How Can We Prepare Teachers for Increasingly (Culturally) Diverse Classrooms?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OVERVIEW OF WORKSHOPA goal at many engineering institutes is to attract more diverse students. An important aspect of increased diversity is inclusion and integration into the classroom and university. However, teachers are seldom prepared for the changing student group that this implies and yet they are crucial actors in the successful integration of these students into both the formal and informal curriculum. The first stage of the workshop will set the stage by comparing diversity goals in the participants’ institutional settings and sharing examples of how they are being achieved. In the second stage, the workshop will assist participants to formulate their own activities for the diverse classroom, using activities partly taken from a faculty course in Diversity and inclusion in learning in higher education being taught at Chalmers University of Technology. By the end of the workshop, participants will have a toolkit of ideas to facilitate the diverse classroom, with a particular focus on cultural diversity and the international environments that our institutes have become. KEYWORDS(Culturally) diverse, inclusion, teachers, Standards: 9, 10DURATION120 minutesACTIVITIESPart 1: Setting the scene (approx. 30 mins)1) Share diversity goals at department and institution level2) Share examples of how these goals are being achievedIn this first part, participants are invited to share the diversity and inclusion goals at their own institutions and bring examples of how these goals are being realised. Diversity is defined in a broader context as including people with different and multiple characteristics. The examples might be in a variety of forms, from faculty focused initiatives such as professional training to student focused initiatives such as program/ course goals and activities in and outside the classroom. The workshop facilitators will share their own examples of a faculty training course in diversity and program / course interventions for students. Examples will be collected and shared with the participants afterwards. Part 2: Teaching in the (culturally) diverse classroom (approx. 90 mins)1) A brief presentation of existing activities teachers have employed at Chalmers university in the course “Diversity and inclusion for learning in higher education”2) Exploring different activities together for inclusion in the culturally diverse classroom3) Final reflection regarding the relevance to your own context / institutionPart 2 will start with a brief presentation of the results of a survey sent out to teachers participating in a faculty course in diversity. In this survey, teachers were asked to describe the activities that they have used to facilitate the diversity in their classrooms, a follow-up to the final assignment in the course where they were asked to plan these activities. The workshop will then continue by working with some activities together which the facilitators have used in the culturally diverse or international classroom. Three examples of such activities are the cultural star, the fishbowl and the 360 model. The first activity functions as an icebreaker /getting-to-know-you activity. The second encourages empathy and the third is used to reflect on group dynamics at the start of a project. Finally, participants will put together their own reflections for activities that they might use in their own contexts.TARGET AUDIENCEAnyone involved in engineering education including teachers, administration, management and interested in issues of diversity, inclusion and equity.Background knowledge: No prior knowledge of diversity work requiredOUTCOMESBy the end of the workshop, participants will have a toolkit of ideas to facilitate the (culturally) diverse classroom which is applicable to their own institutional setting. This toolkit will include finding out about student diversity at the start of the course (both for the teacher and for the student); working with constructive alignment and diversity; group forming and the motivationbehind that. REFERENCESBergman, B., Norman, A., Carlsson, C., Nåfors, D., & Skoogh, A. (2017, June). Forming effective culturally diverse work teams in project courses. In Proceedings of the 13th International CDIO Conference, Calgary, AB, Canada (pp. 18-22).Rienties, B., Luchoomun, D., & Tempelaar, D. (2014). Academic and social integration of Master students: a cross-institutional comparison between Dutch and international students. Innovations in education and teaching international, 51(2), 130-141Spencer-Oatey, H., & Dauber, D. (2019). What is integration and why is it important for internationalization? A multidisciplinary review. Journal of studies in international education, 23(5), 515-534.BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATIONBecky Bergman is a senior lecturer at Chalmers University of Technology, Department of Communication and Learning in Science, Gothenburg, Sweden, where she works with intercultural communication and diversity with both students and staff. She is also a PhD candidate at the same university where her main research interests are intercultural communication, internationalisation at home and intercultural group work. She is examiner for a faculty course “Diversity and Inclusion for Learning in Higher Education”.Lena Peterson is a senior lecturer in electronic circuit design at Chalmers University of Technology, Department of Computer Science and Engineering. She has held various management positions related to education and teaches three courses in the master’s programme “Embedded Electronic System Design” among which is a half-term project course. She has cooperated with Becky Bergman in the course “Diversity and Inclusion for Learning in Higher Education”.Corresponding authorBecky BergmanChalmers University of TechnologyDepartment of Communication and Learning in ScienceHörsalsvägen 2, 412 96 Göteborg, Swedenbecky@chalmers.se
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".