Supporting instructor implementation of inclusive teaching approaches is a critical area of focus in educational development. However, there is limited empirical evidence on factors that either support or hinder instructors’ implementation of inclusive teaching. The results of this national survey study reveal several predictors of instructors’ utilization of inclusive teaching approaches and reported obstacles faced. For this sample, knowledge of inclusive teaching was a statistically significant predictor of implementation, as was being from a non-STEM discipline. Responses highlighted promising approaches, several of which can inform the efforts of educational developers.
Indirect or direct exclusion of students by race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, disability status, socioeconomic class, first-generation status, and other social identities or attributes has a long-standing history in higher education, which is problematic for student access to and persistence in higher education. Practically, this can be seen by high DFW (D or F grade or withdraw) rates of students from groups historically marginalized (
Inclusive teaching involves fostering equitable, welcoming environments for diverse learners, which individual instructors could utilize to combat inequity. In this regard, inclusive teachers are responsive to individual differences between their students and modify instruction accordingly to help their learners attain academic goals (
Understanding which factors influence whether instructors implement inclusive teaching approaches is critical given shifting student demographics on college and university campuses and the necessity to be responsive to such change. Generation Z, learners born between 1995 and 2012, are in today’s classrooms. Gen Z learners exhibit the highest racial diversity of any previous generation with 48% being non-White (
Such demographic changes on college campuses necessitate instructor adoption of equitable, welcoming teaching practices to support an increasingly diverse student population, who themselves are more tolerant of diversity and invested in social justice and change (
In general, educational resources and development opportunities have the potential to advance instructor awareness of the exclusion of students with diverse social identities, help faculty recognize their own biases, and support instructor adoption of inclusive teaching approaches (
A variety of organizations also support inclusive teaching within higher education. In 2018, the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) released the statement “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusive Excellence” demonstrating commitment to inclusion in higher education (
At the institutional level, centers for teaching and learning (CTLs) continue to provide professional development to instructors with regard to inclusive teaching. However, unfortunately, professional development addressing inclusive teaching may only be experienced by a small number of instructors at a given institution, limiting institutional change efforts. Some institutions are confronting this challenge by integrating inclusive teaching into institutional rewards systems for promotion and tenure review (e.g.,
The aims of this national survey study were to take a broad view of inclusive teaching to (a) identify factors that predicted whether instructors report utilizing inclusive teaching approaches (regression analyses); (b) categorize the challenges instructors encountered either individually, departmentally, or institutionally with implementing such approaches (thematic analysis); and (c) provide recommendations informed by these factors as well as instructor perceptions of how institutions can advance change initiatives and be more inclusive of their learners. This work foregrounds institutional change around inclusive teaching. When campus partners such as instructors, department chairs, educational developers, and administrative staff develop an awareness of the key predictors, barriers, and initiatives to drive change toward equitable and inclusive teaching, they can carry out initiatives that advance institutional goals toward inclusive excellence.
The specific research questions guiding this investigation were the following:
What predicts whether instructors from diverse disciplines report implementing inclusive teaching approaches? What are their reported barriers to implementation? What are instructors’ views on how academia can lead change and advance inclusive pedagogy efforts?
This was a descriptive, mixed methods investigation involving the distribution of a survey and the subsequent analysis of quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative numerical data were obtained through Likert scale survey items and qualitative data through respondents’ narrative comments (see
The Inclusive Teaching Questionnaire was designed for this study and consisted of 18 Likert scale items, eight open-ended questions, and an array of demographic questions. The full instrument is available in
To provide content validity evidence, the items on the questionnaire were generated by content experts in faculty development, educational psychology, and inclusive teaching practitioners (
The survey questions were distributed anonymously using Qualtrics. Invitations to participate were directly sent to over 30 higher education institutions (generally to their CTLs for subsequent distribution to their faculty) that are located in various geographical regions of the United States and represent diverse institutional types, including private and public, large and small, universities, state colleges, liberal arts colleges, historically Black universities and colleges, seminaries, and community colleges. To further the reach of the survey, invitations to participate were also sent through consortiums and listservs (e.g., Professional and Organizational Development [POD] Network, Consortium for Faculty Diversity [CFD], Council on Undergraduate Research [CUR], New England Faculty Development Consortium [NEFDC], etc.) and posted on social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn). The responses were collected from January 12, 2019, to February 26, 2019. The median response time was 14 minutes, 55 seconds. Respondents did not receive compensation for participating in the study, and information related to the purpose, procedures, institutional review board approval, benefits, risks, and other relevant information was provided prior to participation. The survey was closed when the responses slowed down to nearly zero.
