team Demography, Journal of Management 33, 987 (2007).
• R. A. Layton, M. L. Loughry, M. W. Ohland, and G. D. Ricco, Design and Validation of a Web-Based System for Assigning Members to Teams Using Instructor-Specified Criteria, Advances in Engineering Education 2, (2010).
• A. C. Loignon, D. J. Woehr, J. S. Thomas, M. L. Loughry, M. W. Ohland, and D. M. Ferguson, Facilitating Peer Evaluation in Team Contexts: The Impact of Frame-of-Reference Rater Training, AMLE 16, 562 (2017).
• S. Nawaz, How to Create Executive Team Norms — and Make Them Stick, Harvard Business Review (2018).
• M. W. Ohland, M. L. Loughry, D. J. Woehr, L. G. Bullard, R. M. Felder, C. J. Finelli, R. A. Layton, H. R. Pomeranz, and D. G. Schmucker, The Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness: Development of a Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale for Self- and Peer Evaluation, Academy of Management Learning & Education (2013).
• D. Rock, H. G. Halvorson, and J. Grey, Diverse Teams Feel Less Comfortable — and That’s Why They Perform Better, https://hbr.org/2016/09/diverse-teams-feel-less-comfortable-and-thats-why-they-perform-better.
• M. E. Schnake, Equity in Effort: The “Sucker Effect” in Co-Acting Groups, Journal of Management 17, 41 (1991).
• G. L. Stewart, A Meta-Analytic Review of Relationships Between Team Design Features and Team Performance, Journal of Management 32, 29 (2006).
• Albert C. Kowitz and Thomas J. Knutson, Decision Making in Small Groups: The Search for Alternatives (Allyn and Bacon, Inc., Boston, MA, 1980).
• C. Duhigg, What Google Learned From Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team, The New York Times (2016).
• S. K. Horwitz and I. B. Horwitz, The Effects of Team Diversity on Team Outcomes: A Meta-Analytic Review of Team Demography, Journal of Management 33, 987 (2007).
• R. A. Layton, M. L. Loughry, M. W. Ohland, and G. D. Ricco, Design and Validation of a Web-Based System for Assigning Members to Teams Using Instructor-Specified Criteria, Advances in Engineering Education 2, (2010).
• A. C. Loignon, D. J. Woehr, J. S. Thomas, M. L. Loughry, M. W. Ohland, and D. M. Ferguson, Facilitating Peer Evaluation in Team Contexts: The Impact of Frame-of-Reference Rater Training, AMLE 16, 562 (2017).
• S. Nawaz, How to Create Executive Team Norms — and Make Them Stick, Harvard Business Review (2018).
• M. W. Ohland, M. L. Loughry, D. J. Woehr, L. G. Bullard, R. M. Felder, C. J. Finelli, R. A. Layton, H. R. Pomeranz, and D. G. Schmucker, The Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness: Development of a Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale for Self- and Peer Evaluation, Academy of Management Learning & Education (2013).
• D. Rock, H. G. Halvorson, and J. Grey, Diverse Teams Feel Less Comfortable — and That’s Why They Perform Better, https://hbr.org/2016/09/diverse-teams-feel-less-comfortable-and-thats-why-they-perform-better.
• M. E. Schnake, Equity in Effort: The “Sucker Effect” in Co-Acting Groups, Journal of Management 17, 41 (1991).
• C. Z. Muteti, B. I. Jacob, and J. M. Mutambuki, Metacognition Instruction Enhances Equity in Effective Study Strategies across Demographic Groups in the General Chemistry I Course, Chemistry Education Research and Practice 24, 1204 (2023).
• S. A. Ambrose, M. W. Bridges, M. DiPietro, M. C. Lovett, and M. K. Norman, How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching (John Wiley & Sons, 2010).
• C. Henderson and K. A. Harper, Quiz Corrections: Improving Learning by Encouraging Students to Reflect on Their Mistakes, The Physics Teacher 47, 581 (2009).