提高参与多样性、公平和包容倡议的自我效能:对教育、健康和人文科学学院为期七天的沉浸式试点项目的评估

Jennifer M. Jabson Tree, Stefanie Benjamin, Dorian L. McCoy
{"title":"提高参与多样性、公平和包容倡议的自我效能:对教育、健康和人文科学学院为期七天的沉浸式试点项目的评估","authors":"Jennifer M. Jabson Tree,&nbsp;Stefanie Benjamin,&nbsp;Dorian L. McCoy","doi":"10.1002/dvr2.70021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Colleges of health, human sciences, and education are often administratively organized to include a diverse array of human sciences departments that share roots in social justice and a commitment to advancing equity and inclusion. Despite espoused commitments to equity and inclusion, they frequently struggle to achieve the changes necessary for advancing equity, and inclusion principles across policies, practices, procedures, and units. We implemented and evaluated a 7-day, total immersion, 56-h, educational program entitled the “Social Justice Institute” (SJI) for two cohorts of faculty, staff, and administrators to develop self-efficacy to intervene in systemic oppression in their academic units. SJI delivered focused content and exercises on structural oppression. A one-group, pre-, and post-survey no comparison process evaluation design was used to estimate the change in participants' quantitative self-efficacy. Cohort 1 included 14 and Cohort 2 included 15 participants (<i>N</i> = 29). Before attending SJI, participants' average self-efficacy score was 5.84 (SD = 0.76; Cohort 1) and 5.83 (SD = 0.37; Cohort 2), respectively. After attending the SJI, the self-efficacy average increased to 6.49 (SD = 1.19) and 6.46 (SD = 0.18) respectively. This is a 9%–10% average improvement in self-efficacy each year. Each cohort rated the quality of the SJI. Day 2 had the highest quality rating (mean = 4.75, SD = 0.45) (topic: sex, gender, sexism, and cissexism), with Day 3 receiving the lowest quality rating (mean = 3.75, SD = 0.97) (topic: race, racism, and whiteness). This evaluation provides preliminary evidence that an SJI may be one possible contribution to advancing self-efficacy for intervening in bias in higher education. Rigorous educational programs and evaluations must be implemented and conducted to advance strategies that support inclusion and diversity in higher education.</p>","PeriodicalId":100379,"journal":{"name":"Diversity & Inclusion Research","volume":"2 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/dvr2.70021","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Enhancing Self-Efficacy for Engagement With Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Initiatives: Evaluation of a Seven-Day Immersive Pilot Program in a College of Education, Health, and Human Sciences\",\"authors\":\"Jennifer M. Jabson Tree,&nbsp;Stefanie Benjamin,&nbsp;Dorian L. McCoy\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/dvr2.70021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Colleges of health, human sciences, and education are often administratively organized to include a diverse array of human sciences departments that share roots in social justice and a commitment to advancing equity and inclusion. Despite espoused commitments to equity and inclusion, they frequently struggle to achieve the changes necessary for advancing equity, and inclusion principles across policies, practices, procedures, and units. We implemented and evaluated a 7-day, total immersion, 56-h, educational program entitled the “Social Justice Institute” (SJI) for two cohorts of faculty, staff, and administrators to develop self-efficacy to intervene in systemic oppression in their academic units. SJI delivered focused content and exercises on structural oppression. A one-group, pre-, and post-survey no comparison process evaluation design was used to estimate the change in participants' quantitative self-efficacy. Cohort 1 included 14 and Cohort 2 included 15 participants (<i>N</i> = 29). Before attending SJI, participants' average self-efficacy score was 5.84 (SD = 0.76; Cohort 1) and 5.83 (SD = 0.37; Cohort 2), respectively. After attending the SJI, the self-efficacy average increased to 6.49 (SD = 1.19) and 6.46 (SD = 0.18) respectively. This is a 9%–10% average improvement in self-efficacy each year. Each cohort rated the quality of the SJI. Day 2 had the highest quality rating (mean = 4.75, SD = 0.45) (topic: sex, gender, sexism, and cissexism), with Day 3 receiving the lowest quality rating (mean = 3.75, SD = 0.97) (topic: race, racism, and whiteness). This evaluation provides preliminary evidence that an SJI may be one possible contribution to advancing self-efficacy for intervening in bias in higher education. Rigorous educational programs and evaluations must be implemented and conducted to advance strategies that support inclusion and diversity in higher education.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100379,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diversity & Inclusion Research\",\"volume\":\"2 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/dvr2.70021\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diversity & Inclusion Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dvr2.70021\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diversity & Inclusion Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dvr2.70021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