A total of 566 participants started the survey. Of that number, 306 participants reached the end of the survey and submitted responses. In total, 214 participants responded to all of the questions that were included in the quantitative analysis portion of this study. Given that the survey distribution included networks and social media, response rates could not be calculated. The sample included 180 females (84.11%), 174 individuals that identified as White and non-Hispanic (81.31%), 118 tenured or tenure-track faculty (55.14%), 175 full-time faculty (81.78%), 97 faculty who worked at a doctoral granting institution (45.33%), 162 faculty who had participated in professional development activities that focused on inclusive teaching (75.70%), and 132 faculty from STEM fields (61.67%). Faculty from 44 academic disciplines responded to the survey. Disciplines were classified as STEM or non-STEM fields based on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Custom Enforcement criteria (
The following section includes an overview of analyses conducted with data gathered from each of the Likert scales.
The mean sum scale score (i.e., we added scores for all items in the scale, divided by the number of items, then calculated the mean across all participants) across questions measuring the respondents’ perceived knowledge of inclusive teaching and inclusive teaching practices was 19.56 (
The mean sum scale score across questions measuring the utilization of inclusive pedagogies was 20.43 (
The mean of the summed scores of all respondents on questions measuring departmental support for inclusive teaching was 9.10 (
The overall mean for the summed questions addressing institutional support for inclusive teaching was higher than that seen for departmental support, at 11.97 (
A simultaneous multiple regression equation was used to examine variables that predicted utilization of inclusive teaching practices. The assumptions of linearity, independence, normality, and homoscedasticity were tested and met. The dependent variable was the sum scale score of the questions measuring utilization of inclusive teaching practices. Independent variables included the sum scale score of the questions measuring knowledge of inclusive teaching; the sum scale score of the questions measuring departmental support of inclusive teaching; the sum scale score of the questions measuring institutional support for inclusive teaching; years of teaching experience; participation in professional development addressing inclusive pedagogy (no = 0, yes = 1); gender (male = 0, female = 1); ethnic or racial minority (non-White or Hispanic = 0, White and non-Hispanic = 1); tenure track status (non-tenure-track = 0; tenured or tenure-track = 1); discipline (non-STEM = 0, STEM = 1); and teaching at a doctoral granting institution (no = 0, yes = 1).
The results of the multiple regression analysis measuring predictors of utilization of inclusive teaching approaches indicated that the 10 predictors explained 29.10% of the variance (
Regression Coefficients for Equation Predicting the Utilization of Inclusive Teaching Practices
Unstandardized coefficients |
Standardized coefficients |
t | Sig. | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | S.E. | β | |||
(Constant) | 13.34 | 1.47 | 9.05 | 0.00 | |
Gender | 0.39 | 0.48 | 0.05 | 0.81 | 0.42 |
White non-Hispanic | −0.68 | 0.44 | −0.09 | −1.54 | 0.13 |
STEM |
−1.17 | 0.37 | −0.20 | −3.21 | |
Doctoral granting institution | 0.06 | 0.36 | 0.01 | 0.16 | 0.87 |
Tenured or tenure track | 0.11 | 0.37 | 0.02 | 0.31 | 0.76 |
For how many years have you been teaching? | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.53 | 0.60 |
Knowledge |
0.30 | 0.04 | 0.46 | 7.11 | |
Institutional support | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.13 | 1.52 | 0.13 |
Departmental support | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.17 | 0.86 |
Participated in professional development addressing inclusive pedagogy | 0.51 | 0.44 | 0.08 | 1.16 | 0.25 |
* Statistically significant
The Inclusive Teaching Questionnaire asked respondents about their perceptions of the level of progress being made on inclusive teaching efforts at four distinct levels: individual, departmental, institutional, and higher education overall. Descriptive statistics and a logistic regression equation are presented for each level (individual, departmental, institutional, and across higher education). The regression equations examined how individuals with different demographics perceived the progress that is made at each level. The dependent variable for each equation was a single item rating agreement for a specific level. Categories for agreement were collapsed into two categories (disagree = 0, agree = 1) because the sample size in each of the original six categories of agreement was too small when cross-tabbing across multiple demographic variables. The independent variables included participating in professional development addressing inclusive pedagogy (no = 0, yes = 1); gender (male = 0, female = 1); race/ethnicity (non-White or Hispanic = 0, White and non-Hispanic = 1); tenure track status (non-tenure track = 0; tenured or tenure-track = 1); discipline (non-STEM = 0, STEM = 1); and teaching at a doctoral granting institution (no = 0, yes = 1).
