Making Science Personal: Inclusivity-Driven Design for General-Education Courses
MMaking Science Personal: Inclusivity-Driven Designfor General-Education Courses
Christine O’Donnell (cid:70) , Edward Prather , & Peter Behroozi Department of Astronomy and Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
Abstract
General-education college astronomy courses offer instructors both a unique audience anda unique challenge. For many students, such a course may be their first time encountering astandalone astronomy class, and it is also likely one of the last science courses they will take.Thus, in a single semester, primary course goals often include both imparting knowledge aboutthe Universe and giving students some familiarity with the processes of science. In traditionalcourse environments, students often compartmentalize information into separate “life files” and“course files” rather than integrating information into a coherent framework. The astronomycourse created through this project, taught at the University of Arizona in Spring 2019, wasdesigned around inclusivity-driven guiding principles that help students engage with coursecontent in ways that are meaningful, relevant, and accessible. Our course bridges the gapbetween students’ “life” and “course files”, encourages and respects diverse points of view, andempowers students to connect course content with their personal lives and identities. In thispaper, we provide insight into the guiding principles that informed our course design and shareresearch results on the effectiveness of the instructional strategies and assessment techniquesimplemented in the course.
Many universities require students to take general-education courses spanning science, history,writing, etc. At the University of Arizona, the curriculum’s goals include ensuring that all studentshave foundational knowledge from subjects beyond their major so that they can appreciate howtheir discipline fits into and supports a broader societal context. Additionally, the curriculum aimsto encourage acceptance of people with different backgrounds and give students a “deepened senseof self”. In the sciences, general-education courses often aim to impart both discipline-specificknowledge and science practices/skills such as critical thinking.However, as Fink [2013] argues, students often compartmentalize course content into a “coursefile” for homework/tests or a “life file” for use in their everyday lives. We believe general-education (cid:70) Email: [email protected] https://catalog.arizona.edu/policy/general-education-curriculum . We note that the University of Ari-zona’s goals are not dissimilar to other institutions’ general-education goals. a r X i v : . [ phy s i c s . e d - ph ] A p r ourses need to bridge the gap between these files. Thus, a “significant learning experience” thatempowers students to connect or add something to their “life file” will create lasting learning.These experiences can feature1. Integrating course content with other disciplines or aspects of life, which directly addresses thegeneral-education goal to enable students to grapple with society’s complex interdisciplinaryissues; building these connections can guide students to understand the relevance that sciencealready has in their lives.2. Focusing on the human dimension to encourage students to learn more about themselves andothers, which addresses the human story and affective domain of learning [Krathwohl et al.,1964] so that students can gain a greater appreciation of people from diverse backgroundsand build stronger self-identities.One approach for science courses to address identity is a “worldviews” approach [Cobern, 1996].While science is an integral component of technology, policy, and everyday life, the “public alien-ation” from science instead makes it into a disconnected subject. Cobern argues that science needsto be taught jointly with other disciplines to create a “coherence view of knowledge” so that stu-dents will view scientific concepts as “superior” (either in terms of usefulness or power) to theirpre-instruction conceptions. However, the worldviews approach has a limited ability to create sig-nificant learning experiences. For example, by implying that certain concepts are “superior”, it canreinforce systems against students from marginalized backgrounds rather than valuing students’ di-verse experiences. Additionally, the worldviews approach focuses solely on sociocultural identitiesand ignores personal identities.A course that addresses both sociocultural and personal contexts will access more learningdimensions and can create a more welcoming environment. Science has traditionally been taughtas being a “neutral” or “acultural” topic. However, science represents a culture unto itself that hasbeen shaped