Creating an inclusive physics curriculum

Thursday 6 July 2023, University of Nottingham
Chaired by Professor Sir William Wakeham Supported by the Institute of Physics

The Institute of Physics (IOP) 2020-2024 strategy has identified three key challenges that present the greatest barriers to unlocking the potential of physics and its impact in society. The first challenge is ‘diversity and skills’ and the need to build a diverse physics community to help address STEM skills shortages. This also makes sense from a business perspective that acknowledge recruiting a diverse and inclusive workforce can lead to better decision-making and business success. This key challenge of ‘diversity and skills’ is emphasised more strongly in the IOP’s new degree accreditation framework. For example, universities must ensure the curriculum reflects the diversity of people who have contributed to physics and that the curriculum does not have compulsory or elective elements where students could be discriminated against (eg placements or field trips).

In this context SEPnet and WRIPA hosted this meeting to explore how university physics departments can embed EDI across the curriculum and departmental culture to support an inclusive student learning experience and equitable graduate outcomes. The talks and summary of discussion points from the workshop are summarised below.

How to tackle ‘low level’ bullying and harassment where the penalty for the victim in speaking out is disproportionate to the ‘punishment’. This applies especially where the proponent is very senior, a big funding winner etc and so the power imbalance is significant. Summary of the attendees discussions:

• It should not be the sole responsibility of the victim to report issues, anyone observing the bullying should feel they can report it and there needs to be a safe space to do so. It needs to be clear what constitutes harassment.
• There could be a role called “Listeners” where a team of trusted people are trained to be confidential listeners.  Some victims think “is this an issue or is this just my perception?” and so examples and definitions should be made clear.  De-escalation could take place where possible with open minded discussions rather than going straight to a complaint. For example, the perpetrator may not realise the effect they are having on the victim. Mediation between both parties can sometimes be helpful.
• Several points of contact could help to ensure issues are more effectively addressed. For PhD students – have two academic supervisors to create a ‘fail safe’ if the student- academic relationship deteriorates. 

How to challenge ingrained practices that unconsciously disadvantage underrepresented groups (e.g. asking for ranking, requiring research experience) in allocating PhD studentships. Summary of the attendees discussions:

• Preparation of students for the whole PhD recruitment process. Rather than just referring them to online resources provide clear guidance on expectations and what they need to convey. 
• Consider the interview process itself – what things could be asked/not asked. The interview process should not be based on nepotism, ranking, university attended. More emphasis should be placed on why students are passionate about physics and what they can bring – motivation, enthusiasm. Create an interview environment that facilitates openness for people to talk about their barriers without it being seen as an “excuse”. Opportunity to bring in life experiences and skills not necessarily related to physics and demonstrate potential to learn new skills.
• Preparation of interviewees and addressing unconscious biases. Funding mechanisms in place for those “middling” students who need the opportunity to present themselves in a “bigger way”. ‘Middling students’ need help with applications and interview prep.  
• Head of Schools should be responsible for implementing change – if there is a strong leadership role model it is more likely change will be implemented. 
• Internships should not be unpaid and should be appropriately advertised, taking into account ‘the reach’ to underprivileged areas. 
• Neurodiversity – consider how certain aspects of the interview process could be disadvantageous for some students (eg teamwork could be a problem to evidence).
• Need consistency across the whole uni network although hard to implement.
• Training helps but if it’s not being implemented then there should be consequences, clear criteria for standardised questions. 
• Need Research Councils to set out these expectations.

What are the challenges to building an inclusive curriculum? Summary of the attendees discussions:

• The learning environment of students during their degree – labs and lectures. Need to use a variety of approaches and ways to engage.
• Assessment methods – need a variety of assessment approaches so students can demonstrate learning. 
• Structural issues with building design – need accessible buildings. 
• Staff understanding of what is meant by an inclusive curriculum and accepting that things have to change – are they competent/do they have the necessary skills?
• Need feedback and evaluation from students, are changes working? Does the data account for student perceptions?
• Making changes to the curriculum that assist some individuals but then don’t exclude others.
• Barriers to implement changes or ideas – eg at an institutional level, HR or estates constraints. 

What does belonging look like? Summary of the attendees discussions:

• Feeling welcome and part of the whole student experience.
• Culture of celebrating differences.
• Belonging is not making comparisons between people. 
• Biggest barriers to student progression – lack of belonging. 
• Overcome social barriers – eg commuter students may not feel as socially included. Additional consideration for international students adapting to a new environment. 
• Physical social spaces – some students don’t like this type of environment – consider how to cater for this. 

What professional advantages would an inclusive curriculum provide your students? Summary of the attendees discussions:

• Strong course content and assessment processes that address EDI issues will actually make it better for all students.
• Showcase the best in all individuals and bring out their talents and skills. 
• Make well-rounded individuals that understand and normalise differences – improves self-awareness of their own skills – making them more employable.
• Students that are able to identify their own strengths, weaknesses, and soft skills and bring them to the surface for interviews.
• Good practice in the curriculum will eventually trickle down into industry as the students will become the employers.

How can we design assessments so that the value of different ways of thinking is properly credited? Summary of the attendees discussions:

• Design assessments in a different way, choices of assessment or variety to allow students to demonstrate their abilities, e.g. poster sessions, talks. Tap into preferred method of assessment, gently pushing students out of their comfort zone to use other communication styles. Portfolio of assessment – different forms for the same learning outcomes.
• Remove the time penalty on exams.
• Marking scheme is too rigid. 
• Mock assessment so students know what is expected of them. 

Can we design a curriculum which suits neurodiverse students and enhances learning for all? Summary of the attendees discussions:

• Reviewing evidence that exams don’t suit neurodiverse students and other forms of assessment do.
• Different ways to access materials.
• Changing Module Leader every few years to ensure the curriculum is refreshed.
• AI could help with some constraints moving forward.
• Universal design for learning is difficult with different university approaches, different module leader approaches etc.
• Asynchronous learning would suit many students – how would this work in practice?
• Neurodiverse is a large umbrella term so effective change is hard to achieve. 
• Elephant in the room – it does take time and resources, there are lots of practicalities to take into consideration. 

Can AI tools be leveraged to develop equitable assessment? Summary of the attendees discussions:

• Can help students to express themselves and to write well.  
• Concern that those with less money will only be able to use the free, “lite-version”. Or different versions provided by different institutions etc. 
• We need to understand how to ask the right questions in AI.
• People may not feel comfortable integrating with technology in this way – maybe other EDI issues will open up.
• In terms of equality of information – AI probably has unconscious bias as do humans based on the information and data it has available to produce its responses. 
• Concern that if we design AI learning systems that mimic specific parts of the brain, these parts of the brain will die out through lack of use. 

Where do you see the benefits of generative AI to enhance the learning experience? Or is it just a problem? Summary of the attendees discussions:

• Saves a lot of time. 
• Students could feel more comfortable asking “stupid” questions via AI. Good with helping students to understand concepts in many different ways, e.g. repetitive answers, some will find it more comfortable to chat with but it should not replace human contact.
• Could be used for the first or second draft to overcome the “blank page”. 
• Good for marking and feedback. Perhaps more so for subjects like maths which is factual rather than theoretical subjects.
• Can test critical thinking – is the AI answer correct? Need to recognise “hallucinations” – when the answer sounds correct but is actually gibberish.
• Concerned how long it will be free for. 
• Calculators changed the nature of assessment – are people complaining now?
• Different people have different learning styles – what does this mean for chatGPT?

Speakers