Inclusive educational spaces are necessary for all post-secondary students to thrive and enjoy their college experience. Faculty and staff may unintentionally create non-inclusive educational spaces, however, with behaviors relative to race/racism and microaggressions driven by racial implicit bias. Via this mixed-methods action research study I examined ASU faculty and staff attitudes relative to (1) race/racism, (2) implicit bias, and (3) microaggressions, all of which influence perceptions of and intentions toward (4) creating inclusive educational spaces. Specifically, five ASU faculty and staff completed a Canvas based online training that I developed (i.e., BIAS training) during which they were provided information in separate modules about systemic and color-blind racism, implicit bias, microaggressions, and two components of inclusive educational spaces, culturally sustaining pedagogical and race-conscious educational practices. Prior to and at the completion of the training, participants completed a survey instrument that I designed to measure participant attitudes relative to these four concepts. At the completion of each BIAS module with which they engaged, they responded to reflective questions which essentially prompted participants to think about what they learned per module and how it applied to their educational practices. After completion of the BIAS training and an identical post-survey that I used to measure participant’s changes in attitudes and perceptions over time, I invited participants to also share their thoughts in an interview. Both quantitative and qualitative data suggested that participant’s attitudes positively shifted relative to each of the abovementioned four concepts; knowledge acquisition occurred as intended. In addition, faculty and staff identified specific practices they could, or intended to incorporate to facilitate more inclusive educational spaces within their spheres of influence. Overall, my BIAS training seemed to have had a positive impact on the ASU faculty and staff who participated in this study. A few participants even discussed practices they were able to implement immediately, as well as positive student reactions, while anecdotal, that they received in response. Future iterations of my BIAS training will include additional information that will help to further clarify the four concepts of primary interest herein, particularly in support of creating more inclusive practices inspired by culturally sustaining pedagogy and race-conscious educational practices. Additionally, I will add a mindfulness component as another opportunity to increase awareness of faculty and staff attitudes and behaviors that may also impact their ability to create more inclusive educational spaces.

The problem of practice addressed in this mixed-methods research study is assessing whether participating in professional development workshops helped community college instructors improve their pedagogical practices, leading to improved student success and achievement rates. In this study, I explore the effects of an intervention I designed to help English 101 instructors teach a new, direct-placement composition class, which was created to comply with the mandates of AB-705, an educational reform bill in California. I used three guiding theories to undergird and evaluate the intervention: Darling-Hammond et al.'s Accountability Approach (2014), Freire's Critical Pedagogy (1970), and Kirkpatrick and Kayser-Kirkpatrick’s Model of Training Effectiveness (2009). To address the research questions of this study, I analyzed pre- and post-surveys, faculty interviews, and student success and retention data. The results from the data were mixed. While the quantitative survey data did not support the claim that the College of the Canyons (COC) SkillShare Workshops affected instructors’ attitudes about teaching and their teaching behaviors, the qualitative interview data showed that the workshops did improve instructors’ professional capacities and were a valuable professional development resource. Additionally, the quantitative institutional data demonstrated that workshop participation significantly increased instructors’ student success and retention rates.

Federal, state, and local entities prioritized addressing these academic deficiencies over the past several decades. An area of concern for teachers and families is multiplication. The two main purposes of this study are to (1) to determine how multiplication achievement and strategy use change from beginning to end of Bilingual Family Math Club, and (2) determine which of the eight components of Bilingual Family Math Club (BFMC) contribute to student learning outcomes. The components of BFMC are (1) Concrete Representational Abstract (CRA) modeling, (2) explicit vocabulary instruction, (3) word problems, (4) homework, (5) math games, (6) adult/child pairs as family engagement, (7) bilingual instruction, and (8) workshop series. Quantitative data includes pre-and post-intervention student math assessments. Qualitative data includes analysis of the scratch work artifacts students produced solving those assessments, as well as post-intervention from adults and students enrolled in the club. Findings from this study support previous research. Families said six of the components of the club helped them the most: adult-child pairs, series workshops, games during class, the CRA method, homework as games, and having a bilingual club. Two of the eight BFMC components families felt did not support them in learning multiplication were word problems and explicit vocabulary instruction. Quantitative results from a paired sample t-test showed a statistically significant change and large effect sizes in post-assessment scores in all four areas of the assessment: fluency, word problems, single-digit facts, and multi-digit multiplication. This study provided critical information for school leaders and district personnel attempting to implement more effective after school support programs for families in mathematics.

Affirmative action is an education policy adopted by higher education institutions in the 1960s, where an applicant’s race is taken into account to some degree when being evaluated for admission to a college or university. The practice of affirmative action, or race conscious-admissions, has been repeatedly challenged in the legal system and remains a controversial and polarizing topic amongst the general public, campus leaders, and policy makers. Despite a vast amount of research on the effects of affirmative action policies on student and institutional behaviors and outcomes, such as college applications and enrollments, considerably less research has examined students’ attitudes towards race-conscious admissions policies. Even less research has focused on students in academic disciplines, especially STEM or engineering. Likewise, there is a paucity of research that explores students’ perceptions and knowledge of how affirmative action is implemented in practice. To address these gaps, this study investigates undergraduate engineering students’ knowledge of and attitudes towards affirmative action admissions policies in higher education. The Student Attitudes Towards Admissions Policies Survey (SATAPS) was designed to assess students’ knowledge of and attitudes regarding affirmative action practices in higher education admissions. This survey was administered to undergraduate engineering students and a comparison group of education students at 42 colleges/universities in the United States. Data were analyzed utilizing confirmatory factor analysis and hierarchical regression. Results demonstrated that students have low levels of knowledge about affirmative action, and have misconceptions about how the policy functions in practice. There was no difference in engineering and education students’ level of support for affirmative action; however, underrepresented minority students in engineering were more supportive of affirmative action. Results also indicated that students’ beliefs and values were the strongest predictors of attitude towards affirmative action, so much so that this negated the significance of demographic and personal characteristics, which was observed in the majority of previous studies. Results highlight a complicated relationship between demographic characteristics, personal variables, knowledge, institutional context, beliefs/values, and attitude towards affirmative action admissions policies in higher education.