by and for dominant groups, and this culture can drive away those from non-dominantbackgrounds [e.g., Council, 2000, 2009, Seymour and Hewitt, 1997, Brickhouse and Potter, 2001,Brown, 2005]. By addressing the interplay between students’ existing (and developing) identities,larger sociocultural framings, and science’s culture, we can create a more inclusive environmentthat is welcoming of diversity [Reveles and Brown, 2008, Carlone and Johnson, 2007]. Ratherthan reinforcing the idea that students have to assimilate into science’s culture, we can encourageparticipation by guiding students to see science as part of and valuable to their own identities[Council, 2007].In this paper, we present new inclusivity-driven classroom instructional strategies that attendto students’ identities, and our research assesses whether this curriculum leads students to integratetheir “course files” with their “life files”. Some education research has explored equity in the collegeclassroom, e.g., related to gender [Weinburgh, 1995, Roychoudhury et al., 1995] or students withdisabilities [Norman et al., 1998, Bell, 2002]. However, many of these studies focus on studentgrades (“achievement gaps”), whereas we focus on assessing students’ experiences and connectionsto their identities. Below, we first discuss the unique nature of general-education astronomy courses,followed by a description of our specific course. We present guiding principles of our course design,2xamples of course content, and assessment results. Our work offers a framework from whichinstructors can build an inclusive mindset into their own courses that “engage[s] students in learningthat is meaningful, relevant, and accessible to all” [Hockings, 2010]. Non-science majors often take astronomy to fulfill general-education science requirements. Annu-ally, over 250,000 students enroll in an astronomy general-education course in the US, and theyrepresent all demographic backgrounds [Rudolph et al., 2010]. For many of these students, it maybe both the first time they will encounter astronomy as a standalone course and simultaneouslythe last time they will formally engage with any science. This presents a unique challenge forinstructors: they have to (1) introduce students to astronomy content and (2) address that thismay be the last time our future voters, educators, etc. experience science. Previous research hasinvestigated the teaching and learning of astronomy content through active learning strategies [e.g.Prather et al., 2009a,b] and implementing a worldviews approach [Wallace et al., 2013], but theydo not address students’ personal identities and lived experiences.
In Spring 2019 at the University of Arizona, a team of1. a general-education astronomy course instructor (an assistant professor in the AstronomyDepartment),2. a graduate teaching assistant (an Astronomy & Astrophysics Ph.D. candidate), and3. an astronomy education researcher (a professor in the Astronomy Department),reformed a general-education introductory astronomy course (ASTR 201: Cosmology). The coursehas no prerequisites, and this was the instructor’s first time teaching it, though the course itselfhas been offered for over a decade.Forty-one students enrolled. Only six students (14.6%) intended a STEM-related major (e.g.,biology or engineering), and the most commonly intended majors were business-related (11 students;26.8%). Nine students (22.0%) were first-year students, twenty-one (51.2%) were second-years,six (14.6%) were third-years, and five (12.2%) were fourth-years . Thirty-four students gave usinformed consent to collect their course data for our research. 20 students responded to a short-answer self-identification prompt. Half of these students identified as female, and half identified asmale; fifteen (75%) identified as White and/or Caucasian, two (10%) as Latino , and two (10%) asNative American. Compared with Rudolph et al. [2010], our year distribution has fewer first-year students than is often seen ina general-education astronomy course, but our course was a “Tier II” general-education course which attractsa greater percentage of non-first year students. For more information on the Tier II designation, see https://catalog.arizona.edu/policy/general-education-tier-one-and-tier-two . This was the identification terminology provided by the students. • Both science content and the human story of understanding the Universe must be addressedthroughout the course. • All students feel that they are treated with respect and that their different perspectives areall relevant and valuable to the course. • Students are provided many opportunities to make value judgements and/or connect contentwith their personal experiences and “life files”.Our course represents a pilot test of these principles.