卫生、人文科学和教育学院的行政组织通常包括各种各样的人文科学系,这些系都植根于社会正义,并致力于促进公平和包容。尽管支持公平和包容的承诺,但他们经常努力实现必要的变革,以促进政策、实践、程序和单位之间的公平和包容原则。我们实施并评估了一项名为“社会正义研究所”(SJI)的为期7天、56小时的全浸入式教育计划,旨在培养两组教师、职员和管理人员的自我效能感,以干预其学术单位的系统性压迫。SJI提供了关于结构性压迫的重点内容和练习。采用单组、调查前和调查后无比较过程评估设计来评估参与者定量自我效能感的变化。队列1包括14名参与者,队列2包括15名参与者(N = 29)。参加SJI前,参与者的平均自我效能得分为5.84分(SD = 0.76;队列1)和5.83 (SD = 0.37;队列2)。参加SJI后,自我效能感平均值分别上升至6.49 (SD = 1.19)和6.46 (SD = 0.18)。平均每年自我效能提升9%-10%。每个队列对SJI的质量进行评分。第2天的质量评分最高(平均= 4.75,SD = 0.45)(主题:性别、性别、性别歧视和顺性别歧视),第3天的质量评分最低(平均= 3.75,SD = 0.97)(主题:种族、种族主义和白人)。该评价提供了初步证据,表明SJI可能是提高自我效能感干预高等教育偏见的一个可能贡献。必须实施和实施严格的教育计划和评估,以推进支持高等教育包容性和多样性的战略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Enhancing Self-Efficacy for Engagement With Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Initiatives: Evaluation of a Seven-Day Immersive Pilot Program in a College of Education, Health, and Human Sciences

Colleges of health, human sciences, and education are often administratively organized to include a diverse array of human sciences departments that share roots in social justice and a commitment to advancing equity and inclusion. Despite espoused commitments to equity and inclusion, they frequently struggle to achieve the changes necessary for advancing equity, and inclusion principles across policies, practices, procedures, and units. We implemented and evaluated a 7-day, total immersion, 56-h, educational program entitled the “Social Justice Institute” (SJI) for two cohorts of faculty, staff, and administrators to develop self-efficacy to intervene in systemic oppression in their academic units. SJI delivered focused content and exercises on structural oppression. A one-group, pre-, and post-survey no comparison process evaluation design was used to estimate the change in participants' quantitative self-efficacy. Cohort 1 included 14 and Cohort 2 included 15 participants (N = 29). Before attending SJI, participants' average self-efficacy score was 5.84 (SD = 0.76; Cohort 1) and 5.83 (SD = 0.37; Cohort 2), respectively. After attending the SJI, the self-efficacy average increased to 6.49 (SD = 1.19) and 6.46 (SD = 0.18) respectively. This is a 9%–10% average improvement in self-efficacy each year. Each cohort rated the quality of the SJI. Day 2 had the highest quality rating (mean = 4.75, SD = 0.45) (topic: sex, gender, sexism, and cissexism), with Day 3 receiving the lowest quality rating (mean = 3.75, SD = 0.97) (topic: race, racism, and whiteness). This evaluation provides preliminary evidence that an SJI may be one possible contribution to advancing self-efficacy for intervening in bias in higher education. Rigorous educational programs and evaluations must be implemented and conducted to advance strategies that support inclusion and diversity in higher education.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信