What does the research tell us?

An intentional course design with high structure is vital to inclusive teaching. Being transparent with students about your rationale for your design decisions and how learning works can be crucial to its success. Let’s look at some of the research that helps you reflect on the evidence that you might want to share with your students.

While high structure includes active learning, they are not the same thing. We have much evidence that active learning improves learning, retention, and success for more students (i.e., is more inclusive), yet not all implementations result in positive outcomes compared to lecturing. Why? The difference may be the amount of structure and practice.

Let’s look at a framework for structure adapted from a study by Eddy and Hogan (2014):

Can moving a course from low structure to high structure improve student outcomes? This was the question asked by Freeman, Haak, and Wenderoth in 2011. To increase structure, they examined a course that implemented reading quizzes and/or extensive in-class active-learning activities and weekly practice exams (high structure) and compared it with lecturing and a few high-risk assessments (low structure). By controlling the difficulty of exams across six semesters with the same instructor, the researchers found failure rates dropped from 18.2 to 6.3% by increasing structure. If one definition of inclusive is to help more people stay in a discipline, then this study surely provides evidence that high structure is inclusive.

But how does structure affect certain groups of students? Eddy and Hogan (2014) followed up on Freeman et al. and asked this question across six semesters comparing low structure to moderate structure (Eddy and Hogan 2014). Performance improved for all students, but a disproportionate benefit was seen for some student groups. Gaps in performance closed for first-generation college students compared to their non-first-generation peers. Differences that existed between black and white students were halved. Data collected through student surveys suggested some possible answers to why performance increased. Students were more likely to do the pre-class work when it was required instead of recommended. In other words, students don’t do optional, do you? All students felt a greater sense of community under moderate structure. Additionally, there was an “in-class participation gap” for Black students that disappeared under the moderate structure because all students were required to have discussions with peers. Thus, while structure benefits all students, some groups of students can benefit even more.

Lastly, a metadata study led by Theobald et al included data from more than 50,000 undergraduate students and reinforced the idea that active learning alone won’t produce outcomes that disproportionately help underrepresented student groups (Theobald et al. 2020). They found that 67-100% of total class time was needed to be spent on active learning before disparities in performance narrowed for certain student groups. They found that inequities in achievement were reduced when there was structured, deliberate practice paired with a culture of inclusion. They defined deliberate practice to include focused effort toward improving performance, scaffolded exercises aimed specifically towards deficits in understanding and skills, immediate feedback, and a recurring cycle of these activities. A culture of inclusion  centres on a genuine interest and care for a student’s success, confidence in their ability to do so, and treating all students with dignity and respect.

Thus, a take home from the research suggests that it is not only our skill in evidence-based teaching but also our commitment to structuring required practice inside and outside the classroom that may yield the most promising results in terms of equitable teaching.