An important aspect of our design was our classroom norms. In many classes, “norms” are limitedto established policies around grading, late assignments, attendance, etc. However, as Tanner [2013]describes, “norms” can refer more broadly to behaviors and attitudes, such as “Everyone here hassomething to learn.” To successfully establish a norm, an instructor has to not only state it butalso enforce it throughout the semester.We established a norm to acknowledge and value diverse perspectives in a way that affirmedthe importance of students’ lived experiences. Courses typically do not include readings or dis-cussions on topics relevant to members of underrepresented groups [e.g., Harper and Quaye, 2009,and references within]. Without making intentional choices to incorporate diverse voices into theclassroom, curricula that focus on dominant Western perspectives represent a form of power thatimplies that beliefs from different cultures are not valued [Delpit, 1988, Banks and Banks, 2010],which is contrary to our guiding principles.To achieve this norm, our course explicitly acknowledged additional voices. On the very firstday of the course, after a ten-minute course content overview, a member of the local TohonoO’odham Native American Nation gave a 1-hour lecture on their cultural beliefs of the SolarSystem, Milky Way, and other celestial objects. He also described the importance of certain daysof the year, such as the solstices. This lecture tied into the course’s first unit about human andcultural connections to the sky (e.g., for navigation, agricultural practices, etc.) for many differentcultures (e.g., European, Egyptian, and Asian). The norm was reinforced throughout the semesterthrough stories describing the human endeavor of science. We shared life stories of scientists,such as Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, an astronomer who first proposed that the Sun is composed ofhydrogen and helium, contradicting the dominant theory of the time, and she faced many systemicand institutional barriers. 4
Active Learning
Active learning is not new to introductory astronomy general-education research. Prather et al.[2009a] showed that active learning can significantly increase students’ astronomy content learninggains. Think-pair-share activities were used to cultivate students’ critical thinking [e.g., Tanner,2013, Supiano, 2018]. Furthermore, we adapted think-pair-share questions to incorporate inclusivityand empower students to connect with their “life files”.For example, after grading homework assignments, the graduate teaching assistant reportedcommon student struggles to the instructor, and the instructor debriefed those struggles in class.After a particularly difficult assignment, which dealt with complex math and equations as well asvisualization of light bending around a black hole, the instructor led a debrief to help studentsconnect with the enterprise of science. These think-pair-share prompts framed the debrief:1. The instructor asked students to consider all the skills they feel are helpful to do science.2. He then had them pair up and share/compare their sets of skills.3. He had the student in each pair whose name came first alphabetically share the pair’s discus-sion. This sharing method was chosen to promote inclusion: by assigning a “reporter/sharer”based on a random characteristic, we provided opportunities for verbal participation by stu-dents who may not otherwise volunteer. Additionally, by choosing a random personal char-acteristic, we encouraged a collaborative community among our students [Tanner, 2013].4. The instructor typed responses into a lecture slide, making students’ ideas visible to thewhole class and acknowledging each response. Student responses included open-mindedness,communication, critical thinking, creativity, and leadership.The instructor explicitly noted that these responses are all “skills”, meaning that one can changethem over time. Additionally, he noted that science is often done in collaborations, such as thelarge team that detected gravitational waves, a topic from the prior week. He stated that scienceis inclusive of people who can lead well but are not especially curious, people who are creativebut are weaker with leadership skills, and people who can communicate and connect people. Nosingle person has all of the skills that the students reported, and he stated that “there’s places inscience for all different kinds of people with all of these different kinds of skills.” In the authors’experiences, other science courses may emphasize a specific set of skills as being “keys to success”.Instead, in our course, the instructor had the students create a list of skills and left it up to eachstudent to reflect on how their own existing skills fit within science and beyond.
We also provided regular opportunities for students to express their personal opinions as partof assignments and quizzes. Many studies emphasize the importance of connecting content withstudents’ lives [e.g., Council, 2000, 2009], and they also demonstrate the positive effects of these5xperiences. For example, Hulleman and Harackiewicz [2009] studied writing prompts in a ninth-grade science course that asked students to summarize course content and encouraged students tomake connections with their lives. They found increases in both interest and course grades amongstudents with low success expectations.In our course, almost all class sessions included a 5-minute writing prompt that reflected onconcepts from that day’s lecture; students wrote responses on index cards, and a thoughtful re-sponse received full credit. For example, one topic was dark matter, which does not interact withlight and therefore cannot be directly observed, but its presence can be inferred from gravitationalinteractions with visible matter. The corresponding writing prompt intentionally asked what stu-dents believe in but cannot see. Some responses were scientific, such as gravity or oxygen, but over40% of responses connected to “life files”, such as God, souls, or love.Some writing prompts were expanded into homework and/or quiz questions. A unique coursetheme was “reference frames”: depending on how you define your perspective, the same physicalsystem can appear very different. For example, in our reference frame on Earth, planet orbitsshow unusual behavior including temporary reversals of their apparent direction (i.e., retrogrademotion). However, in a reference frame in which the Sun is at rest, the planets always travel in thesame direction. The choice of reference frame (i.e., the choice of coordinate system) by definitiondoes not affect accuracy for predicting planetary motion due to gravity, which we demonstratedwith orbital simulations. Nonetheless, as above, it has a profound effect on apparent motion. Wemade an analogy between these reference frames and having a disagreement with another persondue to differing perspectives. Students had a 5-minute in-class prompt to describe a time in theirlives when two opposing views were valid. The next homework asked students to write about amemorable disagreement they had with another person, what arguments supported their own view,what arguments supported the other person’s view, and how the other person could rationally cometo that viewpoint. Student responses on both assignments included politics (e.g., gun control,death penalty, immigration), religion (e.g., the existence of God), conflicts with family and friends,and personal topics (e.g., musical preferences). These assignments empowered students to createconnections between course content and their personal lives. During debriefs, the instructor affirmedthat feelings of discomfort when dealing with such questions are natural.
