Jessica M. Vaden1Amy L. Brooks1April A. Dukes2Kristen Parrish3Amy Hermundstad Nave4Amy Landis5
Melissa M. Bilec1*- 1Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States
- 2Engineering Education Research Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States
- 3School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United States
- 4Center for Innovation in Teaching and Learning, Arapahoe Community College, Littleton, CO, United States
- 5Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO, United States
Introduction: Teaching and learning are not often highlighted in research-intensive science,technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) graduate training. Thus, many faculty in STEM fields are unfamiliar with the ways educational theories can inform how to transform their teaching to reflect the contextual awareness and critical sensibilities needed to lead diverse groups of students. Professional development has traditionally served as the “on-the-job training” for faculty and instructors to improve their teaching skills, and communities of practice, such as faculty learning communities (FLCs), have emerged as a promising training outlet, including for inclusive teaching practices.
Methods: To explore faculty’s implementation of inclusive practices, we convened inclusivity-focused FLCs at three partner institutions across different institutional levels (i.e., department-, school-, and institution-wide). To this end, we conducted surveys and experiential interviews with faculty participants, including those who also served as FLC facilitators, from each institution.
Results: The faculty participants reported positively on their experiences within their FLCs, and they provided feedback that resulted in three key findings: (1) institutional context must be considered when developing and planning FLCs, (2) catalyzing trust and vulnerability are required for inclusivity-focused FLCs, and (3) sustaining active engagement from FLC members can be difficult given institutional opportunities and faculty demands.
Discussion: These findings can help inform improvements to FLC implementation and support faculty in adopting inclusive strategies in their classrooms, ultimately creating better learning environments for students. This study’s findings, discussion, and conclusions are likely to be interesting to engineering and STEM faculty, faculty developers, and university leadership seeking to weave inclusivity into their classroom culture.
Introduction
Numerous education entities have called for reform in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education at all levels due in part to enrollment concerns, retention levels, and instructional practices (THE 17 GOALS, 2023, Townley, 2020; Walton et al., 2022; Gehrke and Kezar, 2017). Education research has focused extensively on students, despite the critical roles that faculty play in student experiences. Teaching and learning training are not often highlighted in research-intensive STEM graduate training as an essential part of preparing for a postsecondary faculty position (Smith et al., 2008; Marchetti et al., 2019; Austin and McDaniels, 2006). Due to this, many faculty in STEM fields are unfamiliar with the ways theory informs decisions about educational methods and how they can transform their teaching to have the contextual awareness and critical sensibilities to teach diverse groups of students (Borrego and Bernhard, 2011; Kozleski and Waitoller, 2010). Professional development has traditionally served as the experiential, “on-the-job training” for faculty and instructors to help improve their teaching skills and faculty learning communities (FLCs) have emerged as a promising professional development tool. FLCs sit at the integration of research and teaching and provide a long-term collaborative structure of safety and support for instructors to learn and improve their teaching skills (Whittaker and Montgomery, 2014; Cox, 2004).
In addition, education research has also highlighted the need to improve inclusivity in the classroom to enhance student belonging and persistence (Milem et al., 2012; Bauman et al., 2005; Hartman et al., 2019; Mills and Ayre, 2003; Tanner, 2013). The transformation of pedagogical decisions and classroom interactions that cultivate inclusive excellence has yielded a positive classroom climate and promoted more equitable education outcomes among students (Milem et al., 2012; Bauman et al., 2005). Improving inclusivity and belonging is especially important in STEM disciplines because, historically, the culture of the dominant class has framed the terms of interaction within the STEM classroom, leaving out diverse and historically marginalized perspectives and students (Hartman et al., 2019). The impact of improving inclusivity in the classroom has been illustrated in the literature; however, instructors in technical disciplines, such as engineering, have found difficulty finding actionable guidance on how they can weave inclusivity into the fabric of their classes (Bauman et al., 2005; Milem et al., 2012; Casper et al., 2021; Salazar et al., 2010).
FLCs, by design, are a suitable approach, especially when considering improving inclusivity and belonging in the classroom. However, implementing FLCs targeting these goals in diverse and technical academic settings can be challenging. Thus, to provide actionable guidance to the broader community, we documented the process of developing the inclusive learning communities (ILCs) across three universities. The first was a department-wide ILC based at a mid-size, semi-public, predominantly White institution (PWI) with an engineering school that has both school-level and university-wide offices for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). The second is a school-wide ILC based at a large, public, Hispanic-serving institution with a university-wide DEI office. The third and final ILC included in this study was an institution-wide ILC based at a small, public STEM-focused PWI with an institution-wide DEI office. In addition to discussing the ILC development process, we also present the results of the faculty survey and interviews from each institution’s ILC, which focused on elucidating the faculty participant experience in their ILCs.
Background
This study focused on the development of ILCs convened to support participating faculty and instructors in improving inclusivity in their classrooms. To contextualize this study, we first explored topics individually, beginning with an overview of LCs in the higher education context. We then explored broadly how inclusivity in the STEM classroom has been discussed in the literature, with a focus on how teaching impacts the classroom experience. The background section concludes with a discussion of existing literature on both topics, using LCs to support instructors in improving inclusivity and belonging in their classrooms, and on this study’s contribution to the body of literature on the topics.
Learning communities
Although learning is often viewed as an individual pursuit, FLCs are forms of communities of practice (CoPs) through which members can develop skills and knowledge through shared goals and activities. Specifically, CoPs comprise three elements: joint enterprise, mutuality, and shared repertoire that manifest through events, leadership, connectivity, membership, learning projects, and artifacts (Wenger 1999). Importantly, CoPs can encourage professional identity development by providing an outlet for shared experiences, connections to practice, and an FLC, which is usually comprised of a relatively small group of instructors who gather for the purpose of learning and have a clear sense of membership, common goals, and the opportunity for extensive interaction (Hord, 2008; Cox, 2004). FLCs aim to provide a safe space where faculty can share, explore new ideas, build community, and learn about pedagogical innovations for teaching students with increasingly diverse needs (Marchetti et al., 2019). Hord (2008) defined five components that are present in FLCs: shared beliefs, values and vision, shared and supportive leadership, supportive structural and relational conditions, collective intentional learning and its application, and shared personal practice (Hord, 2008). Participation in FLCs has also promoted productive outcomes and sustained faculty commitment (Borrego and Bernhard, 2011; Cox, 2004). In other studies that feature FLCs, participants have expressed an appreciation for increased collaboration and accountability with their peers, feeling safe enough to break down personal barriers in order to share authentically, and gained confidence in employing new knowledge they learned as a part of the FLC (Tinnell et al., 2019; Nugent et al., 2008; Engin and Atkinson, 2015). Some authors have argued that colleges and universities as a whole entity should be considered LCs; however, FLCs tend to emerge from faculty themselves for the benefit of student instruction rather than from the institution (Cox, 2004).
Research has identified some of the key elements of successful FLCs include continuous administrative or institutional support, specific and clear goals that are consistent with the values and concerns of the members, trust and accountability among members, and activities that enhance competency and autonomy to help members grow and develop as instructors (Daly, 2011; Schlitz et al., 2009; Ward and Selvester, 2012; Furco and Moely, 2012; Tinnell et al., 2019).
FLCs are a powerful convening approach to improve teaching and community among instructors, and most communities pass through similar stages of development. The beginning stages are characterized by setting expectations and specific tasks to guide the group, as well as sharing personal practices and experiences (Graham and Ferriter, 2008). The middle stages involve members collaboratively working together to plan and develop common assessments for students as well as analyze student learning to determine where improvements can be made and where instructors need the most support (Graham and Ferriter, 2008). In the final stages, the facilitators and members act more like collaborative partners since the focus of the LC is now largely determined by the participants. In these final stages, the participants also spend more time reflecting on their instruction and connecting the most effective teaching practices with their in-class instruction (Graham and Ferriter, 2008). The switch from instructor to learner-centered pedagogy requires a paradigm shift due to instructors’ need for training and learning in different areas (Considine et al., 2014; Cox, 2004).
