On the comprehensive forensic analysis of the equity-minded classroom

Abstract

As institutions of higher education continue to invest in helping instructors cultivate equity-minded classrooms, interest has grown in the adaptation and improvement of current assessment structures to better reflect equity-mindedness. There are two questions that present both a challenge and an opportunity for how we collectively consider assessment design. These are (a) how do we define what an equity-minded classroom is (structures, roles, strategies)?, and (b) what constitutes success when it is implemented? I define equity-minded teaching as a variation of what has been described by Artze-Vega et al.¹ It is an approach to course design that supports students from their current state of readiness, leading them to a place where they clearly see their potential. This mindset means that instructors must possess skills that transcend subject matter expertise, and design into their pedagogies mechanisms to cultivate and sustain intrinsic motivation. What is considered a successful outcome from a teaching approach that reflects this view is therefore more complex. Traditionally, discussions of assessment of college teaching, even with approaches labeled as inclusive, still focus narrowly on mechanisms associated with grading content, or whether grading should happen at all. While this is a useful conversation, it still reduces the ways in which we conceive the value of the course experience to the measurement of only one of its stakeholders. Defining what constitutes a successful experience makes clear the specific things that need to be interrogated in order for the experience to get closer to the transformative potential it hopes to attain.

In 10 years of conducting professional development on equity-minded teaching I have been privileged to commune with faculty who largely have beautiful, civically minded visions for who they want their students to become. When appropriately pressed, instructors articulate goals for students beyond intellectual growth. They espouse grand visions for their students to become engaged voters, morally driven community members, and critically conscious citizens who are able to transfer classroom cultivated skills to behaviors associated with engaged participants in an evolving democracy. Knowing if these lofty goals are dutifully addressed in the present however, requires assessment mechanisms that do more than measure how well students understand subject matter.

For traditional views of classroom instruction this may be a challenging paradigm. The conservative model of college pedagogy, even in ‘active’ scenarios' centers the instructor as the sole center of power. Through this lens, their adjudication and purview constitute all that is deemed worthy of how students show themselves in their own journeys toward academic excellence. A more dialogic view² of the classroom experience makes clear that success depends on student engagement, but also, the ways in which we as instructors show up pedagogically. For instructors, this refers to the mechanics of curriculum design, strategies used to foster a respectful classroom climate, and the how we cultivate intrinsic motivation. More broadly, success may also be impacted by other contextual factors beyond instructor and students including the physical classroom design and layout, and the institutional support for excellence for both student and instructor. In other words, if we were to suppose that success requires both instructor and student to be their best selves, then assessment of success will have to interrogate factors that impact both sets of actors.

The first question may not be as simple to answer as it appears. In traditional mindsets success might be measured by a grade distribution of some sort, and the nature of that distribution might depend on the degree to which the instructor sets up their course as a gatekeeper for future courses.³ An equity-minded mindset brings up questions about the degree to which the instructor was able to create an environment that gave the students an opportunity to be at their best. This includes fostering a sense of belonging and building community. A comprehensive approach to course analysis means that measures (such as sense of community surveys [e.g., Rovai⁴] and reflection assignments [e.g., Walton and Cohen⁵]) must be in place to capture the human dimension⁶ impacts of the course as well. A comprehensive examination of the course also means identifying specific features of the most recent implementation that perhaps were not successful. For example, if 80% of the class answered a particular question incorrectly on an exam, it does not automatically mean that 80% of the class did not understand the concept. It is entirely possible that the question was written in a way that did not reliably measure understanding. Working on future versions of the course would require revisiting assessments and conducting item analyses to ensure that they do in fact measure what the instructor intends.⁷ A comprehensive analysis may also unearth more systemic issues that require follow-up. If for example it is apparent that some students' study approaches were not setting them up for success, then, for future classes, an instructor would need to figure out how and where students would learn the specifics of more metacognitive approaches to studying. The solution to this specific problem can range from incorporating specific ‘how to study’ modules within the course itself or collaborating with other entities such as first-year experience courses and student success centers to ensure that the students have that support.⁸ Enacting changes that require stitching together a network of services typically transcends the bandwidth of a single instructor, and is best done in consultation and collaboration with support of peers, departmental leadership and the local Center for Teaching Excellence (CTE).

Two key underlying components of this conceptualization are (a) admitting that our own pedagogical decisions are crucial to the degree of success attained and (b) committing to doing the work to improve upon our methods so that the course's next iteration better embodies the equity-mindedness we seek. While this reflective component of equity-minded pedagogy is somewhat implied in how inclusive teaching is discussed, making this process explicit is yet to become central to how higher education conceives of the traditional course cycle. These questions constitute a full forensic analysis of how an equity-minded instructor would interrogate a course experience. Thoughtfully applied, it can achieve several things. First, it does not assume deficit on either the part of the student or the instructor. It acknowledges both actors as agents in a complex system, both of whom need support and are imperfect but willing in how they show themselves to the experience. Second, it provides instructors, as key stakeholders, with a way to construct a specific pathway on how they might approach their course differently in a future iteration. Third, by privileging a definition of success that transcends content, it broadens the paradigm on how the outcomes of a college course are conceptualized, in ways that incorporates the social outcomes (sense of community, belongingness) equity-minded instructors purport to desire. Overall, they push the argument of defining college course success beyond simply measuring students.

As students journey from their current state of readiness toward their true potential, the pedagogies instructors employ are critical to the success of that journey. As we seek to collectively transition to a more equity-minded approach to our classrooms, current assessment models need to adopt a more forensic structure that allows us the humility to interrogate the ways in which we construct that experience. A forensic approach is one where we broaden those lenses, and acknowledge our critical role in that construction, but also identifies future opportunities to employ and implement with high fidelity approaches that more and more allow students to envision and live in their true potential.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.