When you think of an “inclusive” classroom, the first word that may not come to mind is “structure.” According to Kelly Hogan and Viji Sathy in Inclusive Teaching: Strategies for Promoting Equity in the College Classroom, this is one of the primary approaches to creating an inclusive classroom. Let me explain. In addition to discussing the importance of welcoming all types of students into the classroom and valuing their contributions, how you structure your class is paramount to inclusive teaching. What does this look like? It involves everything inside and outside of the classroom, from how the syllabus and online management are structured to how class time is structured. As they state, “inclusive teaching is a mindset.” As professors who value inclusive classrooms, we want all students the equal ability to succeed in the class, no matter their background.
It is especially important for Hogan and Sathy to employ inclusive teaching. They both teach in STEM fields, where students who cannot compete are “weeded out” and historically that affected minoritized students and women. The authors want a classroom and a field where all students have the tools to succeed. Much of their findings are based on experiences they had in the classroom, research done by other STEM professionals as well as research done by those studying inclusive teaching. Even though many of their examples come from STEM classes, as someone who has taught in the humanities for over 20 years, I find the information extremely relevant.
What is meant by inclusive teaching?
In Chapter One: Inclusive Teaching as a Mind-Set, before they discuss what inclusive teaching is, Sathy and Hogan outline definitions of diversity, equity, and inclusion” (p. 4). In brief, diversity refers to the ways students are similar and different, equity is having access to the same opportunities and inclusion describes “a culture in which all learners feel welcome, valued and safe and it requires intentional and deliberate strategies” (p. 5). Therein lies the ultimate goal: equity. Equity allows an equal chance for students to do well in whatever field they choose.
A path to equity shows up in how we use structure in our class. So how do we achieve this structure in our classes and what does that look like? There are variations on structure, and it involves low structure and high structure. The authors explain that low-structure courses have traditional lectures with only a few high-stakes assessments, such as 2 midterms and a final exam. On the other hand, highly structured courses
“assign daily and weekly active-learning exercises with the goal of providing constant practice with the analytical skills required to do well on exams” (p. 6-7). Of course, what is privileged here is the significance of highly structured courses because “[w]hen learning environments are unstructured, they can lead to feelings of unfairness, feelings of exclusion, and collisions of students’ cultural backgrounds with the learning environment” (p. 11).
Historically in the classroom, teaching college involved faculty experts who come in and offer the knowledge they have attained through years of research. Oftentimes, those who have PhDs and become faculty do not often think too much about how a class will be structured. Structure is often thought about with regards to the syllabus, for example, how will the readings be broken up over time. What day or week will we discuss Shakespeare’s Hamlet? Structure, writ large, involves the environment in and out of the classroom from the syllabus to where you offer office hours to what happens in class.
So, where does “diversity” come into play? Sathy and Hogan mention that inclusive teaching is not just adding readings from diverse scholars, although that is part of it. They say inclusive teaching does not need to be centered on the subject of diversity. Instead, “[i]nclusive teaching includes the intentional ways instructors interact with students, provide multiple opportunities to practice the work in the discipline and demonstrate care” (p. 13). In their text, diversity comes into play when we look at the multitude of learners that make up our classroom. For example, looking beyond gender, race, and ethnicity: “we often include discussions of students who are first-generation college students, multilingual, for low-resource contexts, introverts, immigrants, neurodiverse students, students with mental illness, students who hold unpopular political beliefs and all the intersections” (p. 16).
Both authors discuss the fact that identities notwithstanding, not all learners begin at the same starting line. This can be because of systemic barriers, but some also find obstacles along their path. An example of this in the classroom is the concept of the “hidden curriculum,” where there are unstated rules and norms in the classroom. As a remedy for this, it is paramount to structure and organize courses with the intention of making things transparent and accessible to all.
It is important to note that an active class (with assignments and group work in class) doesn’t equal an inclusive class. There must be structure! What this looks like is active learning time during the class, where students can practice problems (many times for credit- low stakes assignments), gather information in small groups, and prepare for exams and tests. The class time is active, but with structure.
Sathy and Hogan often reference backward design. Begin with the end in mind. What are the goals and objectives of the course? Are classroom interactions helping us to achieve our equity goals? One activity they both often use Think Pair Share (TPS) in the classroom where students think to themselves, pair with other students, and share their findings with the entire group. This way you allow those who are less vocal in a big class setting have the opportunity to have their voice heard in both the small group setting and in the big class setting when the sharing begins. This approach involves learning for all and no one is left out.