FLCs have disparate purposes that include many teaching and learning-related topics. FLCs can be formed for any discipline and sometimes focus on supporting new approaches for designing a course or new topics. FLCs also sometimes offer membership to other types of instructors, such as graduate teaching assistants, which may add additional perspectives to the conversation around teaching; however, due to their focus on teaching, they do not often involve student members. However, the FLCs that were a part of this study had a sole focus on sharing and supporting the implementation of inclusive practices in engineering for teaching and research faculty, although our findings may be relevant to other disciplines.
Inclusivity in the STEM classroom
Literature has emphasized the need for instructors to create classrooms that foster inclusivity and belonging and celebrate diversity for all students, particularly given the racial climate in the United States (Considine et al., 2014; Quaye and Harper, 2007; Bauman et al., 2005; Hartman et al., 2019; Milem et al., 2012; Mills and Ayre, 2003). One of the factors in the achievement disparities between historically marginalized and minoritized students and their privileged peers is that classrooms are often characterized by curriculum and pedagogy that enforce the “absent standard” (Anderson et al., 2014; Hartman et al., 2019). This occurs when the cultural norms of the dominant group are accepted as the “correct” norms, which further alienates students from underrepresented groups (Anderson et al., 2014). Faculty who authentically incorporate diversity and equity in their courses can intentionally create inclusive spaces as both instructors and members of the university community (Quaye and Harper, 2007).
One of the key findings from Walton et al.’s study on LCs designed to build capacity for inclusive teaching was that context matters (Walton et al., 2022). Context directly impacts and guides the functioning and focus of an LC and can help provide an understanding of the factors that work against the use of innovative instructional practices (Walton et al., 2022; National Research Council (U.S.) et al., 2012). Walton et al. stated that the ethical demand of inclusive teaching is to transform social norms in order to include everyone in the learning environment (Walton et al., 2022; Ong et al., 2020). Considine et al.’s study, which focused on their workshop-based intervention that encourages instructors to create culturally responsive classrooms, described the importance of having recognition from higher levels within the institution, which helps increase instructor buy-in and motivation (Gehrke and Kezar, 2017; Ward and Selvester, 2012; Furco and Moely, 2012; Considine et al., 2014). This also helped to normalize the implementation of culturally responsive strategies and curricula, which could shift cultural norms at an institution (Considine et al., 2014; Quaye and Harper, 2007). A systems approach to STEM change acknowledges the role played by individuals in change efforts while also considering the complex contexts in which they find themselves and how those work together to promote and inhibit change (Gehrke and Kezar, 2017). Because of their utility for improving inclusion in the classroom, FLCs may provide the setting for faculty development and promotion of effective and sustainable change.
Inclusivity-focused learning communities
FLCs can be considered one of the best places for faculty and instructors to improve their teaching skills, and they also serve as a community for implementing and sharing evidence-based pedagogies and their experiences (Whittaker and Montgomery, 2014). FLCs, particularly over the last 5 years, have emerged across the higher education landscape focused on a myriad of topics that broadly address improving the scholarship of teaching and learning among faculty, instructors, and staff. Virginia Commonwealth University and Clemson University both have semester-long FLCs focused on different topics that impact faculty success, including improving teaching online and course design in STEM (Faculty Learning Communities, 2023a; Clemson Undergraduate Learning, 2022). Among these emerging FLCs, a large proportion focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion in the classroom, particularly on inclusive teaching. Georgia Institute of Technology, Princeton University, University of Mississippi, and Pennsylvania State University are among those who have developed and continue to host FLCs focused on equitable and inclusive teaching in STEM and broader areas (Faculty Learning Communities, 2023b; Faculty Learning Communities, 2023c; Inclusive Teaching Learning Community, n.d.; Faculty Member Awarded Funds to Launch Equity-Focused Faculty Learning Community | Penn State University, 2023). A number of these inclusion-focused FLCs have emerged over the last few years; however, their development and lessons learned are not often shared with the broader engineering community, which is looking to develop its own FLCs based around improving inclusion in teaching.
Literature has shown the effectiveness of FLCs and best practices but is sparse on the topic of communities focused on culturally inclusive content and pedagogies that aid faculty in effectively teaching all students (Considine et al., 2014; Anderson et al., 2014; Cox and Richlin, 2004; Ward and Selvester, 2012; Schlitz et al., 2009; Tinnell et al., 2019). Though FLCs focused on inclusive teaching in both STEM and broader areas currently exist, the tools or information being used in these communities are not always widely shared with the broader higher education community.
This study is part of a larger project investigating and providing faculty and instructors with the most effective practices to promote an inclusive engineering classroom, known as the Improving Undergraduate STEM Education—Proven Inclusivity Practices for Engineering Project (IUSE-PIPE). Our previous efforts focused on the student participant perspective, and faculty use of the inclusive engineering practices menu we developed is available in previous publications (Vaden et al., 2022; Vaden and Dukes, 2023; Vaden et al., 2025; Vaden et al., 2023, 2024). More details on the project are provided in the Project Context and Background section. Given the trend of emerging FLCs focused on topics such as inclusive teaching and the challenges associated with implementing FLCs, the objective of this study was to document and synthesize the process of developing and implementing FLCs across three universities through observation-based comparison that explores context-based operational and developmental differences. We also conducted and analyzed the perspectives of faculty through structured interviews and surveys who have implemented inclusive practices in their engineering classrooms and their experiences in the FLCs convened for the project.
Theoretical framing
This study was part of a broader project called IUSE-PIPE, which explored advancing inclusive learning practices in engineering classrooms through the Theory of Change (TOC) model developed by Henderson, Beach, and Finkelstein (Henderson et al., 2011). Per Figure 1, the TOC model entails four quadrants of change strategies for higher education: (I) disseminating curriculum and pedagogy, (II) developing reflective teachers, (III) enacting policy, and (IV) developing a shared vision (Henderson et al., 2011). Most of the literature on improving STEM undergraduate education highlights strategies that fit in the first quadrant, namely disseminating curriculum and pedagogy (Henderson et al., 2011; Borrego and Henderson, 2014). The second quadrant, developing reflective teachers, is an approach often used by teaching and learning centers to provide services to motivated faculty (Borrego and Henderson, 2014). The development and distribution of the inclusive engineering practices menu to faculty participants, the focus of our first publication, can be categorized under quadrants one and two (Vaden et al., 2025). FLCs are a quadrant two strategy that supports the learning and development of engineering and STEM instructors (Borrego and Henderson, 2014). The ILCs developed for this study apply to the fourth quadrant because they exist at an organizational level that involves leaders at the top as well as those in the classroom to develop ideas that can lead to changes in the way departments or institutions operate (Borrego and Henderson, 2014). The development of the ILCs for faculty participants, the focus of this study, aligns with quadrants two and four, which focus on developing reflective teachers and shared vision. Figure 1 shows the IUSE-PIPE Project tasks as they align with the TOC model and delineates the scope of this study with respect to the model.
Figure 1. Study alignment with theory of change (Henderson et al., 2011; Vaden et al., 2025).
Materials and methods
Study context
This study investigated three ILC cases across three different US-based engineering programs, summarized in Table 1. For ease of comparison in this study, we categorized the three cases based on their location within their respective institution’s organizational structure, such that Case 1 represents an ILC developed within a discipline-specific engineering department. This ILC emerged as an unfunded offshoot of an existing DEI committee by faculty interested in discussions around national events related to race-based violence. Case 2 represents an ILC convened across an engineering school and encompassed an established teaching and learning community that formed from a dedicated research center associated with inclusive education practices. Finally, Case 3 represents an institution-wide ILC at an engineering-focused university. This ILC was formed from a cohort of funded faculty who were training in evidence-based and inclusive teaching practices. Between 10 and 14 faculty, staff, or students who expressed interest in creating more inclusive classrooms engaged with the ILCs for at least one semester.
Table 1. The Attributes of the Participating Institutions and ILCs.