Descriptive statistics for the item “I am making enough progress with regard to inclusive pedagogy” are broken down by demographic characteristics in
Logistic Regression Coefficients Predicting the Following Item: I Am Making Enough Progress With Regard to Inclusive Pedagogy
B | S.E. | Wald | df | Sig. | Exp(B) | 95% C.I. for Exp(B) |
||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower | Upper | |||||||
Gender | 0.17 | 0.49 | 0.11 | 1.00 | 0.74 | 1.18 | 0.45 | 3.11 |
White non-Hispanic | −0.52 | 0.52 | 0.98 | 1.00 | 0.32 | 0.59 | 0.22 | 1.66 |
Discipline STEM | −0.55 | 0.41 | 1.79 | 1.00 | 0.18 | 0.58 | 0.26 | 1.29 |
Doctoral | −0.31 | 0.40 | 0.60 | 1.00 | 0.44 | 0.74 | 0.34 | 1.60 |
Tenured or tenure track | −0.08 | 0.40 | 0.04 | 1.00 | 0.83 | 0.92 | 0.42 | 2.02 |
For how many years have you been teaching? | 0.04 | 0.02 | 2.60 | 1.00 | 0.11 | 1.04 | 0.99 | 1.08 |
Have you participated in professional development addressing inclusive pedagogy? |
1.83 | 0.40 | 21.28 | 1.00 | 6.25 | 2.87 | 13.60 | |
Constant | 0.63 | 0.75 | .70 | 1.00 | 0.40 | 1.87 |
* Statistically significant
Descriptive statistics for the item “My department is making sufficient progress with regard to inclusive pedagogy” are broken down by demographic characteristics in
Logistic Regression Coefficients Predicting the Following Item: My Department Is Making Sufficient Progress With Regard to Inclusive Pedagogy
B | S.E. | Wald | df | Sig. | Exp(B) | 95% C.I. for Exp(B) |
||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower | Upper | |||||||
Gender | 0.49 | 0.40 | 1.49 | 1 | .22 | 1.63 | 0.74 | 3.59 |
White non-Hispanic | 0.04 | 0.36 | 0.01 | 1 | .91 | 1.04 | 0.51 | 2.11 |
Discipline STEM | 0.25 | 0.29 | 0.72 | 1 | .39 | 1.28 | 0.73 | 2.25 |
Doctoral | −0.33 | 0.29 | 1.22 | 1 | .27 | 0.72 | 0.40 | 1.29 |
Tenure or tenure track | −0.65 | 0.29 | 4.80 | 1 | .03 | 0.52 | 0.29 | 0.93 |
For how many years have you been teaching? | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 1 | .83 | 1.00 | 0.97 | 1.04 |
Have you participated in professional development addressing inclusive pedagogy? | 0.27 | 0.34 | 0.65 | 1 | .42 | 1.31 | 0.68 | 2.53 |
Constant | −0.48 | 0.59 | 0.65 | 1.00 | 0.42 | 0.62 |
Descriptive statistics for the item “My institution is making sufficient progress with regard to inclusive pedagogy” are broken down by demographic characteristics in
Logistic Regression Coefficients Predicting the Following Item: My Institution Is Making Sufficient Progress With Regard to Inclusive Pedagogy
B | S.E. | Wald | df | Sig. | Exp(B) | 95% C.I. for Exp(B) |
||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower | Upper | |||||||
Gender | 0.39 | 0.39 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.32 | 1.48 | 0.69 | 3.19 |
White non-Hispanic | 0.04 | 0.36 | 0.01 | 1.00 | 0.92 | 1.04 | 0.51 | 2.09 |
Discipline STEM | 0.35 | 0.29 | 1.45 | 1.00 | 0.23 | 1.41 | 0.81 | 2.48 |
Doctoral | 0.10 | 0.29 | 0.12 | 1.00 | 0.73 | 1.11 | 0.63 | 1.961 |
Tenure or tenure track | 0.09 | 0.29 | 0.10 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 1.09 | 0.62 | 1.95 |
For how many years have you been teaching? | −0.01 | 0.02 | 0.14 | 1.00 | 0.70 | 0.99 | 0.96 | 1.03 |
Have you participated in professional development addressing inclusive pedagogy? | 0.34 | 0.33 | 1.04 | 1.00 | 0.31 | 1.39 | 0.73 | 2.67 |
Constant | −0.69 | 0.59 | 1.36 | 1.00 | 0.24 | 0.50 |
Descriptive statistics for the item “Higher education is making sufficient progress with regard to inclusive pedagogy” are broken down by demographic characteristics in
Logistic Regression Coefficients Predicting the Following Item: Higher Education Is Making Sufficient Progress With Regard to Inclusive Pedagogy
B | S.E. | Wald | df | Sig. | Exp(B) | 95% C.I. for Exp(B) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower | Upper | |||||||
Gender | 0.32 | 0.43 | 0.58 | 1.00 | 0.45 | 1.38 | 0.59 | 3.19 |
White non-Hispanic | 0.20 | 0.39 | 0.27 | 1.00 | 0.60 | 1.22 | 0.57 | 2.59 |
Discipline STEM | 0.78 | 0.31 | 6.34 | 1.00 | 0.01 | 2.17 | 1.19 | 3.97 |
Doctoral | −0.19 | 0.31 | 0.40 | 1.00 | 0.53 | 0.83 | 0.45 | 1.50 |
Tenure or tenure track | 0.16 | 0.31 | 0.27 | 1.00 | 0.60 | 1.17 | 0.64 | 2.14 |
For how many years have you been teaching? | 0.03 | 0.02 | 3.66 | 1.00 | 0.06 | 0.97 | 0.94 | 1.00 |
Have you participated in professional development addressing inclusive pedagogy? | 0.52 | 0.36 | 2.11 | 1.00 | 0.15 | 1.68 | 0.83 | 3.38 |
Constant | −1.29 | 0.65 | 3.95 | 1.00 | 0.05 | 0.28 |
