A student panel of eight members from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute Inclusive Excellence Student Advisory Council fielded questions from a room of faculty about how to promote inclusivity in STEM courses Friday morning.
Although in February HHMI pulled their inclusive excellence grant, which funds the council, much of the council’s programming remains intact, according to chemistry Prof. Stephanie Knezz.
Knezz noted the importance of quality instruction and said there are currently few incentives for STEM professors to improve their pedagogy.
“To become a professor in STEM, you actually don’t have to take any formal training on how to teach,” said Knezz. “And if you’re on the tenure track, throughout your career, you are discouraged from teaching in many cases.”
The panel, held in Ryan Hall, offered a rare opportunity for students to engage in a two-way conversation with faculty where they could voice their opinions on what instructional methods they find most effective and harmful in STEM courses.
It was structured into three sections, starting with a moderated conversation where students answered pre-selected questions relating to their experiences in introductory courses, one-on-one interactions with professors, grading policies and preferred teaching methods.
The students first discussed the topic of some introductory STEM courses being seen as intended to “weed people out,” and how they feel this perception could be adjusted.
“I think it starts from an instructor assuming that everyone has a strong foundation in the subject,” Weinberg junior Sia Salwan said. “In combating this, even just the professor saying ‘I understand this content can be hard initially,’ can really go a long way.”
Students also emphasized the importance of community building in a STEM environment, as they felt that large lecture halls can be alienating — especially for first-years. Weinberg senior Audrey Zhou, who currently serves as an undergraduate teaching assistant, said that discussion sections are a productive and underutilized way to cultivate this community.
“Discussion sections sometimes feel like they’re not worth your time,” Zhou said. “There’s not always a lot of engagement, but clearly setting a goal or intention at the beginning of the quarter could really help. There are lots of different ways that time could be utilized.”
The panelists discussed that it can often feel less intimidating to ask questions to teaching assistants than professors, and that discussion sections can feel like a more comfortable place to clear up confusions.
Weinberg junior Lauren Tan said it is important for professors to cultivate a classroom environment where students are encouraged to learn for the “sake of learning” rather than a letter grade. One way professors can do this, she said, is by allowing test corrections.
“I’m a big believer in learning through failure,” Tan said. “I think test corrections are a really good way to encourage that kind of learning.”
After the students delivered comments, the focus shifted toward the faculty. Students directed several questions toward the professors in the audience, including how to quantify a successful class, their goals for discussion sections and how to thoughtfully include relevant historical context within STEM lessons.
Shortly thereafter, the event concluded with an informal Q&A between students and faculty. The conversation carried on in the hallway, as panelists and professors continued sharing their insights over coffee and donuts in the lobby.
“It really helps when it feels like the professor has a stake in how we’re doing,” Tan said. “Not only to foster engagement in the class, but that also helps discourage the idea that your grade is just an end goal that your learning is facilitating.”
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Related Stories:
— Chemistry Prof. Stephanie Knezz champions inclusivity in STEM teaching
— NU’s AUC increases programming for Trump administration
— Professors of color devote time outside the classroom to mentoring students