The ILCs were framed as research- and topic-based LCs and employed the core ideas of an LC as described by the Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning (CIRTL) (Bantawa et al., 2019). Core goals of the ILCs included creating and fostering functional connections among learners as well as connections with other related learning and life experiences. Additionally, the ILCs focused on both creating inclusive learning environments in the classroom and fostering an inclusive learning environment within the LC itself using the inclusive classroom practices menu as a foundational tool (Bantawa et al., 2019). While the three ILC cases shared these goals, they were uniquely implemented among each institution, reflecting their different origins, institutional partners, and resources relevant to their context and student populations. For example, the case 1 ILC utilized a book on DEI in higher education as a discussion tool, which required participants to read and answer reflection questions prior to their meetings. However, in cases 2 and 3, ILCs, the facilitating members developed discussion questions for the meetings based on participants’ needs. Finally, the ILCs were facilitated by authors Dukes, Nave, Parrish, and Bilec at their respective institutions, but we note that leadership changed throughout the project, which exemplifies some of the realistic challenges of operating an ILC over time. We visualized the processes of ILC development and operation through the use of Rummler-Brache “swim lane” diagrams (Damelio, 2011; Swim Lane/Rummler-Brache Diagrams, 2023; Swim Lane Map - MN Dept. of Health, 2023), which show processes as horizontal tasks for each project group responsible, in this case the research team, the facilitators, and the participants. We show a project-wide swim lane diagram in Figure 2, and individual case diagrams are supplied in the Supplementary Figures S1–S3. Some of the key differences in ILC development shown on the diagrams across the three case studies were the restructuring of the ILCs in the ILC Facilitators lane and the faculty participants lane. For example, the department-wide ILC experienced three restructures over the course of the project, which included changes like meeting cadence and adding in tools and workshops. The school-wide and institution-wide ILCs had one and two restructures, respectively, both related to the meeting structure, where new tools and practices were introduced. The individual diagrams also show the changes among the faculty participants, where, during the tenure of this project, both the school- and institution-wide ILCs experienced sabbaticals that paused the ILC meetings. Additional details for the case swim lane diagrams can be seen in Supplementary Figures S1–S3.
Figure 2. Swim lane diagram showing similarities of ILCs over the duration of the project.
Study recruitment strategy
We used surveys and structured interviews to assess faculty experiences in the ILCs. Participating faculty were recruited via an email that detailed the full project and the participant parameters, most importantly, that they would be a participant for at least three semesters. Across the three partner institutions, the email recruitment strategy and all research activities were approved by Institutional Review Boards (University of Pittsburgh and Colorado School of Mines #STUDY20050402 and Arizona State University #14693). In some ILC cases, we were able to leverage pre-semester or early-semester events focused on faculty and instructors to recruit participants as well. We describe the instrument design, participants, and data analysis approach for the surveys and interviews in the following sub-sections.
Survey instrument
The surveys were designed to elicit feedback from faculty participants on their experience within their respective ILCs and implementation of inclusive teaching strategies. For this study, which focused on faculty experiences in their ILCs, we report on responses to the final two survey questions, which asked participants to reflect on their experiences in their ILC and list suggestions or changes to make the ILC more impactful for them. Specifically, the questions were written as follows: (1) Please reflect on your experience in your Inclusive Learning Community and (2) Please list any suggestions or changes that you would make to make your Inclusive Learning Community in order to make them more impactful (see Vaden, 2024 for the complete survey). The faculty survey was distributed to participating faculty (five total times) via Qualtrics (Qualtrics XM, 2023) throughout the project between the Fall 2021 and Fall 2023 semesters.
We received N = 24 complete faculty survey responses from the three ILC cases. Most responses (n = 10) were received during the Fall 2022 semester, and most responses were captured from the department and institution-wide ILC cases. The respondents were mostly engineering instructors in civil engineering, who were teaching ‘Senior Design’ or ‘Engineering Design and Society’ courses. A small proportion (11%) of courses taught by respondents were other STEM-focused courses outside of engineering. For analysis, we first organized survey responses by semester and then aggregated them based on ILC. The two open-ended questions analyzed as part of this study were coded by authors [anonymized] first individually and then collaboratively. We used descriptive and in vivo coding to develop themes from the participants’ responses in their own words (Saldana, 2021). Finally, the codes were grouped by theme and ILC to explore any trends among them.
Interview instrument
Similar to the survey, faculty interview participants were recruited by the research team members at each respective institution via email. The interview protocol, shown in Table 2, was designed to elucidate faculty experiences with participating in their local ILCs and gather feedback on the ILC implementation. Specifically, some interview questions prompted participants to describe the main goal of their ILC, the gains or benefits the ILC has provided them, and what they have learned about LCs that they want to share with others interested in running their LCs.
Table 2. Faculty interview questions.
A total of N = 9 interviews were conducted by authors Vaden and Dukes during the Fall 2022, Spring 2022, and Fall 2023 semesters in person when possible or virtually via Zoom. In the ILC case, there were two participants from the department-wide ILC, three from the school-wide ILC, and four from the institution-wide ILC. One interview from the institution-wide ILC was held with two participants at the same time. Interviews were audio recorded with the consent of participants and lasted between 10 and 24 min long, with an average length of 15 min. Recordings were machine-transcribed and reviewed for accuracy by the first and second authors. Audio recordings and transcribed interview data were stored in a password-protected server accessible only to the research team. At the conclusion of the project, audio recordings were destroyed.
Participants were assigned pseudonyms by the authors, and we report demographic information in the aggregate to protect their confidentiality. For ease of comprehension, we assigned pseudonyms starting with ‘D’ for department-wide ILC participants (Denise and Dani), ‘S’ for school-wide ILC participants (Sabrina, Sara, and Simon), and ‘I’ for institution-wide ILC participants (Ian, Isla, Isabella, and Isaac). Participants represented a range of LC roles and discipline-based backgrounds. Three of the faculty participants also contributed as facilitators for their ILC, which included responsibilities such as planning and administering their LC activities, allocating or providing funding for the LC, and communicating information to the members of the LC. Two of the ILC facilitators were also co-authors of this study due to the nature of this study’s institutional partnerships. However, those co-authors were not involved in administering the surveys and interviews, nor in their subsequent analysis. Most participants were from an engineering background, but three participants represented other STEM disciplines or relevant education disciplines. Finally, participants represented a range of academic positions and ranks, with representation from instructors/lecturers, assistants, associates, and full professors, as well as administrative roles such as librarians and leaders of university centers. Participants also represented a range of identity demographics; however, because we disclosed the school names, we did not report this information to protect the identity of the participants.
Like the survey analysis, interview analysis was performed collaboratively by the first and second authors. Following transcription, we completed an iterative process of coding interviews individually and collaboratively to develop emergent themes using Microsoft Excel. The first cycle of coding consisted of descriptive, in vivo, and action coding to develop familiarization with common attributes and language used to describe participants’ experiences in the ILCs (Saldana, 2021). The second cycle of coding involved developing patterns within and across the ILCs. This decision allowed them to have a more granular view during the second cycle while looking for similarities, as well as differences, between each ILC. To ensure the quality and cohesion of coding decisions between the two analysts, the coding authors reviewed each other’s coding and resolved coding decisions together when conflicts arose. After coding transcripts, the analysts collaboratively organized codes into themes related to affordances and barriers across the ILCs, as well as case-specific challenges.
Results
Survey findings
Positive ILC experiences
A total of 17 ILC participants responded to open-ended question one, which prompted respondents to describe their overall experience. Responses were largely from participants from the institution- and department-wide ILCs, with only one response received from the school-wide ILC. Seven of the responses specified faculty experiences specifically about the ILC, while the remaining eight respondents attended to their experiences with transferring strategies learned in the ILC to their classroom. Almost all descriptions from the faculty were positive, with faculty pointing to feeling happy about their participation, gratitude toward what they learned within a supportive community, and feelings of encouragement for trying new things in their classrooms.
