I appreciate the spirit of these past two articles, but the full realization of it seems impossible. Some examples:
(a) nowhere in my program or campus objectives do we require to communicate in English, but that is a tacit requirement in all of our courses
(b) in my digital design (logic circuit) class, it is difficult to imagine that a visually impaired student could be successful, primarily because the simulator software we use involves many small, multi-colored lines and symbols. Providing a student the alternative of, for example, drawing circuits larger by hand reduces one barrier but adds others such as increased time and the inability to run a simulation
(c) students with overbearing extracurricular commitments come to lab with more distractions and less mental energy than other students--they are at a disadvantage in accomplishing lab tasks in a 2-hour period (so offer them extra lab time, right? I do, but then we run into the issue of them not having the time to come in)
(d) "Structure is helpful; rigidity is not." But the end of the semester has a fixed date.
I really don't intend this as complaining. I intend it as "I want to improve my students' learning experiences, but need help getting there."
Do you consider this goal of equity as something that is achievable? Or more of an aspirational goal?
Not to speak for David, but I wanted to jump in since this is a really good and important question.
I view the goal of equity as "asymptotic" rather than "aspirational". Meaning, we do what we can with what we've got to make classes as equitable as possible. We'll never make it to 100% on this and there will always be roadblocks, if nothing else due to our own inherent biases. But we take incremental steps over time to get there.
Example: Your point (a) is well taken, we have a de facto official language in (most) American universities, English. Ideally, we would accommodate a student with poor English skills by offering parallel courses in their primary language. Probably that ideal is beyond the reach of a lot of institutions right now. So instead, we can make sure to write in plain language when appropriate - there are actually great guidelines for this at https://www.plainlanguage.gov/ -- which is a small step that helps all students, not just the non-native English speakers.
Example: The end of the semester does have a fixed date and that's a part of the hard landscape that we can't change (or, it's not obvious how that can be easily changed). So instead, we clearly communicate all the hard deadlines in the course and provide structure to help all students navigate those rigidities that aren't going to go away -- and make sure not to make things worse, at least, by adding unnecessary rigidity.
So it's about those small, incremental steps that we can do for cheap or for free that have an outsized positive impact for our students.
These are good questions, and I agree with Robert's points too. Here are a few thoughts:
Trying to make classes more equitable is certainly aspirational, but "aspirational" is not an excuse for not trying (I'm not saying you're not trying, but I do hear this sort of excuse from other people). Rather, I mean that there is no such thing as perfect equity. There are always going to be new situations that come up; things you didn't consider; things that are out of your control. But it's critical to make a genuine effort, even the hard parts, even when the result isn't perfect. That's the aspirational part. That also isn't to say that you need to make things incredibly hard on yourself. In many cases, there are simple ways to avoid inequitable choices, but you have to be aware of them first.
The point you raise about a visually impaired student in a digital design class is really important, regardless of assessment system. If such a student enrolled in your digital design class, they would almost certainly come with an accommodation letter from your disability services office and you would need to make reasonable accommodations anyhow. It's something that's worth thinking about now, because it (or something like it) is likely to happen. (Perhaps the simulator plays well with screen readers / magnifiers, for example.) It's also worth mentioning that "equity" is not "equality": Students don't need to do exactly the same things in exactly the same ways; they do need to have access to equal opportunities for learning. But those opportunities can come in different ways to accommodate different students' needs.
Thinking about students who overload themselves with voluntary extracurricular activities... this is a very different situation, because that is their choice. It could be something to talk about with them, in terms of how to make good choices and manage time, but it's not a place where you need to make accommodations, and not an issue of equity (as far as I can see). Compare that situation to a student who has carefully arranged work and family responsibilities so that they can attend class and have sufficient out-of-class time for the standard workload. But, that out-of-class time is arranged to fit their schedule, not yours. They may not be able to rearrange to accommodate, say, attending an evening lecture for extra credit. That's not to say that evening lectures are right off the table, but rather that there need to be other options as well (again, equity, not equality). Otherwise you're benefitting not just students who have extra time, but students who have the freedom to rearrange that extra time.
"The end of the semester has a fixed date." True! This is unavoidable. But (almost?) all other dates are in your control. That makes it especially important to be really clear about which due dates are set in stone, and which are flexible. I don't usually have trouble with this even when I let students change due-dates freely; students definitely understand that the end of the semester is outside of any of our control.
Again, thanks for these questions. I hope my thoughts here are helpful. Working towards equity is (1) not easy, and (2) never finished, but it is worth doing.
(Apologies for the delayed response... I was road-tripping with the family, which included passing through Grand Rapids--cool town!).
Thank you both for the thorough responses. I like the phrase "asymptotic" and will use that to structure my thinking around this issue. It nicely summarizes that (a) you can always do something to improve, (b) you will never reach an end point, and (c) certain steps will be larger than others (and hopefully you can complete those first).
This has been much more encouraging to me than the workshop I attended which made the point that my classes will never be equitable because I am a white male. That actually may be true, but it's the gap from the asymptote that I'll never be able to close.
Thanks Cody. By the way, tell the other workshop's facilitator that telling a subset of their participants that they will never succeed at something is sort of the *opposite* of what we're trying to do in higher ed.
I love "Structure is helpful; rigidity is not." May I borrow it?
This is a very clear and helpful examination of how behaviors find their way into grades and how inequitable and inaccurate the resultant grades are.
Of course, part of the reason I approve is that what is written here is completely in line with the first six of my fifteen fixes for broken grades that have just been updated in a new edition of my "Repair Kit."