In order to carry out a deeper analysis based on previous results, two co-authors conducted a thematic analysis on two open-ended questions in the survey: “Describe the largest barrier to the success of inclusive pedagogy at your institution” (Q1) and “Which types of initiatives have the potential to advance inclusive pedagogy at institutions of higher education?” (Q2). Of these two questions, respondents provided 199 and 176 comments, respectively. The constant comparison method was used by first examining the comments to generate overall themes separately, then coming to an agreement on initial themes (
A thematic analysis of responses to the open-ended question “Describe the largest barrier to the success of inclusive pedagogy at your institution” revealed a variety of obstacles to inclusive teaching efforts, as identified in
When analyzing participants’ answers to the open-ended question “Which types of initiatives have the potential to advance inclusive pedagogy at institutions of higher education?” several themes emerged. Common themes are described in
The goals of this national survey study were to provide insight into what predicts instructor utilization of inclusive teaching approaches across disciplines, obstacles faced, and perceived initiatives that can lead change at institutions of higher education. Knowing which factors impact whether instructors utilize inclusive teaching approaches is of critical concern given the history of exclusion of various groups and the heterogeneity within student populations at colleges and universities. Such information is useful to not only faculty but also administrators and education developers who play a role in providing support to faculty, who can be levers of institutional change.
The respondents in the current national study on average reported being knowledgeable about inclusive teaching. Many indicated that they utilized inclusive practices in their courses. Knowledge of inclusive teaching was a key predictor as to whether respondents reported implementing such approaches. While individuals who engaged in professional development activities were also more likely to agree with the statement that they were making enough individual progress with inclusive teaching, reported participation in professional development was not a key predictor of utilization of inclusive teaching approaches.
One reason that participation in professional development may not have been a key predictor of utilization is that respondents may have gained awareness of inclusive teaching approaches through experiences outside of formal workshops or initiatives, such as their own personal experiences in the classroom (as a student or teacher) and more informal conversations with colleagues. However, respondents still expressed value in having professional development experiences addressing inclusive teaching as is evident in the thematic analyses. Furthermore, the difference in utilization scores between those participating in professional development and not doing so is a narrow range for this sample (not statistically significant). These findings corroborate the literature on the critical importance of teaching supports in the implementation of inclusive teaching (
In addition to participation in educational development for inclusive teaching, being from a non-STEM discipline was also a key factor for reported implementation of such approaches in this particular sample. STEM courses can face a variety of perceived structural challenges—such as larger class sizes in gateway courses, heavy content where prior knowledge can play a key role in achievement, more challenges or questions around how to integrate diversity and inclusion within the curriculum, and instructors teaching the way they have been taught—that can result in instructors implementing less inclusive approaches (
Respondents also reported more support from their institutions rather than their departments on inclusive teaching efforts. They generally did not perceive that their departments, institutions in general, or higher education were making significant progress with regard to inclusive pedagogy. We hypothesize that the higher departmental and institutional support means found for non-tenure track instructors, while not statistically significant, were reflective of the large number of non-tenure line respondents in this sample being from fields such as education and psychology, where inclusion has a historical emphasis in the discipline. Furthermore, this outcome may also be a result of tenure-track faculty perceiving less support of their teaching efforts due to the heavy emphasis on research at institutions where scholarship production is critical for tenure and promotion. Future investigations are necessary to better understand such findings.