Classroom-focused responses described experiences with trying strategies learned within the ILC in their courses. While participants reported positive and often rewarding experiences in their classrooms, some respondents discussed how certain strategies required more forethought and planning to incorporate. The most adopted menu strategies included building in schedule availability for students, withholding judgment of student responses, and making course goals explicit (Vaden et al., 2024). Participants from the department-wide ILC noted challenges with adapting inclusion strategies within their technical courses: “Some classes are easier than others to make connections to diversity of culture, voices, and perspectives.” Respondents from the institution-wide ILC described a process of developing alongside their students through reflection on inclusive teaching strategies. Highlighting the nuances of incorporating such strategies, one participant described how they and their students “are still trying to understand and embrace what the idea of ‘inclusiveness’ really means, particularly in a classroom environment.” Several of these participants signified the impact of building connections with others, including students, by sharing “strategies and struggles,” with participation leading to confidence in not just trying strategies in class but also negotiating and justifying their use with students. While participants were generally happy with their respective ILC experiences, they also offered feedback for improving them via open-ended question two.
Outlets for improving ILCs
The second open-ended question on the faculty survey asked participants to provide suggestions or changes to make the ILCs more impactful. Overall, the responses could be grouped under three major focuses: class applications, students, and LC changes (n = 15). Four of the faculty responses focused on specific strategies or changes they wanted to apply to their course in future semesters. One participant noted they wanted ‘to incorporate more one-on-one or small group interactions with their students early during the course [to] establish a personal, humanistic aspect of ourselves and each other so we can be sensitive to topics discussed [during] the semester’. Most of these responses also referenced using inclusive practices from this study’s inclusive engineering practices menu, showing faculty’s willingness to continue implementing inclusive strategies in their courses (Jessica M. Vaden et al., 2025).
The four student-focused faculty responses, all from the department-wide ILC, expressed interest in gaining feedback from their students on their experiences in the classroom and ‘wonder if more direct and proactive student engagement would be useful [by] asking students “out of this menu of options, which would be most impactful to you?”’. These results showed us that while faculty are employing inclusive practices in their classrooms, they also want to know whether they are making a positive impact on the student experience and how they could continue to improve for their students. The practices on the inclusive engineering practices menu were sourced from both peer-reviewed literature and inclusive-focused resources that were broadly applicable to all classroom types and have been shown to successfully improve student belonging. For example, some of these practices were from the Universal Design for Learning guidelines, as developed by CAST, which is a widely referenced and used educational framework which aims to intentionally design learning experiences to eliminate barriers and make learning more inclusive (CAST, 2011). On the other hand, some of the literature sources for the menu, such as from Cooper et al. and Bohannon et al., shared inclusive practices as a part of their conclusions or recommendations from their study of different aspects of inclusivity in the classroom, including gender identity and race (Cooper et al., 2018; Bohannon et al., 2020). Though these sources were previously assessed in the classroom environment, the results from the student and faculty participants provided evidence for the implementation of inclusive practices in engineering classrooms and encouraged further exploration of this positive impact.
The seven remaining faculty responses to this question focused solely on improvements that could make the ILC experience more impactful for them. The ILC structural split in responses included two from the department-, one from the school-, and four from the institution-wide ILCs. A similarity among all responses included incorporating more activities into the ILC meetings, while some of the department- and institution-wide ILC members mentioned increasing the number of members, as well as wanting more diversity in the membership of their ILCs. An institution-wide participant mentioned ‘they would love if there were a few more participants so we could get a larger pool of experiences [and want to] see more male instructors [participating]’. Other responses included changing the format of the ILC meetings, having time conflicts that limited participation, and spending more time ‘reflecting on lessons learned’ and sharing during the meetings. One of the participants specifically wrote about trying a different format for the ILCs: ‘I wonder if this may have been more effective as two full-day workshops [because] it often felt like just as the discussion was getting really good, the time was up… there just wasn’t enough time in our brief meetings’.
FLC interview results
We found three convergent thematic categories related to ILC development: (1) ILC formation, (2) meeting logistics and operations, (3) trusting community. Within each category, we found common affordances and barriers that were typical across all three ILCs, as well as some emergent differences that we discuss in the following sections (Table 3). As mentioned previously, these interviews were conducted with both ILC participants, some of whom also served as facilitators in their ILCs, and the results reflect experiences from both perspectives.
Table 3. Affordances and barriers among the interview thematic categories.
ILC formation
All three ILCs leveraged existing structures, including existing DEI committees, research initiatives, and a STEM equity faculty fellowship program (Table 3). These structures provided access to cohorts of faculty interested in inclusive STEM teaching as well as social networks to identify efficient pathways to establishing their community and recruiting potential members. Doing so also meant that the ILCs could ‘piggyback’ from existing meetings, leveraging time and scheduling issues: “The other thing that I learned is because everyone has so many meetings, it seems like a good idea to pair it up with it another initiative or another committee, and I still think that’s the way to do it….” While participants did not perceive this approach to ILC formation negatively, some noted that it was difficult to discern where their ILC existed relative to other initiatives, leading to some confusion among members. For example, in describing ILC activities and modality over time, Simon explained, “…again, it’s like, when, where [the research initiative] ends and this learning community starts is a little vague for me.”
The lack of clarity in the structure of the ILCs may have also driven some confusion among members regarding their respective ILCs’ objectives. Many participants perceived their ILCs to have multiple objectives and goals, which may have been a result of aligning ILCs with the existing programs and networks. Many participants plainly noted that their ILCs aimed to support faculty endeavors to teach more inclusively. Other common goals reported across participants included sharing teaching strategies, learning from other members, and building a community around common interests. While the overarching goals of integrating inclusive teaching strategies in the classroom were similar across all ILCs, how they approached meeting that goal diverged. Although interviews with participants from the institution-wide ILC did not elicit information about formation and recruitment specifically, the establishment of the institution-wide ILC similarly aligned with an existing industry-funded faculty program housed at the institution. In the department-wide ILC, both participants noted the obligations to meet research grant activities through the formation and operation of the ILC. As a research-oriented group, the school-based ILC centered its approach around sharing and disseminating research related to inclusive teaching practices.
This uncertainty was observed in other non-facilitating members, who felt that describing the objectives of the ILC was ‘fuzzy’. Thus, despite participants having awareness of ILC goals, several noted that there was a lack of clarity around what the ILCs were really offering members. For example, one noted feeling frustrated around progress in the ILC: “…my main takeaway is that it’s difficult, but it’s worth doing in the sense that there has been a frustration of like, are we doing what we want to do? Are we getting things accomplished? And, and there have been periods of, you know, more and less activity.” Similarly, two described that “a product is helpful like, even if you are doing sort of like a, a community of practice, or whatever, like having a, a thing people are working towards can help keep them engaged.” A participant who was also an ILC facilitator described how intentional crafting of a ‘value proposition’ mid-way through the evolution of the school-wide ILC helped clarify expectations and growth beyond “putting [the ILC] on your CV.”
Meeting logistics and operations
Logistics and modality were common attributes of ILC operations that influenced member participation and the activities chosen (Table 3). The department-wide ILC met exclusively online; the school-wide ILC held hybrid meetings (providing both virtual and in-person attendance options), and the institution-wide ILC held in-person meetings with additional communications via email. For the department- and school-wide ILCs, the online modality lent flexibility to members. Concurrently, some participants noted that online modalities reduced engagement, with some members feeling “tired of zoom meetings and participating in a zoom environment” (Denise). Additionally, Dani described how the online modality may have encouraged honest discussions by reducing ‘pressure’ on individuals during discussions of sensitive issues in the ILC: “If it was more of an in person activity…I think that that would have made it more difficult in some ways, because there’s more pressure when you see a person in front of you. So I think there would have been maybe more reluctance to be as honest….”
Although modality provided flexibility, the ILCs all struggled with a lack of accountability structures, resulting in varied levels of participation among members. One of the most commonly cited barriers to ILC engagement was grappling with competing priorities among members, relying on intrinsic incentives for participating, and difficulty maintaining momentum. “I think it makes it a little funny, of maybe people aren’t quite sure how much it matters if they do go, or they do not go. Um, so. But at the same time I think the flexibility has been really great. Because I think if it was super regimented: Here’s your like assignment. Here’s this thing. Here’s what that thing. I do not think I’d feel comfortable committing to doing it as much, right. So I think it’s that tricky balance.”
