Impostor Syndrome (IS) is the feeling of inadequacy or self-doubt that individuals experience despite their actual accomplishments or qualifications.
IS and the hidden curriculum are prevalent in various settings, and they can have a significant impact on individuals' confidence, professional growth, and overall well-being. By fostering open discussions, providing support networks, and actively addressing these issues, we can create more inclusive and nurturing environments where individuals feel empowered to thrive.
Does some of your scholarly work have a JEDI focus? Are you worried that the work won’t “count” as much as the other aspects of your research when building your dossier for tenure? Although many institutions are including JEDI criteria for promotion, some places are still hesitant to value JEDI contributions.
The linked content on “Translating Equity-Minded Principles into Faculty Evaluation Reform” (O’Meara et al. 2022, American Council on Education) goes into detail on the “Measurement of Scholarly Impact” (page 8). They provide substantial literature on some of the current issues seen by JEDI researchers, and they suggest alternative ways of evaluating scholarship. In your research statement, you might consider using some of their alternative methods to highlight how your work has made an impact across a variety of settings.
Our recent research focuses on integrating Culturally Relevant Data into statistics and data science education. We’ve developed methods that connect coursework directly to students’ lived experiences, significantly enhancing engagement and understanding, particularly for those from historically marginalized groups. Our approach bridges the gap between theoretical data science and real-world application, making learning both accessible and impactful. Initial results from pilot courses are promising, and we are excited about the potential to further transform how data science is taught. Join us in making data science education more inclusive and effective for everyone
When done effectively, nontraditional grading methods can promote equity and help build an inclusive classroom. As with any shift in pedagogy, there are a number of questions to consider. This article summarizes four types of nontraditional grading and shares experiences from the authors who have applied them to a variety of courses in statistics.
In the college classroom, grades are the primary avenue by which we quantify and communicate student achievement. In setting up grading systems for our courses, we make countless decisions: Should the project be worth 25 or 30 percent of the final grade? Will I drop the lowest quiz score? What penalty (if any) should I implement for late work ? These seemingly small decisions can have a surprisingly large impact on the grades that we assign and the type of learning and understanding that we privilege. Thinking carefully about the way we grade is critical for JEDI-informed teaching of statistics. In recent years, I have been drastically and continually rethinking my approach to grading. At JSM 2023, I gave a talk about these efforts as part of the session "Power in the Classroom: From Helping Students Play the Game to Helping Students Change the Game." I am sharing the slides from this talk here.
In these slides, you will find: thoughts on the purpose of grades, the impact of grades, and why grading is an important consideration for JEDI-informed teaching; a brief discussion of the many problems with traditional grades (with suggested resources for further reading); three examples of changes I have implemented in introductory and advanced statistics courses at Macalester College; and reflections on what aspects of those changes worked... and what didn't. Additional resources and examples can be found at the "content resource" link.
If you are looking for increasing your own awareness about how DEI, Statistics, Data, and Social Justice are related for your own professional development, here is a list of books to consider.