We report student reflections, course scores, and survey results.
The final exam included a question that asked students about whether this class changed theway they think about their own lives or their place in the Universe. Additionally, some studentsprovided comments in the University of Arizona’s Teacher-Course Evaluations (TCE). Table 1reports relevant responses; all student comments on course design elements described in this paperwere positive. 6 .2 Course Scores
While our course design was motivated by a desire to be inclusive of our students’ personal identities,we also are sensitive to the fact that grades are an important aspect of students’ motivationsand course experiences. Many STEM education studies have identified grade differences acrossdemographic identities. Table 2 summarizes the average cumulative course scores for the studentsthat responded to our demographics survey (Sec. 2). We observe no differences in average scoresacross gender ( p = 0 .
877 from a Welch’s t -test) and culture/ethnicity ( p = 0 . Finally, we conducted a pre- and post-course survey on students’ views of science. We selected25 items from the Thinking About Science Survey instrument [TSSI; Cobern, 2000], which isaligned with our goal of connecting science to students’ lives. However, we adjusted the coding forfour survey items. Cobern scored the survey to assess how strongly students agree with the publicperception of science portrayed by scientists, educators, and journalists that associates science withproperties such as superiority and exclusivity. For example, Cobern lists the item “A person canbe both religious and scientific” as having reverse polarity, i.e., a student that believes in thispublic portrayal of science will respond with “strongly disagree”. Our course affirms that there aremany different yet equally valued sources of understanding, so we do not reverse the scoring of thisitem. An additional limitation is that the TSSI focuses on students’ views of science’s socioculturalcontext, but our course design also acknowledges personal contexts.Table 3 details our survey items and results. 13 students responded to both the pre- and post-course survey. For each of the items, over 50% of participants gave the same response across thetwo surveys, meaning for almost all items, differences are due to only 1 or 2 students’ responses.We also note that the pre-survey averages tend to be favorable to our goals; this has been observedin other studies and makes it difficult to clearly attribute changes to an instructor’s efforts and/orcourse design [e.g., Adams, 2013, Perkins et al., 2005, Wallace et al., 2013]. Comparing students’average pre-course full survey score and average post-course survey score, we see a small positivechange (∆ = 0 .
07) with p = 0 .
170 from a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test.
Fig. 1 summarizes our inclusivity-driven course design. Our course was built on guiding principlesthat (1) emphasized both science content and the human story of understanding the Universe,(2) respected diverse perspectives, and (3) provided students with many opportunities to makeconnections between course content and their “life files”. We wove these principles through allaspects of the course, including explicit classroom norms, lecture content, in-class writing prompts,and homework assignments and quizzes. We created unique opportunities for students to sharetheir personal thoughts, beliefs, and experiences to directly connect their own lives with astronomy The full TSSI sample includes 60 prompts; our subset was chosen based on alignment with our courses’ goals. • We could improve the assessment and evaluation of the course, such as (1) a structuredqualitative analysis to assess student responses throughout the semester, (2) an improvedquantitative analysis by deploying a survey instrument more closely aligned with our goals,and/or (3) an in-class observational analysis to assess classroom equity (e.g., which voices arerepresented). • We can incorporate additional course elements, such as group projects to encourage com-munity building. These elements would access more dimensions of significant learning and8rovide more opportunities (1) for students to learn from one another and (2) for creatingconnections between content and personal experiences. • Finally, we could reform an undergraduate majors course using our design model to investigateinclusivity in these STEM-specific learning environments; this research could also examinethe retention of underrepresented populations.Given our students’ feedback, our model empowers students by letting them make science a partof their identities, values their ideas and experiences, and creates a more inclusive classroom envi-ronment that can reach a broader student audience.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the students who enrolled and participated in our class. Their engagementand excitement are what motivates us to pursue these research questions. We would also liketo thank Dr. Lisa Elfring, Dr. Joanna Masel, and fellow participants in our Faculty LearningCommunity for input on our course design; Dr. Julie Libarkin and her research group for helpfulcomments on the paper; and Prof. Camillus Lopez from the Tohono O’odham Native AmericanNation. CO’s graduate teaching assistantship was supported from teaching reform project fundingby the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the Accelerate for Success program at the Universityof Arizona. Finally, we thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments to improve ourmanuscript. 9 igure 1:
Schematic diagram of our inclusivity-driven course design, including our guiding principles,examples of research-based implementation strategies, and connections with learning dimensions. The arrowsare intended to be suggestions for implementation and are not exclusive, e.g., our guiding principle forcovering both science content and the human story should not be thought of as completely absent fromopportunities to self-identify. able 1: Verbatim student responses from a final exam question that asked students how the coursechanged the way they think about their own lives or their place in the Universe, as well as comments fromthe anonymous University of Arizona Teacher-Course Evaluations (TCE).[Note: This table is split over 3 pages.]