Along with logistical challenges related to scheduling ILC meetings, ILC members had to navigate other priorities related to their work in academia. One faculty member described the tension between wanting to dedicate time to the ILC and having to make progress toward tenure: “I want to do this. I want to have the community. I want to have the people. I want to improve my teaching. I want to think about teaching. I want to do all of those things. But at the same time I’m pre-tenure (laughs). So like I’m trying to like balance things that I care about that do not get recognized, or things that I care about, that do get recognized.” Their latter point was a salient barrier related to a lack of recognition or awards for participating in the ILCs. Similarly, many participants described challenges with navigating varied levels of participation among faculty.
Trusting community
Several participants found that their ILCs provided a supportive and welcoming space for discussing difficult topics related to diversity, equity, and inclusion, with a few interviewees suggesting that creating such a community is a key foundation to developing a successful ILC (Table 3). As LCs are dedicated to encouraging the integration of inclusive teaching practices, learning from others was a critical feature of the ILC development. But unlike broader educational practices, many inclusive teaching strategies require a thoughtful approach and often deep reflection on the part of instructors as well as students. Several participants described how ILC tools and activities, such as icebreakers, book clubs, research dissemination, and structured discussions, catalyzed difficult conversations and empowered members to be open with one another. Beyond providing members with strategies, these tools helped to create a focal point for supporting conversations. For example, one person described a rotating discussion approach that gave voice to more introverted members: “And then you just start writing your reactions to it, without talking. And then you rotate. And then at the end, you have a discussion. So I mean it’s, when you go through it, you realize it’s really not that daunting. And it gets a lot of the introverts who otherwise would not participate” (Ian).
The flexibility offered by the structure and operation of ILCs also played a role in strengthening the groups’ communities. Several participants, particularly those who also served as ILC facilitators, described how ILCs need to “evolve over time like, and you need to be able to evolve with them” (Denise) to meet member and group needs. Similarly, Sabrina described how “these sorts of learning communities… tend to ebb and flow as purposes and needs change.” These changes were evident in adaptations negotiated between ILC facilitators and members, such as using new tools (e.g., starting a book club) or setting ground rules in response to a contentious interaction: “Well, set ground rules immediately for your community like what are the expectations? And I think for us it was really successful. Once we started having people present and get feedback, and I think now that we set those ground rules for feedback” (Sabrina). In the institutional context, Ian’s offer of support and coaching on an as-needed basis meant that members of the ILC could reach out to him with specific questions, feedback, and needs as they arose. Through creating an agile ILC atmosphere, facilitators were able to foster comfortable and democratic environments for growth and development rather than prescriptive or rigid expectations.
Divergent affordances and barriers
Case 1: Department-wide ILC
The department-wide ILC in this study was woven into a department-wide DEI committee formed in response to national events involving police violence against Black people in the United States. However, over time, Denise noted that the ILC group momentum waned: “It kind of the you know, the height [of] what happened with the murder of George Floyd, and I think as a society we were so, and we should still be, but I mean we were so focused on, what can we do?. Um, but I think part of that intensity has waned that intensity has kind of drawn off.” This ILC also incorporated students and staff in the department, and both interview participants noted that involving other members of the wider departmental community helped to bridge gaps: “…it’s really nice to have some engagement, where you remove the hierarchical structure of academia, where students and faculty are given the same position to talk, and the same thing with staff and faculty and students—because I think that gets in the way of a lot of clear communication sometimes, especially when students are intimidated by that power structure. So I think that’s one of the more helpful aspects of the community” (Dani). Removing the hierarchy described by Dani may have contributed to a cohesive group identity that strengthened their community bonds. Specifically, Denise described a sense of empowerment and pride among members: “But I think that, like in [the College], some departments have made more progress than others in diversity, equity, and inclusion. And I, I think, I think people in [our department] feel good that we are, that we are a little bit ahead of the curve and—in having this committee. And that it’s an avenue where people that are really concerned about this subject can have a voice.”
Case 2: School-wide ILC
The school-wide ILC was particularly focused on peer-to-peer research sharing. This focus was selected by design early on by the facilitator who established the ILC out of an existing initiative focused on research in inclusive STEM education. One participant, Simon, explained how coalescing around research brought people together: “And I think that’s kind of what unites people in the learning community, although very diverse people like all over different campuses and programs” (Simon). Research dissemination was further benefited by the discipline-based variation among the members. This ILC included faculty members across all STEM disciplines, which interviewees described as being beneficial in terms of learning how other fields implement inclusive practices. However, Sabrina described tradeoffs between keeping the group size manageable to “make decisions as a body and, and talk about research directions in depth…” and limited transferability across a wide range of disciplines and expertise. She continued, “Now you have, like two people from any given department, and so sometimes things are not as transferable as one might hope.”
One of the most prevalent barriers for the school-wide ILC was related to challenges in navigating a geographically large campus. All three participants from this ILC context described the hurdles faced to attend in-person meetings (i.e., navigating traffic, spending time on transportation, and paying for parking). Often, despite the desire to attend in person, the burden of the commute alone could discourage in-person attendance: “So I would say, that’s one of the main barriers is that if you want to have people meet in person, but you want to include [the university] broadly, there are those transportation barriers. And zoom is great, but it’s not the same to be in person rather than on a screen” (Simon).
Case 3: Institution-wide ILC
While faculty ILC members at the institution-wide ILC were free to pursue projects of interest related to inclusive teaching, the role of the ILC reflected a somewhat top-down approach. In this case, the ILC facilitator held expertise in inclusive teaching, rather than engineering, and aimed to introduce specific training and tools to the members of the ILC in ways that would benefit their specific context. As a result, the engagement of members largely hinged on their interest in being coached: “So, so it just kind of depends on my colleague, and how little or much they want me to be engaged, but my role is to be your support” (Ian). Unlike the other two ILCs, funding for faculty participation in the institution-wide ILC may have played a role in member engagement. For one participant, Isla, the main benefit of participating was receiving project funding, suggesting that the extrinsic reward may have been a key driver for her participation. Similarly, Isabelle and Isla noted that the program “came with funding what, you know brought in more folks, I think more interest in it. It helped improve engagement.” Notably, Sabrina explained that a similarly funded program at her institution (school-wide ILC) saw a reduction in engagement at the end of the program: “So most faculty that were interested in inclusive teaching went through that as a paid fellow. To my knowledge, very few are still participating in the community of practice once they are funded period was over.” Compared with the other ILCs, the institution-wide ILC had the lowest frequency of meetings, which may have been a result of the emphasis on individual projects that were complemented with occasional workshops and feedback from the ILC as needed.
Discussion
Institutional context must be considered when developing and planning LCs
One of the major key findings from this study was that when developing an FLC, the context of the institution needs to be considered. The ILCs in this study were developed with the same focus and goals; however, they differed in operational structure (e.g., department, school, or institution-wide), their meeting structure and flow, and how they leveraged existing people or groups, which were all context-specific. The department-wide ILC was a part of an existing diversity and inclusion committee voluntarily led by faculty and included faculty, staff, and student members at both the graduate and undergraduate levels. Since the membership of the committee was so broad, the ILC was able to use one of the co-author’s previous experiences in faculty development to help facilitate the meetings. However, this was not a recognized position, but rather a voluntary one that aligned with their strengths. On the other hand, the school-wide ILC existed as a part of an inclusive STEM education research center and was able to leverage people in previously recognized positions within the center to help with the logistical side of the ILC, such as meeting planning and communication. This allowed all of the ILC’s faculty members to fully participate in the meetings instead of having dual roles as a leader and a member of the community. The institution-wide ILC, though similar to the school-wide ILC in leveraging an institutional opportunity, differed as it developed in tandem with a teaching grant awarded to the institution as opposed to an established research center. The grant had a similar goal of providing both teaching and research faculty with inclusive-focused practices for their classrooms, but the grant also had other goals that may have competed with this study and thus impacted the ILC meetings and participant experience. All the ILCs leveraged existing institutional opportunities; however, due to context-specific differences, they all developed differently. This finding highlights the importance of considering an institution’s context when developing an LC but also when considering the sustainability of the community past the confines of a study or project. Ian, the facilitator and a member of the institution-wide ILC, mentioned in their interview that it’s important ‘to understand there is no silver bullet [in inclusion and diversity work]. You have to take all of these ideas and tools and then decide what makes sense for your particular institutional context’.
