ACUE Banner

Physics 30: Science and Psuedoscience

Rehumanize, Connection, Engagement

Rehumanizing STEM means intentionally designing learning environments where students feel seen, valued, and supported—not treated as anonymous faces in a technical discipline. One powerful way to do this is by adopting assessment practices that emphasize clarity, achievability, and personal relevance. Approaches like the DAPPS framework help instructors make expectations transparent, break down cognitive barriers, and celebrate students’ growing competence. When assessments are dated, achievable, personal, positive, and specific, they shift from gatekeeping tools to mechanisms that foster belonging and empower students to take ownership of their learning.

Humanizing STEM also requires attention to the interpersonal dimensions of the classroom. Large courses often make students feel invisible, and something as simple as learning names can signal that every learner matters. Even when remembering many names is challenging, strategies such as incorporating visible name displays or connecting names to team structures help demonstrate intentionality and care. These small relational practices counteract the anonymity that often characterizes STEM environments and reduce unintentional biases—such as remembering only the students who seek extra help or share one’s disciplinary identity.

Ultimately, rehumanizing STEM is about restoring connection. When instructors communicate that students belong, provide clear structures for success, and design assessments that value growth over perfection, students become more motivated, confident, and engaged. As STEM fields continue to diversify, these practices are essential not only for academic achievement but also for cultivating inclusive communities where all students can thrive.

Reflection on Instructional Change:

One practice I implemented from the ACUE microcredential Inspiring Inquiry and Preparing Lifelong Learners was intentionally learning and using student names to strengthen belonging. Although I had always attempted this, the course highlighted how recognition directly supports motivation and persistence in STEM. To make the process more reliable and equitable, I asked students to write their names on the bottom of their team signs so I could see them while circulating. I practiced names during class and reinforced them through check-ins. I took these steps because my previous informal strategy resulted in inconsistent recall and unintentional bias, such as more easily remembering students who visited office hours. A structured approach ensured that all students—not just the most visible—felt seen.

Implementing this practice noticeably influenced student engagement. I felt more connected to students, and discussions became more comfortable and personal. Several students commented on the difference it made. One shared, “It means a lot that you try to learn our names—it makes the class feel smaller.” Another said, “I participate more because I feel like you actually know who I am.” I also observed quieter students volunteering more often when addressed by name, suggesting an increase in confidence and belonging.

The FLC activity that most shaped my instructional changes was the exploration of transparent assessment design, particularly the DAPPS framework. Analyzing DAPPS prompted me to revisit my existing rubrics and consider how clarity, achievability, and personal relevance influence student motivation. This activity was influential because it connected assessment design to the same humanizing goals as name-learning, reinforcing how both practices signal care and reduce anxiety while supporting student success.

One key moment from my Observe and Analyze session with colleagues was realizing how small, intentional actions can significantly shift classroom climate. As I described my efforts to learn student names and strengthen belonging, several colleagues noted how these relational practices often matter as much as major instructional redesigns. Hearing their perspectives helped me see that students interpret these actions as evidence of care and investment, which can immediately influence motivation. This conversation made me more aware that humanizing strategies are not add-ons but essential components of effective STEM teaching. Recognizing this has encouraged me to pay closer attention to seemingly minor choices—how I greet students, how I acknowledge their work, and how I design moments for connection—because these practices shape how students experience the entire course.

**Evidence of Instructional Change**
Moment from Observe and Analyze describing modifications done to personalize an assessment.	Student post for work described in previous panel.	Modified Learning Objectives: Incorporated personalizing from DAPPS with life-long learning in LO7.

Changes in Course Syllabus and Schedules:

Pre FLC - Syllabus and Schedule

Post FLC - Syllabus and Schedule

**Faculty Bio**
	Dr. Eliza Morris is an Associate Professor of Physics at California State University, Sacramento. Her research focuses on the physical characterization of soft condensed matter systems, such as biological polymer networks, cells, and biofilms. Eliza is also an active physics education researcher, for which she was awarded an NSF DHR:IUSE grant. Eliza’s work focuses on improving representation and outcomes for historically underrepresented groups both in and out of the classroom, for which she was recently recognized with the College of NSM 2022-23 Outstanding Faculty Award for University Service and the 2023-2024 Outstanding Faculty Award for Teaching.

**Program Sponsors**
	This work was supported by: National Science Foundation Hispanic Serving Institution Project STEM Zone DUE 1832335 US Department of Education Hispanic Serving Institution Project Degree with a Purpose P031S210061 US Department of Education Hispanic Serving Institution Project STEM4Teaching& Learning P031C210012 *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 the National Science Foundation or the US Department of Education.