I appreciate the spirit of these past two articles, but the full realization of it seems impossible. Some examples:
(a) nowhere in my program or campus objectives do we require to communicate in English, but that is a tacit requirement in all of our courses
(b) in my digital design (logic circuit) class, it is difficult to imagine that a visually impaired student could be successful, primarily because the simulator software we use involves many small, multi-colored lines and symbols. Providing a student the alternative of, for example, drawing circuits larger by hand reduces one barrier but adds others such as increased time and the inability to run a simulation
(c) students with overbearing extracurricular commitments come to lab with more distractions and less mental energy than other students--they are at a disadvantage in accomplishing lab tasks in a 2-hour period (so offer them extra lab time, right? I do, but then we run into the issue of them not having the time to come in)
(d) "Structure is helpful; rigidity is not." But the end of the semester has a fixed date.
I really don't intend this as complaining. I intend it as "I want to improve my students' learning experiences, but need help getting there."
Do you consider this goal of equity as something that is achievable? Or more of an aspirational goal?
Not to speak for David, but I wanted to jump in since this is a really good and important question.
I view the goal of equity as "asymptotic" rather than "aspirational". Meaning, we do what we can with what we've got to make classes as equitable as possible. We'll never make it to 100% on this and there will always be roadblocks, if nothing else due to our own inherent biases. But we take incremental steps over time to get there.
Example: Your point (a) is well taken, we have a de facto official language in (most) American universities, English. Ideally, we would accommodate a student with poor English skills by offering parallel courses in their primary language. Probably that ideal is beyond the reach of a lot of institutions right now. So instead, we can make sure to write in plain language when appropriate - there are actually great guidelines for this at https://www.plainlanguage.gov/ -- which is a small step that helps all students, not just the non-native English speakers.
Example: The end of the semester does have a fixed date and that's a part of the hard landscape that we can't change (or, it's not obvious how that can be easily changed). So instead, we clearly communicate all the hard deadlines in the course and provide structure to help all students navigate those rigidities that aren't going to go away -- and make sure not to make things worse, at least, by adding unnecessary rigidity.
So it's about those small, incremental steps that we can do for cheap or for free that have an outsized positive impact for our students.
These are good questions, and I agree with Robert's points too. Here are a few thoughts:
Trying to make classes more equitable is certainly aspirational, but "aspirational" is not an excuse for not trying (I'm not saying you're not trying, but I do hear this sort of excuse from other people). Rather, I mean that there is no such thing as perfect equity. There are always going to be new situations that come up; things you didn't consider; things that are out of your control. But it's critical to make a genuine effort, even the hard parts, even when the result isn't perfect. That's the aspirational part. That also isn't to say that you need to make things incredibly hard on yourself. In many cases, there are simple ways to avoid inequitable choices, but you have to be aware of them first.
The point you raise about a visually impaired student in a digital design class is really important, regardless of assessment system. If such a student enrolled in your digital design class, they would almost certainly come with an accommodation letter from your disability services office and you would need to make reasonable accommodations anyhow. It's something that's worth thinking about now, because it (or something like it) is likely to happen. (Perhaps the simulator plays well with screen readers / magnifiers, for example.) It's also worth mentioning that "equity" is not "equality": Students don't need to do exactly the same things in exactly the same ways; they do need to have access to equal opportunities for learning. But those opportunities can come in different ways to accommodate different students' needs.
Thinking about students who overload themselves with voluntary extracurricular activities... this is a very different situation, because that is their choice. It could be something to talk about with them, in terms of how to make good choices and manage time, but it's not a place where you need to make accommodations, and not an issue of equity (as far as I can see). Compare that situation to a student who has carefully arranged work and family responsibilities so that they can attend class and have sufficient out-of-class time for the standard workload. But, that out-of-class time is arranged to fit their schedule, not yours. They may not be able to rearrange to accommodate, say, attending an evening lecture for extra credit. That's not to say that evening lectures are right off the table, but rather that there need to be other options as well (again, equity, not equality). Otherwise you're benefitting not just students who have extra time, but students who have the freedom to rearrange that extra time.
"The end of the semester has a fixed date." True! This is unavoidable. But (almost?) all other dates are in your control. That makes it especially important to be really clear about which due dates are set in stone, and which are flexible. I don't usually have trouble with this even when I let students change due-dates freely; students definitely understand that the end of the semester is outside of any of our control.
Again, thanks for these questions. I hope my thoughts here are helpful. Working towards equity is (1) not easy, and (2) never finished, but it is worth doing.
(Apologies for the delayed response... I was road-tripping with the family, which included passing through Grand Rapids--cool town!).
Thank you both for the thorough responses. I like the phrase "asymptotic" and will use that to structure my thinking around this issue. It nicely summarizes that (a) you can always do something to improve, (b) you will never reach an end point, and (c) certain steps will be larger than others (and hopefully you can complete those first).
This has been much more encouraging to me than the workshop I attended which made the point that my classes will never be equitable because I am a white male. That actually may be true, but it's the gap from the asymptote that I'll never be able to close.
Thanks Cody. By the way, tell the other workshop's facilitator that telling a subset of their participants that they will never succeed at something is sort of the *opposite* of what we're trying to do in higher ed.
I love "Structure is helpful; rigidity is not." May I borrow it?
This is a very clear and helpful examination of how behaviors find their way into grades and how inequitable and inaccurate the resultant grades are.
Of course, part of the reason I approve is that what is written here is completely in line with the first six of my fifteen fixes for broken grades that have just been updated in a new edition of my "Repair Kit."
Hi Ken, feel free to use "Structure is helpful; rigidity is not"!