Catalyzing trust and vulnerability are required for ILCs
In addition to considering context, one finding was that it was important to develop communities that fostered trust and provided members with the space to be vulnerable with one another, especially considering the topic of inclusion and belonging. One of the recommended key elements to having successful ILCs is providing a safe, trusting space that encourages sharing and co-collaboration among members (Considine et al., 2014; Lutz et al., 2019; Marchetti et al., 2019; Cox, 2004; Borrego and Henderson, 2014). However, considering the focus of the ILCs, this was even more essential as participants may have confronted their cultural insensitivities and lack of training in inclusive education (Considine et al., 2014). One of the ways the ILC facilitators helped catalyze trust and vulnerability was through their leadership style. As a facilitator, they had the responsibility of creating a trusting, brave space for the members, but also needed to create a space that allowed them to continue to lead and be vulnerable themselves during discussions. In their interview, the department-wide facilitator and member Denise mentioned intentionally having a ‘distributive leadership structure’ that incorporated participant feedback into the ILC as it evolved in order to create a space that the community felt they were crafting together, rather than it being solely dictated by the facilitator. Simon, one of the school-wide ILC members, mentioned the ‘importance of having an involved leader who can make the decisions and set the stage… but who also listens and is willing to be steered as well’. It was essential for the facilitators to consider what leadership style they used for their ILC, as it could directly impact how much the members trusted one another to be vulnerable and feel safe in this community.
In addition to how participants could feel during the ILC meetings, they may have also entered the ILCs with biases, defensiveness, and anxiety about the topics being discussed. To help encourage difficult discussions in the communities, the facilitators utilized different tools, such as icebreakers, research discussions, and books (detailed in Supplementary Figures S1–S3). For example, Dani and Sabrina, a member and a facilitator from the department and school-wide ILCs, respectively, mentioned the use of a book in their community, which helped encourage these discussions. Dani, in their interview, felt that their ILC had better discussions in response to what they were reading, which ‘helped to open some avenues of conversation that would not have been approached otherwise’. Since they were ‘speaking to a text rather than [only] on personal experience, it made it a little bit safer to talk about topics that would otherwise be difficult to broach’. In addition to using different tools to encourage discussion, it was also essential to incorporate inclusive practices into the communities as the ILCs developed. One of the ILCs, in particular, experienced members harshly criticizing others’ contributions to the space and necessitating the addition and enforcement of “ground rules” for their community. The research team utilized inclusive practices when initially developing the ILCs; however, as the communities continued to grow and progress, we learned how important it was to reinforce and highlight those practices within the ILCs.
Sustaining active engagement from ILC members can be difficult, given institutional opportunities and faculty demands
Our third key finding highlights the challenge of maintaining active engagement from ILC members over time. Two of the ILCs, the school and institution-wide, were able to incentivize their members through research center affiliation and a stipend from the teaching grant, respectively. But depending on the institutional context, the opportunity to provide individual participant incentives may not be possible, like in the department-wide ILC. However, we found that when forming the ILCs, taking the time to develop a value proposition could also help to keep members actively engaged. Sabrina, the school-wide ILC facilitator and a member, talked in their interview about ‘crafting the value proposition’ and ‘providing clarity’ on the ILC’s purpose and membership expectations for members to see how they would benefit from the ILC. Thoughtful planning from the early stages of developing an LC can lead to consistent and sustainable engagement and effort from members and could also help in providing flexibility as the community develops. However, if the value, goals, and mission of the LC are not as clearly defined, this could lead to confusion and varying participation from members.
We also observed that ILC meeting modality and time constraints contributed as major barriers to participation. The department-wide ILC maintained a virtual modality throughout the study, which contributed to ‘waning intensity’ and ‘zoom fatigue’ (Denise and Dani), whereas the school-wide ILC had a hybrid modality, which offered members multiple settings to meet in. However, almost all of the faculty who participated in the interviews mentioned how time constraints were a major barrier to their and possibly others’ participation. Members from all three ILCs mentioned how busy their schedules are and the positional demands they have to balance with ‘things they care about which are both recognized and not’ (Sara). The school-wide ILC, due to the layout of its campuses, also experienced engagement barriers due to geographical distance. They had a hybrid meeting model; however, since the campuses operated separately, some members may have had limited engagement due to things out of their control. Ian, the institution-wide ILC facilitator and a member, stated that ‘if we want to keep moving this [inclusion and equity-focused] needle, we have got to create more space and time for people to do this work’. Many different barriers could impact how faculty engage in inclusion-focused work; however, it is essential to actively recognize them and develop creative solutions that will provide faculty with the opportunity to do so.
Recommendations
Based on these three key findings and the experiences across our three partner institutions, we offer the following actionable recommendations for faculty developers, department chairs, or other stakeholders interested in establishing ILCs at their institutions. First, in planning and establishing ILCs, we suggest conducting a landscape assessment of institutional context, such as identifying existing initiatives, faculty networks, and available resources (e.g., funding, administrative support, potential meeting spaces), that can be leveraged. Additionally, those interested in facilitating ILCs should develop a clear value proposition that articulates specific goals and/or benefits for members while also providing a basis for institutional recognition needed to normalize inclusive teaching and increase faculty buy-in. Second, facilitators should focus on creating a trusting and inclusive ILC environment through collaborative establishment of ground rules with members, particularly for grounding the group’s approach to discussing sensitive topics. Structured discussion tools (book clubs, invited speakers, research presentations, etc.) can help catalyze potentially difficult conversations. This sense of safety can also be bolstered by integrating inclusive practices within the ILC itself, essentially modeling behaviors and pedagogies in the ILC context that faculty members are being asked to implement in their classrooms. Finally, to support continued engagement and ILC agility over time, groups can adopt a distributive leadership approach that incorporates member feedback, builds in flexibility around meeting modality and frequency, and provides opportunities for reflection and course-correction throughout the ILC’s life time in order to assess whether activities and structure align with present needs. These recommendations provide a foundation for developing robust ILCs that can adapt to institutional contexts while maintaining focus on the ultimate goal of creating more inclusive learning environments for students.
Study limitations
We note that when designing the faculty participant survey, we did not collect information on discipline and demographic-based information from participating faculty. We collected information about the classes and how many students the participants taught, but not specific information on them as individuals. Further, since faculty surveys were anonymized, there may have been participants who responded to the survey more than once over the course of the project. Because we were unable to track individual responses over time, we were able to identify temporal patterns in faculty perceptions or experiences related to their continuity of involvement. Additionally, this study focused on faculty experiences within the ILCs themselves rather than on classroom implementation of inclusive practices or the efficacy of the ILCs in changing teaching behaviors. Altogether, we suggest that future studies on faculty LCs consider collecting faculty demographics, tracking longitudinal changes among participants, and assessing participants’ experiences with translating ILC learnings into their respective classrooms in order to provide further context to results.
We note that the present study focused exclusively on faculty experiences and did not examine direct impacts on student experiences or outcomes. However, other work from the broader IUSE-PIPES project has studied student perceptions of inclusive practices (e.g., Vaden et al., 2025). Future research examining direct connections between faculty participation in ILCs and measurable student outcomes, such as performance or retention, would further establish the educational impact of these professional development communities.
In this study, the data collection occurred over multiple years and semesters, and so, inherently, some structural changes occurred within the three ILCs. For example, some facilitators and key personnel leading the ILCs took sabbaticals or left their institutions for other opportunities, which resulted in leadership changes across the ILCs. Additionally, the needs and goals within the ILCs naturally shifted throughout the study. However, we found that the ILCs balanced shifting priorities by adapting meeting frequency and modality, as well as changing the types of activities they did. While these changes may have influenced the data collection and findings, they are also realistic representations of changing personnel and cultural influences that are not unique to these three ILCs.
Finally, because this study only had one institution representing each ILC type or structure, we caution against generalizing to all institutional contexts. Two of the three institutions involved in this study were predominantly white institutions, which could also impact the generalizability of this study. However, our findings may be transferable to other educational contexts where faculty coalescing around inclusivity. Future research should examine similarities across ILCs with varying operational structures to illuminate potentially generalizable trends more closely. For example, two of the ILC facilitators were trained in technical engineering, while one participated in specific, national programming to develop skills in training others in inclusive teaching, which may have impacted the participants’ experiences in their ILCs. Though these study limitations have been highlighted, we agree that this study and the faculty participant results have shown valuable and unique contributions to the engineering education body of research.
