Evaluating Pedagogical Choices with an Inclusive Approach

by Nicole Dalzell

The beginning of a new academic term requires us, as educators, to make decisions about our courses. How will we engage the students? How will we present material and support student learning? These design decisions define students’ experiences in our courses, and they also impact our grading, prep, and how we interact with students. Design decisions are also opportunities for us to create and sustain inclusive classrooms that welcome and support every student. In this blog post, I will discuss a framework for evaluating design decisions in terms of inclusivity. 

The Framework

The framework involves three key questions:

1. What student needs are and are not supported by this design decision?
2. How can we adapt to reflect student needs not supported by the initial design?  
3. Is applying this design decision sustainable for both me and the students?

Design Decision

The first two questions in the framework ask us to reflect on how a design decision impacts our students. Answering these questions may initially seem straightforward, but generally, it is not. We teach students who are diverse in a variety of ways and taking time to reflect on this can help us make choices that support the many student identities in our classrooms.

To illustrate this, consider the following design decision. To help my students learn to code, I am designing what I call Code Challenges, quick 5- to 10-minute quizzes at the beginning of class where the students debug a piece of a written code or explain what a code does. The purpose of the Challenge is to give students practice interpreting and debugging code, as well as allow both me and them to see how they are progressing with the material.

What student needs are and are not supported by this design decision?

With the design decision established, we move to the first question of the framework and consider student needs. Students who benefit from frequent practice and the opportunity to apply what they are learning should benefit from the design decision. As the quizzes are timed and in class, students who test well would also be supported by this decision.

However, students who do not thrive on one-time graded assessments are not supported by this decision. Rather than encouraging students to practice as desired, the decision introduces additional stress and potential negative grade impacts for these students. If the Challenges are printed, this introduces a barrier for students who need to use computers to access the quiz, for example to enlarge the text or use a screen reader. Having the Challenges at the beginning of class is a barrier for students who need flexible attendance, including students with medical needs, students who care for a family member, and so on.

How can we adapt to reflect student needs not supported by the initial design?

Once we have identified the student needs that are not supported by the design decision, the next step is to reflect on how we might adapt. We have found that clearly identifying which student needs are not being met makes it easier to intentionally adapt the design decision and support more student identities and needs. In our example, we adapt the design decision as follows:

• One-time testing adaptation: Coding Challenges will be graded on completion rather than correctness. Challenges are two-sided, with both sides identical. The students do the Challenge on their own for the time allotted, and then they flip it over to the other side and we develop and discuss the solution as a class. 
• Format adaptation: For students who require or would prefer an alternative to pencil and paper, the Challenges are available online. These students email me their work to receive credit.
• Attendance adaptation: Students will have about 10 of these Code Challenges throughout the semester, and I will only count the top 5. This gives students a lot of flexibility if they miss class due to illness, personal needs, or anything else. If students miss more than 5, there is a note in the syllabus that the student can talk to me to schedule make-ups as needed.

Each of these adaptations is targeted to address a student need that was not supported by the initial design. 

Is applying this design decision sustainable for both me and the students?

So far, all our work has centered upon the students. The third question in the framework challenges us to consider if the design decision with our adaptations is sustainable. In other words, is this something that we and our students can reasonably keep up during the semester? As the semester progresses and becomes busier, we want to be able to sustain the inclusivity we are aiming for, so this third question is key. 

In terms of our example, the Code Challenges will require some work to create, but they are short and once they are built, they can be used again. Grading is very easy; the faculty or TA need only mark off which students completed the assignment. Knowing that we need to post assignments online means that we create them in a format that is easily shared online. No outside of class work is required from the students. This seems like a sustainable design decision, and the process is complete!

What if it isn’t sustainable?

In our example, the adaptations we considered in the second question were sustainable, but this is not always what happens when we hit the third question. For one of my courses, I designed four large projects to help students practice communicating both the results and process of statistical analyses with a data stakeholder. The projects were well received by a lot of students. However, when I applied the three-question framework, I realized in the first question that for students who had less experience with writing, or for whom communication was challenging, these high-stakes assignments were not inclusive. I moved on to the second question and considered the adaptation of allowing students to revise their projects after receiving feedback from me. However, when I got to the third question I realized the projects took hours to grade, and re-grading the second attempts of 60+ students would likely mean I was constantly behind and stressed.  

If the third question of the framework indicates a problem, head back to the second question. I had identified wanting to support students who would benefit from feedback and low-stakes opportunities to practice writing. Keeping these students in mind, I adapted my design decision by removing two of the four high-stakes projects. In between each of the two remaining projects, I assigned several short, one-paragraph write-ups which were graded on completion and were given heavy feedback. 

Example: Based on the information we collected so far, explain to a client in one paragraph whether you would recommend using OLS regression or K-nearest neighbors to best suit their goal of predicting Y and why.  

This adaptation allowed me to provide feedback in a more sustainable way. Students can practice writing and get feedback on my expectations before completing any high-stakes projects, rather than revising after the projects are complete.

It’s a process

I have found the three-question framework to be a useful tool for reflecting on the inclusivity of my teaching. However, even with this process it can be intimidating to try to think of every possible student identity we may have in our classrooms, and our students change every semester. 

One tool I have found useful is an open form (like Google Forms) where I invite students to share thoughts on what might make the course experience work better for them. When I present the Form, I emphasize that I really want our course to be a space where everyone feels welcome and able to do their best work. If there is anything that might help make that a reality, please let me know so I can consider it. Students can comment anonymously or share their names, as they prefer, and the form stays open all semester. I had one student, for instance, who shared that for their needs, it was very stressful not to know a seat near the door would always be open to them; would it be possible to reserve a seat by the door? Certainly!! This aspect of allowing students to choose their own seats is not something I had considered in the second question of the framework, but by adding the Google Form, the student was able to direct my attention to this need and even suggest a fix. 

I encourage you to think of inclusive teaching as a process. The goal of the three-question framework is to help us reflect on the choices we are making as educators as we work towards supporting every student.

---

Collaborators:

• Allison Theobold, PhD, Assistant Professor at California Polytechnic University
• Zoe Rehnberg, PhD, Assistant Professor at California Polytechnic University

---