Topic Final Exam Responses TCE Responses
Classroom Norms It was engaging and interestingand the professor cares abouteveryone’s thoughts and opinionson subjects.The questions you guys askedallowed for honest responses, andthe way they were worded mademe feel comfortable expressingmy actual opinion on the topicsdiscussed! The teaching style forthis class was definitely in my topthree, and this is my second degreeand sixth year in college so there’sa biiiiig pool.Active Learning Really included people in discus-sions and invited questions. Veryrespectful professor who trulycares about his students’ learning.[...] his methods of question-ing and getting us to think aboutour answers and why we chosethem helped me understand notjust the facts but how we got them
Continued on next page able 1 – continued from previous pageTopic Final Exam Responses TCE Responses Opportunities to Self-Identify (e.g., writingprompts) This course change my thinking.I learned how to use critical andscientific thinking to solve theproblem. [...] So when we haveargument, I will try to thinkas other people which will helpme consider two or more criticalthinking.[...] this class has allowed meto think more critically and havean open mind. Doing the home-work, and comparing astronomicalconcepts to things on earth helpedme to think about things in adifferent way. I feel that whenapproaching problems now, I canthink of many different ways tosolve it.When we were learning aboutparallax and perspective, I wasdealing with some family problemsthat have a lot to do with view-points. I had sat around that weekon the phone, trying and tryingto handle everything and get myfamily to understand why theyare so incredibly mistaken aboutan issue they remain misinformedabout, to the detriment of a cousingoing through a rough time. Wehad been arguing unproductivelyfor almost a month, and then welearned about how perspectivechanges how we receive informa-tion. Taking that and applyingit to the conversation, my cousinand I managed to make themunderstand why she chose whatshe did and while unhappy, theyaccepted it. I apply this to mostdiscussions now, and I’ve becomea better advocate because of it. I did like the writing activities wehad for each class where a questionwas posed that we would write theanswer to such as “Think of a timewhen... happened to you” or thelike
Continued on next page able 1 – continued from previous pageTopic Final Exam Responses TCE Responses Other Comments Re-lated to Students’ At-titudes I used to think about the universein a fearful way, and I think I’vemanaged to get over that quitewell, because I know more about itnow.I feel more solid about my view ofthe universe as the “divine” (forlack of a better word) after thisclass. The reason I see it that wayis because divinity is supposed tobe beautiful, omnipresent, omni-scient, mysterious. Earth is like amini universe, and so is the SolarSystem, the Galaxy, the Quadrant,etc. Even our cells are tiny collec-tions of cosmic dust. Just becauseI don’t believe in a conscious deitydoesn’t mean I don’t find theconcept in the universe. Learningabout the different celestial bodiesand forces and how gravity is notreally a force (which, that blanketanalogy is told to everyone now),seeing it all come together is asclose to divinity as I think we’llever get. I have learned a lot of scientificcommon sense and scientific think-ing
Table 2:
Average course scores by demographic groups. While our course design did not explicitly targetstudents’ grades or performance, we observe no differences in average scores across demographic groups forgender (male and female) and culture/ethnicity (non-underrepresented minorities [non-URM] and underrep-resented minorities [URM]).