Conclusion
In order to support faculty’s implementation of the inclusive engineering practices menu, ILCs were convened at each partner institution. The ILCs were developed from a new or existing group of faculty who expressed interest in learning about and incorporating inclusivity into their engineering classrooms. The ILCs at the participating institutions were structurally different and were conducted at department, school, and institution-wide levels. We used both surveys and interviews to examine faculty experiences in their respective ILCs over the course of 2 years, finding key differences in each context.
The key three findings from this study are as follows: (1) Institutional context must be considered when developing and planning FLCs, (2) Catalyzing trust and vulnerability are required for inclusion-focused LCs, and (3) Sustaining active engagement from ILC members can be difficult given institutional opportunities and faculty demands. These findings can help inform improvements to FLCs and support faculty in implementing inclusive strategies in their classrooms, which ultimately will create better learning environments for students.
As part of a broader project examining inclusive learning practices, future work will build on these findings through analyzing the final semester of student and faculty data, Fall 2023, and sharing final conclusions on the project overall. This study on supporting faculty using inclusive practices in their engineering classrooms through ILCs is a part of a larger research project that will continue assessing the impact of the inclusive engineering practices menu in engineering classrooms at three institutions. Using ILCs to promote the use of the inclusive engineering practices menu for faculty is one piece of a larger instructor toolkit that will encourage instructors to weave inclusivity into the fabric of their class design and teaching and ultimately, shift the culture around inclusivity in engineering classrooms.
Data availability statement
The datasets presented in this article are not readily nor publicly available due to privacy protection of the participants. All study questionnaires and materials analyzed in the present study are listed in the manuscript and/or the supplementary file. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to bWJpbGVjQHBpdHQuZWR1.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by the University of Pittsburgh Human Research Protection Office, Arizona State University Office of Research Compliance, and Colorado School of Mines Human Subjects Research Committee. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The Ethics Committee/Institutional Review Board waived the requirement of written informed consent for participation from the participants or the participants’ legal guardians/next of kin because the research presents no more than minimal risk of harm to participants and involves no procedures for which written consent is normally required outside of the research context.
Author contributions
JV: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Data curation, Visualization, Writing – original draft. AB: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization. AD: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. KP: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. AH: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. AL: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. MB: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Project administration.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. 2021204, 2021227, and 2021335.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the faculty participants who generously contributed their time to produce data and findings presented in this study.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2025.1641993/full#supplementary-material
References
Anderson, J. R., Bond, B., Davis-Street, J., Gentlewarrior, S., Savas, M., and Sheehy, D. (2014). Transforming the classroom – and the world: voices from a culturally inclusive pedagogy faculty learning community. Trans. Dialog. doi: 10.59236/td2014vol7iss11253
Austin, A. E., and McDaniels, M. (2006). “Preparing the professoriate of the future: graduate student socialization for faculty roles” in HIGHER EDUCATION: Handbook of theory and research. ed. J. C. Smart (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands), 397–456.
Bantawa, Bipana, Briski, Julie, and Dukes, April A. (2019). “CIRTL INCLUDES strategic goal 1: a guide to the mentoring, advising, and pedagogy frameworks.” CIRTL INCLUDES, 10.
Bauman, Georgia L, Bustillos, Leticia Tomas, Bensimon, Estela Mara, Brown, M Christopher, and Bartee, RoSusan D. (2005). “Achieving equitable educational outcomes with all students:” Association of American Colleges and Universities, 57.
Bohannon, L., Clapsaddle, S., and McCollum, D. (2020). Responding to college students who exhibit adverse manifestations of stress and trauma in the college classroom. Forum Int. Res. Educ. 5:2164. doi: 10.32865/fire201952164
Borrego, M., and Bernhard, J. (2011). The emergence of engineering education research as an internationally connected field of inquiry. J. Eng. Educ. 100, 14–47. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00003.x
Borrego, M., and Henderson, C. (2014). Increasing the use of evidence-based teaching in STEM higher education: a comparison of eight change strategies. J. Eng. Educ. 103, 220–252. doi: 10.1002/jee.20040
Casper, A. M. A., Atadero, R. A., Hedayati-Mehdiabadi, A., and Baker, D. W. (2021). Linking engineering students’ professional identity development to diversity and working inclusively in technical courses. J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 147:04021012. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)EI.2643-9115.0000052
CAST (2011). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines Version 2.0. Available online at: https://udlguidelines.cast.org/ (Accessed November 9, 2022).
Clemson Undergraduate Learning. (2022). Available online at: //www.clemson.edu/undergraduate-studies/gain/flcpilots.html (Accessed November 9, 2022).
Considine, J. R., Mihalick, J. E., Mogi-Hein, Y. R., Penick-Parks, M. W., and Van Auken, P. M. (2014). ‘Who am I to bring diversity into the classroom?’ Learning communities wrestle with creating inclusive college classrooms. J. Scholarsh. Teach. Learn. 14, 18–30. doi: 10.14434/v14i4.3895
Cooper, K. M., Hendrix, T., Stephens, M. D., Cala, J. M., Mahrer, K., Krieg, A., et al. (2018). To be funny or not to be funny: gender differences in student perceptions of instructor humor in college science courses. PLoS One 13:e0201258. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201258,
Cox, M. D. (2004). Introduction to faculty learning communities. New Dir. Teach. Learn. 2004, 5–23. doi: 10.1002/tl.129
Cox, M. D., and Richlin, L. (2004). Building faculty learning communities: New directions for teaching and learning, number 97. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Daly, Cheryl J. (2011). “Faculty learning communities: addressing the professional development needs of faculty and the learning needs of students.” Curr. Teach. Learn., Fall 2011. Available online at: https://webcdn.worcester.edu/currents-in-teaching-and-learning/wp-content/uploads/sites/65/2022/05/Currents-Volume-04-Issue-01-Fall-2011.pdf#page=5. (Accessed November 20, 2023).
Engin, M., and Atkinson, F. (2015). Faculty learning communities: a model for supporting curriculum changes in higher education. Int. J. Teach. Learn. High. Educ. 27, 164–174.
Faculty Learning Communities. (2023a). McGraw Center for Teaching and Learning. Available online at: https://mcgraw.princeton.edu/faculty/get-involved-mcgraw/faculty-learning-communities (Accessed November 9, 2023).
Faculty Learning Communities. (2023b). Center for Teaching and Learning. Available online at: https://ctl.gatech.edu/faculty/groups/FLCs (Accessed November 9, 2023).
Faculty Learning Communities. (2023c). The Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence - Virginia Commonwealth University. Accessed November 9, 2023. Available online at: https://ctle.vcu.edu/initiatives/communities/ (Accessed November 9, 2023).
Faculty Member Awarded Funds to Launch Equity-Focused Faculty Learning Community | Penn State University. (2023). Available online at: https://www.psu.edu/news/harrisburg/story/faculty-member-awarded-funds-launch-equity-focused-faculty-learning-community/ (Accessed November 9, 2023).
Furco, A., and Moely, B. E. (2012). Using learning communities to build faculty support for pedagogical innovation: a multi-campus study. J. High. Educ. 83, 128–153. doi: 10.1080/00221546.2012.11777237
Gehrke, S., and Kezar, A. (2017). The roles of STEM faculty communities of practice in institutional and departmental reform in higher education. Am. Educ. Res. J. 54, 803–833. doi: 10.3102/0002831217706736
Hartman, H., Forin, T., Sukumaran, B., Farrell, S., Bhavsar, P., Jahan, K., et al. (2019). Strategies for improving diversity and inclusion in an engineering department. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 145:04018016. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000404
Henderson, C., Beach, A., and Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: an analytic review of the literature. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 48, 952–984. doi: 10.1002/tea.20439
Hord, S. M. (2008). Evolution of the professional learning community: revolutionary concept is based on intentional collegial learning. J. Staff. Dev. 29, 10–13.