Respondents reported a variety of barriers to the implementation of inclusive teaching at their institutions, such as lack of awareness that inclusion was an issue or lack of professional development; lack of buy-in from their colleagues and administration; fear; not wanting to take on the responsibility; not having enough time or proper resources; lack of incentives; an unwillingness of their colleagues to change their teaching practices; and need for more discussions, assessment and data measures, and a variety of student supports. Change initiatives for promoting inclusive teaching included more and sustained professional development, resources, incentives and rewards, administrative support, student support, equitable hiring and support for diverse faculty, department-level initiatives, data on student diversity and formal assessment plans, and more discussions. Such initiatives are consistent with organizational change theories around leading change, involving having a shared vision around the change and the buy-in of various campus partners (e.g., students, faculty, administrators) to enact policies and procedures and provide resources to further reform efforts (
There are some seeming contradictions in the data that could be explored in future work. For example, participating in professional development addressing inclusive teaching was not a statistically significant predictor for the utilization of inclusive teaching practices, but participants also described wanting more professional development to advance inclusive teaching efforts. As mentioned previously, the majority of instructors taking the survey were utilizing inclusive teaching approaches and may have already been invested in using such approaches even without formal professional development yet still recognized the importance and value of professional development that addresses inclusive teaching. Another factor is the degree to which, with regard to quality as well as frequency, the professional development experiences in which the respondents participated led to their adoption of inclusive teaching strategies. Sustained professional development experiences are known to have higher efficacy than single workshops or events (
While this survey appears to be a promising tool for assessing different perceptions of inclusive teaching, more validity evidence ultimately needs to be gathered. The survey was constructed in consultation with a panel of experts to provide some validity evidence related to test content (
The survey relies on self-reported data and was distributed via a variety of channels, and the recruited sample therefore may not be representative of the pedagogical practices and opinions of faculty members across higher education. Furthermore, the survey was voluntary; thus, those that were more accepting or knowledgeable of inclusive teaching may have been more eager to complete this survey. The survey may have been taken by multiple individuals at the same institution. Additionally, attrition during the survey may have impacted the results as similar individual characteristics may have impacted participants’ willingness to spend more time answering all the quantitative survey questions and providing in-depth responses to the qualitative survey questions. While the final response allowed us to conduct the analyses presented, a larger number of responses could further clarify relationships found within the data analysis (e.g., implementation by faculty in STEM versus non-STEM fields).
The outcomes of this study highlight the critical importance of educational development that focuses on inclusive teaching. In particular, for this sample, the findings reveal that knowledge development in inclusive teaching practices was a significant predictor of whether instructors implement such approaches and that participation in professional development focused on inclusive teaching was not. While further study is needed, such outcomes suggest that professional development on inclusive teaching should be meaningfully designed to support adoption.
Institutions could leverage existing programming and relationships when developing additional training related to inclusive teaching. When asked “Which departments or offices (if any) provide professional development for inclusive teaching at your institution?” respondents commonly noted offices such as CTLs and offices of diversity and inclusion. Less regularly mentioned were offices of institutional or education effectiveness, grant-funded programs, and specific departments. By understanding how faculty receive advice and support on their teaching within an institution, educational developers may be able to increase faculty buy-in and adoption. Educational developers may also find it beneficial to emphasize intensive institutes, faculty learning communities, and other forms of more sustained professional development that support the knowledge development of instructors and monitor or assess such learning in place of focusing on holding one-time events that may or may not be as impactful at building foundational understanding of inclusive teaching approaches. An example initiative that provides sustained support on inclusive teaching and other evidence-based practices is the Summer Institutes on Scientific Teaching. These multi-day intensive institutes provide tools and a supportive community to help instructors implement evidence-based teaching approaches. Participants have self-reported using inclusive teaching approaches at higher levels within the two years after the summer institute (
Given that being from a non-STEM discipline was a significant predictor of adopting inclusive teaching approaches, a promising change initiative is providing directed professional development activities that support STEM faculty who face actual or perceived challenges with implementation. An initial focus on implementing smaller-scale methods in gateway courses that often emphasize heavy content may be more palatable and impactful in supporting student persistence (
Data-driven approaches uncovered in the thematic analyses may potentially be useful at raising the awareness of instructors in quantitative fields such as STEM disciplines but also have potential in non-STEM disciplines. Such initiatives may include highlighting statistics within the literature and, if available, within the institution that reveal the exclusion of particular student groups or other inequities. Increasing the level of awareness of achievement gaps between student groups is a promising avenue by which to foster change. Such analytics can also be calculated at the departmental, program, or multi-section courses level. Educational developers can work with individual faculty members as well as departments to help measure the impact of implementing inclusive teaching approaches. In general, understanding what really matters to instructors implementing inclusive teaching strategies can support institutional change (
We give special thanks to Dr. Mallory SoRelle for reviewing the Inclusive Teaching Questionnaire.
