ENGR/NSM 193: STEM Leadership, Ethics, and Social Change

cultural competence / equity / accuracy

Reflection on Instructional Change:

One practice I implemented was removing my late policy language from my syllabus and asserting my real late project policy, which is that late projects are always fine. I had long kept very detailed and strict late policy penalties on my syllabus, with the direction to come speak to me in order to avoid having the policy applied. I would then explain when going over the syllabus that I never wanted to implement the late penalty; its real purpose was to convince them to come talk with me. I changed this for several reasons. Most important, I truly believe that learning takes as long as it takes, an orientation to learning shared by students from high-context cultures. If students from high-context cultures can see that one of their own values is championed on the syllabus and incorporated into the class structure, they'd feel more welcomed and included. Another reason is that I don't want to penalize students who, for whatever reason, may not want to come talk with me. Grading for Equity also affirmed that the most accurate grades are those that don't incorporate behavioral issues like lateness. This change makes my class more culturally inclusive and advances equity and accuracy in grading. I also get to be more honest about my own values, which is better for the class culture as well. I changed the language completely on the syllabus.

I implemented this in my Spring 2024 class, so I've already seen some of its effects: some students have significantly delayed their project turn-ins. So I need to amend the policy next semester because cramming their projects in before the end of finals is not a structure that helps students succeed. To build structures that help students succeed, I need to be put some strong, but still flexible, boundaries on this policy (e.g., giving them ample time, but not the whole semester). I'm still thinking about that.

A second practice that I implemented was replacing the percent system (0-100) with the GPA system (0-4). Because I teach writing and skills shown through writing, the GPA system with its fewer, but more meaningful possibilities, I have graded using the GPA system before, but changed to the percent system when I came to Sac State. It turns out my favored grading system is actually more mathematically accurate (because there's no 50 point range between Fs and 0s, for example), and therefore, more equitable, according to Grading for Equity.

I have implemented this in my course this semester. I use a five-category rubric for each project. Students still talk about "making up points" though, as if grading were quantitative. No doubt, my STEM students are used to their more quantitative courses. One issue I've found in using the GPA system in the past is that it can be very difficult for students to earn As. As anyone who has ever calculated their GPA knows, a 4.0 is impossible unless one has earned a 4.0 on each project (or there is extra credit, which I don't offer). So in the past, I've counted As above 3.85 or 3.9 in addition to the 3.95 and above that would naturally round to an A. I am considering doing that this semester, but first I want to calculate final grades and see.

**Evidence of Instructional Change**
Image 1	Image 2
Syllabus language for deadlines/late policy.	Syllabus description of grade breakdown

Course Syllabus

**Faculty Bio**
	My name is Joy Arbor, and I teach writing, leadership, and ethics to STEM students, especially engineers. I was a tenured professor of communication at an engineering college in Michigan before I resigned my position to focus on my own writing and editing. But after a few years of editing, I found I deeply missed working with students. I am so glad to teach here at Sac State with its diverse student body and antiracist commitment. My own work focuses on listening across difference and genocide prevention. I also write prose and poetry on the Palestine/Israel conflict. More at joyarbor.net.

This work was supported by:
	Grant funding from Sacramento State Division of Inclusive Excellence *Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Sacramento State.