Inclusive Teaching Learning Community. (n.d.). Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (blog). Available online at: https://cetl.olemiss.edu/faculty/inclusive-teaching-learning-community/ (Accessed November 9, 2023).
Kozleski, E. B., and Waitoller, F. R. (2010). Teacher learning for inclusive education: understanding teaching as a cultural and political practice. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 14, 655–666. doi: 10.1080/13603111003778379
Lutz, Benjamin David, Bothwell, Michelle Kay, AuYeung, Nick, Carlisle, Trevor Kenneth, Mallette, Natasha, and Davis, Susannah C. (2019). “Practitioner Learning Community: Design of Instructional Content, Pedagogy, and Assessment Metrics for Inclusive and Socially Just Teaming Practices.” Available online at: https://peer.asee.org/practitioner-learning-community-design-of-instructional-content-pedagogy-and-assessment-metrics-for-inclusive-and-socially-just-teaming-practices (Accessed November 15, 2022).
Marchetti, Carol, Zuchegno, Andrea, Elglaly, Yasmine, O’neil, Jennifer, Schley, Sara, Cawthon, Stephanie, et al. (2019). “Faculty perspectives on developing strategies to improve access in diverse postsecondary classrooms.” Pedagogies, January.
Milem, Jeffrey, Chang, Mitchell, and Antonio, Anthony (2012). “Making diversity work on campus: AResearch-based perspective,” May.
Mills, J., and Ayre, M. (2003). Implementing an inclusive curriculum for women in engineering education. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 129, 203–210. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2003)129:4(203)
National Research Council (U.S.) (2012) in Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. eds. S. R. Singer, N. Nielsen, and H. A. Schweingruber (Washington, D.C: The National Academies Press).
Nugent, J. S., Reardon, R. M., Smith, F. G., Rhodes, J. A., Zander, M. J., and Carter, T. J. (2008). Exploring faculty learning communities: building connections among teaching, learning, and technology. Int. J. Teach. Learn. High. Educ. 20, 51–58.
Ong, M., Jaumot-Pascual, N., and Ko, L. T. (2020). Research literature on women of color in undergraduate engineering education: a systematic thematic synthesis. J. Eng. Educ. 109, 581–615. doi: 10.1002/jee.20345
Qualtrics XM. (2023). Qualtrics XM - Experience Management Software. Qualtrics. 2023. Available online at: https://www.qualtrics.com/ (Accessed November 9, 2022).
Quaye, S. J., and Harper, S. R. (2007). Faculty accountability for culturally inclusive pedagogy and curricula. Lib. Educ. 93, 32–39.
Salazar, M. d. C., Norton, A. S., and Tuitt, F. A. (2010). 12: weaving promising practices for inclusive excellence into the higher education classroom. To Improve Acad. 28, 208–226. doi: 10.1002/j.2334-4822.2010.tb00604.x
Saldana, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Schlitz, S. A., O’Connor, M., Pang, Y., Stryker, D., Markell, S., Krupp, E., et al. (2009). Developing a culture of assessment through a faculty learning community: a case study. Int. J. Teach. Learn. High. Educ. 21, 133–147.
Smith, T. R., McGowan, J., Allen, A. R., Johnson, W. D., Dickson, L. A., Najee-ullah, M. A., et al. (2008). Evaluating the impact of a faculty learning community on STEM teaching and learning. J. Negro Educ. 77, 203–226.
Swim Lane Map - MN Dept. of Health. (2023). Available online at: https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/practice/resources/phqitoolbox/swimlanemap.html (Accessed October 2, 2023).
Swim Lane/Rummler-Brache Diagrams. (2023). Swim Lane/Rummler-Brache Diagrams - Mapping and Improving Processes in Your Organization. Available online at: https://www.mindtools.com/abxyani/swim-lanerummler-brache-diagrams (Accessed November 9, 2023).
Tanner, K. D. (2013). Structure matters: twenty-one teaching strategies to promote student engagement and cultivate classroom equity. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 12, 322–331. doi: 10.1187/cbe.13-06-0115,
THE 17 GOALS (2023). THE 17 GOALS | sustainable development. Available online at: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (Accessed August 23, 2023).
Tinnell, T. L., Ralston, P. A. S., Tretter, T. R., and Mills, M. E. (2019). Sustaining pedagogical change via faculty learning community. Int. J. STEM Educ. 6:26. doi: 10.1186/s40594-019-0180-5
Townley, A. L. (2020). Leveraging communities of practice as professional learning communities in science, technology, engineering, math (STEM) education. Educ. Sci. 10:190. doi: 10.3390/educsci10080190
Vaden, Jessica M. (2024). Exploring and Advancing Inclusivity in Engineering Education Across Academic Communities (Order No. 31732595). Available from Dissertations & Theses @ University of Pittsburgh; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (3132885164). Available online at: https://pitt.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/exploring-advancing-inclusivity-engineering/docview/3132885164/se-2 (Accessed October 10, 2025).
Vaden, Jessica, Bilec, Melissa, Dukes, April, Nave, Amy, Landis, Amy, and Parrish, Kristen (2022). “Developing and Sustaining Inclusive Engineering Learning Communities and Classrooms.” In 2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. Available online at: https://peer.asee.org/42013.pdf (Accessed February 10, 2024).
Vaden, Jessica Moriah, Bilec, Melissa M., Nave, Amy Hermundstad, and Dukes, April (2023). Board 318: Inclusive Engineering Classrooms and Learning Communities: Reflections and Lessons Learned from Three Partner Universities in Year 2 Available online at: https://peer.asee.org/board-318-inclusive-engineering-classrooms-and-learning-communities-reflections-and-lessons-learned-from-three-partner-universities-in-year-2 (Accessed February 10, 2024).
Vaden, Jessica M., and Dukes, April A. (2023). “Incorporating inclusive and equitable practices in engineering courses using the PIPES inclusive practices menu and decision matrix (workshop).” Workshop presented at the ASEE 2023 Annual Conference, Baltimore, MD. (Accessed February 10, 2024).
Vaden, Jessica Moriah, Dukes, April, Nave, Amy Hermundstad, and Bilec, Melissa M. (2024). Board 356: Providing and Implementing Inclusive Practices in Engineering Classrooms: Final Reflections from Three Partner Institutions. Available online at: https://peer.asee.org/board-356-providing-and-implementing-inclusive-practices-in-engineering-classrooms-final-reflections-from-three-partner-institutions (Accessed February 20, 2024).
Vaden, J. M., Dukes, A. A., Parrish, K., Nave, A. H., Landis, A., and Bilec, M. M. (2025). Developing and implementing an inclusive practices menu in undergraduate engineering classrooms. J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 151:04025001. doi: 10.1061/JCEECD.EIENG-2067 (Accessed February 20, 2025).
Walton, E., Carrington, S., Saggers, B., Edwards, C., and Kimani, W. (2022). What matters in learning communities for inclusive education: a cross-case analysis. Prof. Dev. Educ. 48, 134–148. doi: 10.1080/19415257.2019.1689525
Ward, H. C., and Selvester, P. M. (2012). Faculty learning communities: improving teaching in higher education. Educ. Stud. 38, 111–121. doi: 10.1080/03055698.2011.567029
Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: The key to Knowledge Strategy, Knowledge Directions. J. Knowl. Manag. 1, 48–93.
Keywords: inclusive classroom practices, faculty learning communities, faculty development, higher education, interviews, surveys, STEM education
Citation: Vaden JM, Brooks AL, Dukes AA, Parrish K, Hermundstad Nave A, Landis A and Bilec MM (2025) Inclusive engineering classroom learning communities: reflections and lessons learned from three partner institutions. Front. Educ. 10:1641993. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1641993
Edited by:
Anca Lustrea, West University of Timișoara, RomaniaReviewed by:
Jamie L. Hernandez, Johns Hopkins University, United StatesJoelyn De Lima, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne, Switzerland
Copyright © 2025 Vaden, Brooks, Dukes, Parrish, Hermundstad Nave, Landis and Bilec. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Melissa M. Bilec, bWJpbGVjQHBpdHQuZWR1