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following:
Strongly disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat disagree (3)
Somewhat agree (4)
Agree (5)
Strongly agree (6)
I can provide a definition of inclusive teaching.
I can describe at least 3 specific inclusive teaching practices.
I can articulate the significance of creating an inclusive classroom environment.
I can utilize inclusive pedagogy in my courses.
Open-Ended Questions:
Please define what inclusive teaching means to you. Please list any inclusive teaching strategies that you use in your courses.
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following:
Strongly disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat disagree (3)
Somewhat agree (4)
Agree (5)
Strongly agree (6)
I integrate diverse examples into the subject material of my courses.
I implement instructional practices that promote equitable (i.e., unbiased, fair & just) experiences for my diverse learners.
I intentionally engage in equitable interactions with my diverse learners.
I create learning environments that encourage equitable interactions between diverse students.
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following:
Strongly disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat disagree (3)
Somewhat agree (4)
Agree (5)
Strongly agree (6)
My institution provides professional development for inclusive teaching.
My institution disseminates online resources to support inclusive teaching efforts.
My institution provides targeted academic support for students from groups historically marginalized.
My department holds informal or formal discussions on inclusive teaching.
My department provides targeted academic support for students from groups historically marginalized.
My department evaluates the efficacy of inclusive teaching efforts.
Open-Ended Questions:
Have you participated in professional development addressing inclusive pedagogy?
Yes No Which departments or offices (if any) provide professional development for inclusive teaching at your institution? Is facilitating sessions on inclusive teaching part of the normal job responsibilities of the individual(s) providing professional development at your institution?
Yes No Unknown N/A Describe any inclusive teaching initiatives at your institution. Please be sure to only provide general information that does not identify your institution.
If “Have you participated in professional development addressing inclusive pedagogy? = Yes” please describe.
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following:
Strongly disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat disagree (3)
Somewhat agree (4)
Agree (5)
Strongly agree (6)
I am making sufficient progress with regard to inclusive pedagogy.
My department is making sufficient progress with regard to inclusive pedagogy.
My institution is making sufficient progress with regard to inclusive pedagogy.
Higher education is making sufficient progress with regard to inclusive pedagogy.
Open-Ended Questions:
Which types of initiatives have the potential to advance inclusive pedagogy at institutions of higher education? Describe the largest barrier to the success of inclusive pedagogy at your institution. Describe the largest need with regard to inclusive pedagogy at your institution. Describe any impacts of inclusive pedagogy at your institution.
What is your title?
Adjunct professor Visiting professor Lecturer Assistant professor (pre-tenure) Associate professor (pre-tenure) Associate professor (tenured) Full professor (tenured) Other _______________________
Are you a full-time or part-time instructor?
full-time part-time
For how many years have you been teaching?
At which type of institution are you currently employed? Please see Carnegie Classification System.
Doctoral granting University Master’s College or University Baccalaureate College Associate College Special Focus Institution Tribal College Not classified Other (describe) _________________________
Do you work at a primarily minority serving institution?
Yes No
Which has the highest weight at your institution for promotion and tenure review?
Teaching Research Service
What is your discipline?
Anthropology History Linguistics and Languages Philosophy Religion The Arts Economics Geography Interdisciplinary Studies Political Science Psychology Sociology Biology Chemistry Earth Sciences Physics Space Sciences Computer Sciences Mathematics Agricultural Architecture and Design Business Divinity Education Engineering and Technology Environmental Studies and Forestry Family and Consumer Science Human Physical Performance and Recreation Journalism, Media Studies and Communication Law Library and Museum Studies Medicine Military Sciences Public Administration Social Work Transportation Other (please indicate)__________
Which types of courses do you teach? (Select all that apply)
Introductory/gateway/foundational Upper-level/advanced Graduate level Professional school Other (please describe) ______________________
Are you of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin?