Student Identity Average Cumulative Welch’s t -Test(Self-Reported) Course Score p value Male (N = 10) 84.3% 0.877Female (N = 10) 85.7%Non-URM (N = 16) 84.8% 0.915URM (N = 4) 85.8% able 3: Survey items from the TSSI [Cobern, 2000] used in our pre- and post-course survey; see Sec. 6.3 fora more detailed description. The second column indicates whether an item has “reverse polarity”, i.e., if astudent agrees with our course goals, they would respond with “strongly disagree”. Here we report data from13 students who took both of the surveys. The survey’s Likert scale is coded such that “strongly disagree” =-2, “disagree” = -1, “neutral” = 0, “agree” = 1, and “strongly agree” = 2. The final column is the differencein the average between the post- and pre-course survey results. The last row compares students’ average pre-and post-course full survey responses; a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was used to calculate the correspondingsignificance.[Note: This table is split over 2 pages.]
TSSI Prompt Reverse Pre-Course Post-Course ∆ Polarity Average Average
No form of knowledge can be completely cer-tain - not even scientific knowledge. 0.15 0.15 0.00Science should be taught at all school gradelevels. 1.46 1.38 -0.08All students should study science during thesecondary school grade levels. 1.23 0.92 -0.31Developing new scientific knowledge is very im-portant for keeping our country economicallycompetitive in today’s world. 1.31 1.31 0.00A person can be both religious and scientific. 1.23 1.23 0.00It is equally important for a person to havescientific knowledge and an appreciation for thearts. 1.38 1.46 0.08Scientific knowledge is useful for only a few peo-ple. R 1.38 0.54 -0.85Scientific knowledge is useful in keeping our na-tional economy competitive in today’s world. 1.31 1.38 0.08Scientific research is generally very important. 1.38 1.46 0.08Women are welcome in science just as much asmen are. 1.08 0.85 -0.23African Americans and other minority peopleare just as welcome in the scientific communityas are white men. 1.00 1.00 0.00Science can contribute to our appreciation andexperience of beauty. 1.46 1.31 -0.15Even at the university level all students shouldstudy at least some science. 0.62 0.92 0.31Science is our best source of useful knowledge. 0.54 1.00 0.46Human emotion plays no part in the creationof scientific knowledge. -0.08 -0.08 0.00Scientific explanations tend to spoil the beautyof nature. R 1.31 1.15 -0.15
Continued on next page able 3 – continued from previous pageTSSI Prompt Reverse Pre-Course Post-Course ∆ Polarity Average Average
There are many good things we can do todaybecause of scientific knowledge. 1.54 1.31 -0.23Most people really do not need to know verymuch science. R 0.92 0.69 -0.23The scientific community is mostly dominatedby white men and is often unfriendly to minor-ity people. R 0.23 -0.23 -0.46Scientific knowledge is useful. 1.69 1.15 -0.54The methods of science are objective. 0.31 0.69 0.38Science can help us preserve our natural envi-ronment and natural resources. 1.62 1.46 -0.15Only a very few people really understand sci-ence. R 0.69 0.31 -0.38Scientific knowledge tends to erode spiritualvalues. R 0.46 0.23 -0.23Understanding science is a good thing for ev-eryone. 1.54 1.38 -0.15
Overall average 0.63 0.70 0.07( p = 0 . ) eferences Jonathan Adams. Collaborations: The fourth age of research.
Nature , 497:557–560, 2013. ISSN1476-4687. doi: 10.1038/497557a. URL .James A. Banks and Cherry A. McGee Banks.
Multicultural Education: Issues and Perspectives .John Wiley & Sons, 2010. ISBN 978-0-470-48328-2.Derek Bell. Making science inclusive: Providing effective learning opportunities for childrenwith learning difficulties.
Support for Learning , 17(4):156–161, 2002. ISSN 1467-9604.doi: 10.1111/1467-9604.00258. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9604.00258 .Nancy W. Brickhouse and Jennifer T. Potter. Young women’s scientific identity formation inan urban context.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 38(8):965–980, 2001. ISSN 1098-2736. doi: 10.1002/tea.1041. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/tea.1041 .Bryan A. Brown. The politics of public discourse: Discourse, identity and african-americans inscience education.
