Creating accessible and accepting STEM classrooms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of disabled students enrolled in post-secondary programs in Canada is on an alarming rise. Self-reported data of first-year undergraduate students indicates that rates increased from 24% in 2019 to 31% in 2022.1,2 Despite the growing need, budget lines to support these students are not growing proportionately. Further, the current system of accommodation is based on the outdated and paternalistic medical model of disability.3 While the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act guarantees an accessible education for all Ontarians, disabled university students must negotiate an uneven and often inequitable experience across multiple ‘microclimates of access’ created by different instructors.4,5 These microclimates can range from welcoming to dismissive to openly hostile.5 While acknowledging that what is really required is system-wide change, this workshop aims to leverage a community of practice to develop a shared vision for STEM classrooms that are more accessible and accepting of disabled students.6,7 This will be accomplished via interactive activities, during which we will invite the audience to consider the lived experience of both students and instructors, as they navigate an system that is too often inaccessible to disabled students. The activities will rely on the lived experiences and perspectives of students with disabilities. We hope that this workshop will demonstrate the barriers faced by disabled students, and the costs (academic, financial and health) that come with each barrier. Please bring your phone, laptop or tablet to access the online interactive surverys! Canadian University Survey Consortium. (2019). 2019 First Year Students Survey Master Report: June 2019. Canadian University Survey Consortium. https://cusc-ccreu.ca/wordpress/?page_id=32&lang=en Canadian University Survey Consortium. (2022). 2022 First Year Students Survey Master Report: June 2022. Canadian University Survey Consortium. https://cusc-ccreu.ca/wordpress/?page_id=32&lang=en Olkin, R. (2022). Conceptualizing disability: Three models of disability. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/psychology-teacher-network/introductory-psychology/disability-models Accessibility for Ontarians With Disabilities Act, 2005, SO 2005, c 11, <https://canlii.ca/t/52pzh> retrieved on 2024-01-01 Parizeau, K. (2022). Uneven Learning Landscapes Ahead: Instructor Perspectives on Undergraduate Student Mental Health. Canadian Journal of Higher Education/Revue canadienne d'enseignement supérieur, 52(2): 67–80. https://doi.org/10.47678/cjhe.v52i2.189391 Reinholz, D. L., White, I., & Andrews, T. (2021). Change theory in STEM higher education: a systematic review. International Journal of STEM Education, 8 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00291-2 Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 952–984. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20439 Meyers, S., Rowell, K., Wells, M., & Smith, B. C. (2019). Teacher Empathy: A Model of Empathy for Teaching for Student Success. College Teaching, 67(3), 160–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2019.1579699
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".