Yes No
How do you describe yourself? (Select all that apply)
American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Other (explain) _____________________
What is your gender?
In which state is your institution?
Alabama (1) … I do not reside in the United States (53)
Respondent Demographics, Geographical Locations, and Number of Years of Teaching Experience
Mean years teaching | Min. | Max. | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Full-time | 175 | 14.76 | 8.79 | 1.00 | 42.00 |
Work at a primarily minority serving institution | 50 | 14.92 | 10.39 | 1.00 | 42.00 |
Does not work at a primarily minority serving institution | 162 | 14.02 | 8.28 | 1.00 | 42.00 |
Male | 34 | 13.20 | 9.93 | 1.00 | 42.00 |
Female | 180 | 14.58 | 8.75 | 1.00 | 42.00 |
Non-White or Hispanic | 40 | 14.26 | 10.68 | 1.00 | 42.00 |
White non-Hispanic | 174 | 14.38 | 8.52 | 1.00 | 40.00 |
STEM | 132 | 14.15 | 8.78 | 1.00 | 42.00 |
Non-STEM field | 82 | 14.70 | 9.24 | 1.00 | 42.00 |
Not a doctoral granting institution | 117 | 14.80 | 9.29 | 1.00 | 42.00 |
Doctoral granting institution | 97 | 13.83 | 8.51 | 1.00 | 42.00 |
Non-tenure track | 96 | 13.44 | 8.08 | 1.00 | 31.00 |
Tenured or on tenure track | 118 | 15.11 | 9.55 | 1.00 | 42.00 |
Participated in professional development addressing inclusive pedagogy | 162 | 14.46 | 8.53 | 1.00 | 42.00 |
Did not participate in professional development addressing inclusive pedagogy | 52 | 14.04 | 10.20 | 2.00 | 42.00 |
Total | 214 | 14.36 | 8.94 | 1.00 | 42.00 |
Geographical location of study respondents |
Descriptive statistics for the questions measuring knowledge of inclusive teaching (4 questions; 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree)
Descriptive statistics for the questions measuring utilization of inclusive teaching practices (4 questions; 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree)
Descriptive statistics for the questions measuring departmental support of inclusive teaching (3 questions; 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree)
Descriptive statistics for the questions measuring institutional support of inclusive teaching (3 questions; 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree)
Descriptive statistics for a question measuring perception of individual progress in inclusive pedagogy (1 question; 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree)
Descriptive statistics for a question measuring perception of departmental progress in inclusive pedagogy (1 question; 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree)
Descriptive statistics for a question measuring perception of institutional progress in inclusive teaching (1 question; 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree)
Descriptive statistics for a question measuring perception of inclusive pedagogy progress within higher education (1 question; 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree)
Perceived Barriers to Inclusive Teaching Efforts
Theme | Summary of responses | Representative quotes |
---|---|---|
PERSONAL BARRIERS |
||
Lack of awareness | The lack of awareness of colleagues, particularly, those from majority groups or established faculty, in recognizing that exclusion of students from particular social identities or other attributes occurred at their institution was a significant concern. This was perceived to prevent the utilization of inclusive teaching practices. Respondents also indicated that their colleagues were not aware of how to implement inclusive teaching practices. | Right now my institution does not even realize this is an issue.—Associate professor, tenured, master’s college or university, Education |
Fear | Respondents perceived that their colleagues either were scared to offend others or to try out inclusive practices. | Fear of doing it wrong, further offending marginalized groups.—Academic professional, doctoral granting university, Education |
Unwillingness to change teaching practices | Respondents described how their colleagues, particularly established faculty, did not want to change their teaching approaches for a variety of reasons, such as a general apathy regarding inclusion, lack of buy-in, or association of inclusive teaching with lower standards. | Professors who have been at the institution for decades do not like change. They have the most seniority and sometimes [put] a stop to trying something new.—Assistant professor, pre-tenure, associate’s college, Biology |
Not feeling responsible | Respondents indicated that a major barrier was that their colleagues did not feel that they were responsible for implementing inclusive pedagogy. | [F]aculty from majority groups who do not believe inclusion is something that they should be responsible for, therefore it should not be in the curriculum.—Faculty developer with adjunct appointment in Human Physical Performance and Recreation, doctoral granting university |
Challenges in promoting inclusion in student interactions with one another | The significant challenge of helping students be inclusive in their interactions with one another. Respondents expressed challenges in managing biased interactions between students and the lack of awareness of students with regard to inclusion. | It became very clear to me after several semesters that, with all the tools our institution has put in place and still doing so, some students find it difficult than others to be inclusive. In such cases therefore, it is better to change the set of rules for discussions for example, and call on individuals to participate to questions and answers rounds.—Associate teaching professor, doctoral granting university, Biology |
INSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS |
||
Lack of administrative support | Not having buy-in from administration that inclusive teaching was valued as well as having inadequate leadership and lacking administrative support. | Lack of support from administration.—Assistant professor, doctoral granting university, Nursing |
Inadequate resources and lack of incentives | Not having enough available professional development on inclusive teaching, limited financial resources such as grants and other funding opportunities to invest in inclusive teaching, and time restrictions given competing priorities. | We have no systematic faculty development programs that address inclusive pedagogy.—Full professor, tenured, baccalaureate college, History |
Lack of diversity and systemic “isms” | Not having enough diversity within the faculty and student bodies as well as other systemic challenges of racism and ableism. | Predominance of White, Anglo American faculty educated solely in the United States, and their varied levels of cultural sensitivity and competence.—Assistant professor, doctoral granting university, Communication |
Limited opportunities for discussion | Not enough discussion around diversity, equity, and inclusion. | Cosmetic changes that gloss over the tough conversations that instructors and staff need to have about the mindsets they have that are hindering student growth and success.—Administrator, adjunct, associate college, Psychology |
Initiatives for Advancing Inclusive Teaching Efforts
Theme | Description | Representative comments |
---|---|---|
INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT AND RESOURCES |
||
More professional development addressing inclusive teaching | Individual workshops and sustained opportunities for advancing inclusive teaching pedagogy at institutions of higher education. | Faculty need training in workshops and then follow-up through coaching and assessment.—Full professor, baccalaureate college, History |
More resources and incentives | Having dedicated financial resources and incentives were viewed as critical to promoting inclusive teaching practices. | Funding for course development so that faculty can revise syllabi and learning activities to make them more inclusive.—Instructional consultant, master’s college or university, English |
More opportunities for discussion | Providing continual opportunities to discuss diversity, equity, and inclusion concerns with colleagues. Additionally, the importance of giving students voice in discussions around inclusion. | Difficult conversations.—Full professor, associate college, Linguistics and Languages |
Administrative buy-in | Commitment on behalf of higher administration (e.g., deans, provosts, presidents) to diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. | Education, concern expressed by Provost/Deans.—Professor of the practice, doctoral granting university, Biology |
Faculty buy-in | In addition to the administration, faculty buy-in was also seen as integral. | The hardest part about any initiative is getting tenured faculty on board, and I say this as a tenured faculty member myself. It is difficult to show them how important inclusivity is. I think an initiative will only be successful if some of the more senior folks get on board. Particularly white men, since much of the heavy lifting when it comes to these things, falls on women and POC and our voices are simply not heard in the same way a white man’s is.—Associate professor, master’s college or university, history |
DEPARTMENT-LEVEL INITIATIVES |
||
Better recruitment and retention of minoritized faculty | Hiring and supporting faculty from underrepresented groups through more aggressive and equitable recruitment as well as adequate professional development opportunities for such faculty. | [A]ggressive recruiting of faculty of color.—Dean and full professor, baccalaureate college, English and Faculty Development |
More general department-level initiatives | Initiatives include changes in departmental curricula, syllabi, policies, and culture. | Departmental standards for syllabus content and quality.—Assistant professor, doctoral granting university, Counseling |
USAGE OF DATA-DRIVEN APPROACHES |
||
Using data analytics | Seeing data on the demographic backgrounds and retention rates of students to develop a better understanding of whom instructors are teaching and student achievement. | Results in terms of retention and academic success.—Assistant professor, doctoral granting university, Biology |
Performing assessments that measure impact | More assessment was perceived as necessary to measure the impact of inclusive teaching efforts. | Inclusive practices and student success must be assessed to advance inclusive pedagogy.—Full professor, associate college, Biology |
STUDENT-LEVEL INITIATIVES |
||
Providing more student supports | Supporting students financially, academically, and within classrooms by using learner-centered approaches. | Study groups, coaching, feedback, differentiation.—Adjunct professor, master’s college or university, Education |