Negro Educational Review, The , 56:205–220, 2005. ISSN 0548-1457.Heidi Carlone and Angela Johnson. Understanding the science experiences of women of color:Science identity as an analytic lens.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 44:1187–1218,2007. doi: 10.1002/tea.20237.William W. Cobern. Worldview theory and conceptual change in science education.
ScienceEducation , 80(5):579–610, 1996. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/%28SICI%291098-237X%28199609%2980%3A5%3C579%3A%3AAID-SCE5%3E3.0.CO%3B2-8 .William W Cobern.
The Thinking about Science Survey Instrument (TSSI): An Instrument forthe Quantitative Study of Socio-Cultural Sources of Support and Resistance to Science . ScientificLiteracy and Cultural Studies Project, 2000. URL .National Research Council.
How People learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: ExpandedEdition . National Academies Press, 2000.National Research Council.
Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in GradesK-8 . National Academies Press, 2007.National Research Council.
Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pur-suits . National Academies Press, 2009.Lisa Delpit. The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children.
Harvard Educational Review , 58(3):280–299, 1988. ISSN 0017-8055. doi: 10.17763/haer.58.3.c43481778r528qw4.L. D. Fink.
Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing CollegeCourses . John Wiley & Sons, 2013.Shaun R. Harper and Stephen John Quaye.
Student Engagement in Higher Education: TheoreticalPerspectives and Practical Approaches for Diverse Populations . Routledge, 2009. ISBN 978-0-415-98850-6. 16hristine Hockings.
Inclusive Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: A Synthesis of Research .York: Higher Education Academy, 2010.Chris S. Hulleman and Judith M. Harackiewicz. Promoting interest and performance in highschool science classes.
Science , 326(5958):1410–1412, 2009. ISSN 0036-8075, 1095-9203. doi:10.1126/science.1177067. URL https://science.sciencemag.org/content/326/5958/1410 .D. R. Krathwohl, B. S. Bloom, and B. B. Masia.
Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Book II:Affective Domain.
David McKay Company, Inc, 1964.Katherine Norman, Dana Caseau, and Greg P. Stefanich. Teaching students with disabilities ininclusive science classrooms: Survey results.
Science Education , 82(2):127–146, 1998. ISSN1098-237X. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199804)82:2 (cid:104) (cid:105)
AIP Conference Proceedings , volume 790, pages 61–64. AIP, 2005.Edward E. Prather, Alexander L. Rudolph, and Gina Brissenden. Teaching and learning astronomyin the 21st century.
Physics Today , 62(10):41–47, 2009a.Edward E. Prather, Alexander L. Rudolph, Gina Brissenden, and Wayne M. Schlingman. A na-tional study assessing the teaching and learning of introductory astronomy. part i: The effect ofinteractive instruction.
American Journal of Physics , 77(4):320–330, 2009b.John M. Reveles and Bryan A. Brown. Contextual shifting: Teachers emphasizing students’ aca-demic identity to promote scientific literacy.
Science Education , 92(6):1015–1041, 2008.Anita Roychoudhury, Debora J. Tippins, and Sharon E. Nichols. Gender-inclusive science teaching:A feminist-constructivist approach.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 32(9):897–924,1995. ISSN 1098-2736. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660320904.Alexander L. Rudolph, Edward E. Prather, Gina Brissenden, David Consiglio, and Vicente Gon-zaga. A national study assessing the teaching and learning of introductory astronomy. part ii:The connection between student demographics and learning.
Astronomy Education Review , 9(1):010107, 2010.Elaine Seymour and Nancy Hewitt.
Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences .Westview Press, 1997.Beckie Supiano. Traditional teaching may deepen inequality. can a different approach fix it?
Chron-icle of Higher Education , 2018.Kimberly D. Tanner. Structure matters: Twenty-one teaching strategies to promote student en-gagement and cultivate classroom equity.
CBE: Life Sciences Education , 12(3):322–331, 2013.Colin S. Wallace, Edward E. Prather, and Benjamin M. Mendelsohn. Astro 101 students’ per-ceptions of science: Results from the thinking about science survey instrument.
AstronomyEducation Review , 12(1), 2013.Molly Weinburgh. Preparing gender inclusive science teachers: Suggestions from the literature.
Journal of Science Teacher Education , 6(2):102–107, 1995. ISSN 1573-1847. doi: 10.1007/BF02614596. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02614596https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02614596